HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 2001-01-22SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001 AT 7:30 P.M.
Special Public Hearing: Present:
San Rafael City Council
Absent:
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Robert Brown, Community Development Director
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBER - 6:15 PM:
Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember
Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Vice -Mayor Miller announced that the November 21, 2000 letter from Mr. Michael Van Zandt appealing the
Planning Commission's approval of the Marin Emergency Radio Authority facility on San Rafael Hill
contains facts and circumstances to cause the City to believe, on the advice of Legal Counsel, that there is
significant exposure to litigation against the City. The November 21, 2000 letter of appeal is attached to the
written staff report for tonight's public session. Tonight, therefore, at 6:15 p.m. there will be a Closed
Session with a conference with Legal Counsel for anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) — One (1) Case.
CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 6:15 PM:
Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
One (1) case
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. 7:30 PM
Before proceeding, Vice -Mayor Miller stated there were only 4 members of the City Council present. He
reported that after consultation with Counsel, Mayor Boro had disqualified himself on the basis of ownership
of telecommunications investments, resulting from his employment, which results in a potential conflict of
interest under FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) regulations.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE
MARIN EMERGENCY RADIO AUTHORITY (MERA) COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES LOCATED AT THE END OF CHULA VISTA DRIVE ON ROBERT
DOLLAR DRIVE (KNOWN AS SAN RAFAEL/DOLLAR HILL), APN 011-051-02; MICHAEL J. VAN
ZANDT, ESQ., APPELLANT (CD) — FILE 4-13-102 x 10-6 x 9-3-30 x 9-3-31 x 9-3-40
Vice -Mayor Miller stated it was a great privilege for the Council to be present to receive from the public their
thoughts and understandings and especially, their passion for the interests of the City of San Rafael. He
stated that this was a Public Hearing, not a community meeting, with the principal focus on a give and take
of information among community members and the Applicant; it was not a debate with the principle focus on
the forensics of debaters, but a Public Hearing with the principle focus on the exercise of representative
democracy, where the elected representatives, the City Council, would hear, deliberate and act on the basic
issues of land use and the health and safety of the City. In order for everyone to follow the proceedings
easily, Vice -Mayor Miller stated that the order of the meeting would be:
• Staff Report;
• Applicant's presentation;
• Appellant's presentation;
• Public Hearing from the citizens; and
• Council consideration and action.
He stated that there would be a break between the Public Hearing and the Council deliberation.
Vice -Mayor Miller stated he understood Robert Brown, Community Development Director, would be the
designated facilitator of the flow of information for the staff report and the Applicant's presentation, The
presentation was more voluminous than usual; therefore, between significant sections Vice -Mayor Miller
requested the opportunity be afforded to Councilmembers to ask questions if they so desired.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 1
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 2
Community Development Director Brown stated that on November 14, 2000, the Planning Commission
granted approval for 3 Marin Emergency Radio Authority (MERA) installations in the City of San Rafael; an
appeal was filed for the proposed installation on San Rafael Hill, which was the subject of this evening's
meeting. Mr. Brown outlined the staff presentations.
• Mr. Bill Tuikka, Project Planner, would describe the proposed facility at San Rafael hill;
• several safety officials from San Rafael and other agencies would discuss the need for the MERA
project;
• a representative from MERA would elaborate on the system design and alternatives considered to
this particular location;
• a MERA Planning Consultant would discuss the EIR process and the opportunities for public input;
• two engineers from the Consulting firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., would discuss the issue of radio
frequency emissions, which lies at the heart of the appeal.
Mr. Brown stated, that as requested, there would be a break between sections to enable the Council to ask
clarifying questions of the speakers. The Appellant would then make his presentation, followed by members
of the public, as part of the Public Hearing.
Mr. Brown explained that staff would seek a short recess to organize a response to questions or new issues
raised during the public hearing, should this be necessary.
Discussing a change to the project as approved by the Planning Commission, Mr. Brown stated that early in
the City's review process residents of the Fairhills neighborhood requested the existing City antennas,
which would remain after the MERA installation on San Rafael Hill, be placed on the MERA antenna,
thereby eliminating three existing poles, a metal tower and equipment building, in order to reduce the visual
clutter on the hill. The Design Review Board concurred, and MERA modified its application, which was the
proposal approved by the Planning Commission, and is consistent with City policy encouraging co -location
of antennas, where possible.
The appeal, however, has raised questions concerning the legality of the existing antennas on San Rafael
Hill. Mr. Brown stated that rather than complicate, and possibly delay the MERA installation, the timing of
which is of vital importance, City and MERA staff agreed it would be prudent to separate the proposed
MERA antenna from the issue of legalizing the existing City antennas; therefore, the application before the
Council is that which was analyzed in the MERA EIR (Environmental Impact Report), with minor
modifications, such as the tapered width tower, recommended by the Design Review Board. Mr. Brown
stated it was staff's intention to subsequently pursue permits to allow the remaining City antennas to be co -
located on to the MERA tower, thereby eliminating the clutter on the hill.
At the commencement of his presentation, Mr. Bill Tuikka, Current Planning, stated there would be visuals
accompanying his presentation, similar to the photomontages included in the packet of material. The
packet also contained a site plan elevation drawing and landscape plan.
Mr. Tuikka stated that the project before the Council this evening was slightly different from that approved
by the Planning Commission, in that the existing city antennas and buildings would remain on the hill; the
new MERA facilities would be installed in the same vicinity, south of the existing facilities. The MERA
facilities would include a 60 -foot tapered lattice tower, which is 4'/2 feet at the base, tapering to 2 '/2 feet at
the 20 -foot height; it would be painted dark green for the first 20 feet, and above 20 feet a reflective
stratosphere gray paint would be used, blending in with the changing sky. Two 4 -foot diameter microwave
dishes would be mounted on the tower at 17 feet above grade, and a 15 -foot whip antenna would be placed
on the top of the tower, with two 15 -foot omni antennas mounted approximately 40 feet above grade. A 12
x 18 -foot equipment shelter would be constructed to the south of the existing shelter which would be
approximately 10 feet high, with a hipped roof. This shelter would be painted dark earth tones with a
contrasting lighter trim. The landscaping would be similar to the original proposal, but set back 10 feet from
the facility, as requested by the Fire Chief.
Regarding access to the site, Mr. Tuikka stated that access for construction and regular maintenance would
be from the Robert Dollar Drive access road. Should Robert Dollar Drive become impassable, due to fire or
storms, it would be temporarily accessed from Chula Vista, and due to the size of the equipment shelter,
this would most likely be brought up from Chula Vista.
Mr. Tuikka stated he could answer questions regarding these project descriptions.
There being none, Mr. Brown introduced Acting Police Chief, Michael Cronin.
Acting Police Chief Michael Cronin stated he was present with fellow Chiefs from the neighboring
jurisdictions of San Anselmo, Ross, the Community College District and the Marin County Sheriff's
Department, and wished to address a matter of some urgency to them. Currently, he stated, the Police
Department operates on a two -channel Radio System, which is antiquated and deteriorating. Generally
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 3
speaking, it is adequate for the day to day business of the Police Department; however, it is totally
inadequate and completely unacceptable in the event of an emergency or crisis necessitating the use of
agencies outside of San Rafael, or even the Fire, Police and Public Works Department, within the City of
San Rafael. He explained this had been an issue at every de -briefing of every critical incident in which he
was involved over the last 12 years - the Radio System is inadequate, as a minimum of 4 — 6 common
channels are necessary to manage a critical incident.
Presently, he stated, the Police Department is unable to communicate directly with units in neighboring
jurisdictions when Officers exit their cars and upon whom lives occasionally depend, as was so starkly
demonstrated the previous morning. Acting Chief Cronin stated that it was impossible to communicate
directly with Fire and Paramedic Units, which are often called upon to respond, adding it was absolutely
essential to communicate in a timely manner, as situations change and hazards shift. Presently, he stated,
an Officer in the San Rafael Police Department requiring to redirect a Paramedic Unit to another location
with a more urgent need, is required to call a dispatcher on his radio, who in turn has to use a telephone to
call the Fire Dispatcher, who then relays that information to the Paramedic Unit. He used the analogy of a
game children play by whispering in each other's ears, to demonstrate that what finally comes out rarely
relates to what went in. The fact that catastrophe had been avoided to date, he stated, is more a matter of
luck than skill and Fire Chief Selfridge from the County Fire Department, would share a case in point.
Addressing the previous morning's well-documented tragic event which occurred in San Rafael, Acting
Police Chief Cronin gave an account of the incident. A man, for reasons unknown, fled his residence in
Rohnert Park and drove to San Rafael. En route, he shot at several motorists and on arrival in San Rafael
encountered a San Rafael Police Officer. Without any provocation he fired, striking the Officer's vehicle,
almost striking the Officer. Minutes later he was confronted by another San Rafael Police Officer; there was
an exchange of gunfire and sight was lost of him. The Officer presumed the suspect had been hit but was
uncertain as to whether he was mortally wounded, had chosen cover, was reloading his gun or re-
positioning himself. Assistance was called for, with units from all over the County responding, but their
arrival was uncertain and it was impossible to make direct contact with them to coordinate their response.
Acting Chief Cronin stated that in such a situation one can only hope the units go to the correct location and
not expose themselves to unnecessary risks while so doing.
Having established a parameter with the available units it was deemed necessary to position Officers on the
freeway, enabling them to have a vantage point to where it was believed the suspect was hiding. While
working on accomplishing this, Acting Chief Cronin stated he learned by chance, that a unit from a
neighboring jurisdiction had already taken the initiative to go to that location but could not communicate this
to him; therefore, it was necessary to communicate with his own dispatcher, who called the County, who in
turn related this to the County dispatcher. The County dispatcher called a Sheriff's Deputy near the scene;
the Sheriff's Deputy walked across the parking lot and was surprised to learn that Acting Police Chief Cronin
was not aware that a Twin Cities Unit was on the freeway and could see a man lying on the street with a
rifle several feet from him. It was later learned that a San Rafael Police Officer had mortally wounded the
suspect in the initial exchange of gunfire and the suspect had expired, having crawled a short distance
away.
This, he stated, was more a matter of luck than skill; had the suspect not been mortally wounded, in the
intervening period he could have sought another location to afford him greater advantage. He was armed
with a hunting rifle, a lethal weapon with ranges well over 1,000 yards. Acting Chief Cronin reiterated that it
was just luck that the suspect was struck by one of the bullets, rendering him unable to resist.
Continuing, he stated that this situation is totally unacceptable and was brought to the Council's attention
some time ago, when action was taken by earmarking money for participation in a Radio System which
would address these needs. He considered that at the beginning of the 21 st century San Rafael is seeking
a Radio System which has been in common use since the middle of the last century, and urged the City
Council to approve the application, to ensure the safety of citizens and the Police Officers who serve them.
Sheriff Robert Doyle, Marin County Sheriff, stated that as a matter of practice he avoids going to
communities in which he does not reside or have law enforcement responsibility, but tonight was an
exception in that it involved public safety. He stated that Acting Police Chief Cronin had given a very good
description of what is happening in the City, but the issue on San Rafael Hill also affected the County of
Marin, in that the County has a number of units working constantly in this area, who are affected by the
equipment on San Rafael Hill. On a broader issue, Sheriff Doyle stated that the City of San Rafael is
partners with 26 other jurisdictions in the Marin Emergency Radio Authority, and the issue this evening
affects all.
He stated that several years ago they became involved because of the knowledge that the backbone of
their Radio System was very bad and figured the same was true of all others. It was not a case of getting
into the 21St century, rather it was utilizing technology which has been in use for 10 — 15 years, to enable
Fire, Police and Public Works' Emergency Radio Systems (EMS) to communicate rapidly while in the field.
Law Enforcement had one common frequency, he stated, and should there be an emergency there would
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 4
only be two jurisdictions capable of operating in that emergency situation. Under the proposed system,
reported Sheriff Doyle, multiple events could take place simultaneously. As the Office of Emergency
Services (OES) coordinator and mutual aid coordinator for the County, he recognized that the present
system is totally inadequate. Sheriff Doyle stated that in critiquing a multi -agency operation at its
conclusion, communications is constantly reported as being the number one problem; therefore, in
conjunction with Acting Police Chief Cronin, he would urge the Council to support the issue and move
forward with a Radio System which would provide public safety for Marin County residents.
Dan Hanlon, President, San Rafael Police Association, stated that on January 18, 1994 he appeared on
behalf of the membership of the Police Association to present to the Council their overwhelming vote of no
confidence in the present Radio System. At that time, he stated, they had countless examples of the
system's failure and their complete lack of trust in it, and by now he felt the community had the same lack of
trust, as it was unreliable. He did not intend to discuss the hundreds of incidents where the system had
failed since going online in 1991, suffice it to say, in 2001 it should be discussed in a historical context only.
He applauded the City Council on the proposed MERA system, re -affirming the current situation could not
continue, and reiterated Acting Police Chief Cronin's sentiment, that the number one concern is the safety
of the Police Department members and the community they have been sworn to protect.
He alluded to the shooting incident of the previous morning and chronicled an event which occurred the
previous afternoon where a 911 hang-up call was received from Glenwood, and as is routine when a
dispatcher cannot get in touch with the caller, two Officers were sent to the location. Several minutes after
their departure radio contact was attempted, with no response from the Officers. All Police Officers now
carry Nextel phones as a backup, but these did not function at this location, and being acutely aware of the
recent almost fatal shooting of two officers, further officers were dispatched to Glenwood. It was eventually
reported back by telephone to the dispatcher that the officers were safe, however, stated Police Officer
Hanlon, with a large population and two Grammar schools in that particular area, there is constant need for
communication. He urged on behalf of his membership and the community, to go forward with the MERA
system.
Concluding the Police Department's presentation, Acting Police Chief Cronin stated he could not over-
emphasize the direct, serious and ongoing threat to the safety of the community. After 25 years in San
Rafael and experiencing four 100 year floods, he stated that it is not a case of "if we should confront a
disaster, it is when". If this system is not adopted, the ability to respond to disasters would be substantially
hampered and he urged approval of the application.
Community Development Director Brown inquired if there were other members of Law Enforcement or the
Fire Department who intended to speak. Acting Police Chief Cronin stated that Fire Chief Marcucci was
present and would address the City Council. Other members of the Police Department were present who
would be available to answer questions as necessary.
Fire Chief Bob Marcucci recalled when the Radio System was installed in the Fire Department in 1960, it
was a single frequency radio, with one frequency used by all Fire Departments in Marin County for mutual
aid. At that time, there were 3 fire stations handling approximately 300 calls per year; there was one handy
talkie portable radio for the whole department; medical calls were infrequent; there was no Paramedic
program and mutual aid was a rare occurrence. Chief Marcucci reported an increase in subdivisions since
that time, including Glenwood, Peacock Gap. Loch Lomond, the Canal Area, Terra Linda and Northgate 1.
In the year 2000 there were 6 stations; 5,800 calls for service were completed, approximately 16 per day;
there were 4,300 medical emergencies, approximately 12 per day, as there is now a Paramedic program.
All engines have two portable radios, which is primarily a requirement by Federal OSHA, for communication
purposes and operational processes at the scene of an emergency. Mutual aid is almost a daily
occurrence. The subdivisions mentioned are blossoming, with an inherent increase in the number of calls
for service. He noted that 40 years later the Fire Department is operating with the same Radio System with
one frequency.
Elaborating on the frequency of calls, Chief Marcucci stated that emergency calls could be simultaneous; it
is not uncommon in San Rafael to have 3 — 4 medical emergencies at once. He instanced a situation where
a Terra Linda firefighter, keying his microphone, is unaware that another firefighter or paramedic is about to
do likewise, as all are operating on one frequency; therefore, there are garbled messages and occasionally,
lost messages. The MERA system has multiple frequencies and would completely eliminate this particular
eventuality.
Fire Chief Marcucci recalled a situation several years ago when flooding occurred in Glenwood. A police
vehicle was 150 feet from the flood and from a Public Works vehicle, but they could not directly
communicate. The Police Officer was forced to use the protracted process of calling his dispatch center,
which called the fire dispatch center, in order to have communications established. Chief Marcucci stated
citizens did not wish this to happen, nor was it an effective way to operate at the scene of an emergency.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 5
He reported on an incident which occurred at San Rafael Hill last Summer involving mutual aid units from all
over Marin County; communications, again were difficult, because of limited radio frequencies. He was
honored on that occasion, he stated, to be accompanied by Vice -Mayor Miller, who saw first-hand the
problems encountered in communicating at the scene of the emergency, and should it have been necessary
to evacuate San Rafael Hill, Chula Vista, Fair Drive, Coleman or Graceland, there would have been great
difficulty, because presently it is impossible to communicate from a Fire vehicle to a Police vehicle to a
Public Works vehicle. Had the fire occurred three hours earlier in the day, it would have been a totally
different fire. He noted that fires are difficult to deal with, especially a wild land fire which is travelling in
multiple directions, and where the orders and commands to be carried out are difficult to communicate, but
is so much more difficult when compromised by an inadequate radio system.
He stated that the City Council had provided the Fire Department with new equipment to replace that which
is old or worn out. The entrance requirements for new firefighters had been upgraded to meet the demands
of the job, but the lack of an effective radio system prevented the equipment from being used to its fullest
potential and the potential of the firefighters. He encouraged the City Council to ensure that the public safety
personnel in San Rafael, and throughout Marin County, have a radio system to meet the demands of the job
today, to carry out their responsibilities in the best interests of the community.
Fire Chief Marcucci introduced the Deputy Chief of the Marin County Fire Department, Jim Selfridge.
Jim Selfridge, Deputy Chief, Marin County Fire Department, stated that on October 3, 1995 he was the
incident commander on a fire called "The Vision Fire" which occurred on the Inverness hills in West Marin. It
was the largest fire in Marin County in the last 50 years. The radio system presently used was fully
functional that day but was woefully inadequate, he stated. The fire grew during the course of the afternoon
and by mid-afternoon there were 30-50 fire engines on the scene, with two radio channels, allowing just one
person at a time to talk. By the following day, reported Deputy Chief Selfridge, there were 165 fire engines
and in excess of 2,000 personnel, with two radio channels; therefore, the use of cell phones was required,
because he and the Chief, through the course of the afternoon, were unable to transmit orders for
equipment to headquarters in Woodacre. As there were no other major newsworthy events taking place in
California on that particular day, media presence was enormous, rendering cell phones ineffective, thus
leaving no mode of communication.
Deputy Chief Selfridge went on to demonstrate how information can be misconstrued. An immediate
evacuation of the subdivision had to be coordinated by relaying information from himself, Deputy Chief
Selfridge, to his dispatch center, to the Sheriff's dispatch center, to the watch commander and out to the
Deputy in the field; however, what was to have been an immediate evacuation was relayed to the Deputy
as a precautionary evacuation. He stated that fortunately a Deputy Sheriff close to the scene, realizing this
was inaccurate, was in a position to remedy the situation.
Fortunately, reported Deputy Chief Selfridge, as this was the only fire in California at that time, it was
possible to request a complete radio system from the California Department of Forestry, which included 4
mountain top repeaters, a mobile command center and a couple of hundred hand held 14 -channel radios,
allowing the use of the two command channels needed, an air to ground frequency, an air to air frequency
and 6 tactical channels to actually combat the fire. The fire, however, burned 50 homes and approximately
13,000 acres. Deputy Chief Selfridge warned that this radio system would not always be available; it takes
12 — 24 hours to get it to the County and functional, and should there be a concurrent incident in California it
could be already committed.
In conclusion, Deputy Chief Selfridge stated that fires which require from 12 — 24 fire engines, 6 aircraft and
200 people are routine incidents in Marin County in the Summer; the current system is a handicap, resulting
in compromises of efficiency and safety and it would be tragic if the MERA system were delayed any
further.
Acting Police Chief Cronin stated he had intended introducing the engineer for the vendor who services the
present radio system, but as he was located some distance from San Rafael it appeared he had some
difficulty in arriving. While not being in a position to elucidate the technical detail in the engineer's
presentation, he explained that the vendor for the radio system has the responsibility for keeping it
operational and had he been present this evening, would have confirmed that frequently as much as one-
third of the patrol fleet is not functional because of radio maintenance problems. Furthermore, the radio
system as described earlier, is a two -channel system; each channel is comprised of two frequencies; the
City of San Rafael is licensed on three of these, with the other licensed to the Nextel Corporation. Nextel,
11 years ago, generously offered to lend the City theirs, in order to have an operational two -channel
system, which was considered minimally acceptable.
However, in November, a letter was received from Nextel requesting the return of their frequency as their
business was expanding. A request was made to Nextel for an extension of the period until a new radio
system was in place; no reply has been received to date. Acting Police Chief Cronin explained that should
Nextel choose not to allow San Rafael to use this facility, the effect would be a one -channel radio system
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 6
reaching only 80% of San Rafael. In other words, Officers responding to emergency calls in 20% of the
neighborhoods of this community would be out of radio communication for the period of time they are in
those districts, particularly in East San Rafael.
As there were no questions at this point, Community Development Director Brown continued with the
presentation, introducing Richard Chuck, Radio Engineer for MERA.
Mr. Richard Chuck, MERA Communications Engineer, stated that since the existing system's problems had
been addressed at length he would keep his comments on this aspect short; he would give a presentation
on what the new MERA system is, and reply to some questions submitted after the Planning Commission
Meeting.
Mr. Chuck listed some of the current operational problems:
• The system is limited in repair parts;
• The Bay stations, mountaintop radios, are no longer available on a lot of the frequencies;
• No new product — new radios for new vehicles are for the most part, not available;
• Poor coordination between agencies;
• Relatively no in -building portable coverage, reliant on luck;
• Most emergency service operations are of a medical type, or are police agency operations inside of
buildings, requiring portable operations, which are not available;
• There are no accessories or upgrades, with many users on too few channels.
The MERA system, Mr. Chuck explained, is a regional system designed from the bottom up for public
safety.The MERA network is state of the art, is trunked and simulcast for efficiency of its resources; the
trunking is mandated by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) on large systems. MERA is a
JPA (Joint Powers Authority) of 26 agencies, the City of San Rafael being a member and supporter. The
existing San Rafael system is a 10 -year-old E.F. Johnson system. Presently there are two channels on
Dollar Hill for this system, and one leased channel on San Pedro Ridge, which needs to be returned to
Nextel. The equipment and technology are obsolete, reported Mr. Chuck. The Fire Department presently
uses 3 channels, which include mutual aid channels, and this is too few for a department as large as San
Rafael. Mr. Chuck stated that the new MERA network would give these agencies the equivalent of over 200
channels, explaining that the new technology uses talk groups instead of channels.
Reiterating that the system is trunked and simulcast for efficiency, Mr. Chuck explained that trunking
basically means all of the channels in the system are put into one big basket and used by whoever needs
them, regardless of the agency, and is very efficient. Simulcast means all of the transmitters on all of the
mountaintops in an area are transmitting simultaneously. This benefits primarily in -building coverage,
where the signals enter buildings from many different angles at once, so if blocked by a wall in one area,
signals can come in from all the other angles, affording a very good in -building penetration, which was the
system requirement.
Continuing, Mr. Chuck stated there would be 7 dispatch centers throughout the County using the system,
supporting from day one over 2,000 mobiles and portables. All Public Safety Agencies in the County would
be on the system, and would have priority. Some non-public safety, DPW (Department of Public Works)
type operations would be on the system but public safety would have priority.
Explaining how a typical radio site might appear, Mr. Chuck utilized a chart depicting the Dollar Hill site,
which, he stated, was typical of almost all of the MERA sites. The top antenna on the tower, being a
receive antenna, would have no transmit emissions. Below this would be two transmit antennas; the reason
for two being that the system is split between both, giving more redundancy and better suits the equipment
available on the market presently. Underneath this are two microwave dishes, which emit a very narrow,
highly directional beam, somewhat similar to a laser beam, which is usually not an issue as it is above foot
traffic. To the right, reported Mr. Chuck, would be a generator and propane tank to fuel the building in the
event of power outages or rolling blackouts. The equipment shelter is very basic.
Mr. Chuck proceeded to answer some of the questions which had arisen since the Planning Commission
Meeting, as follows:
Question: Is the San Rafael Hill facility part of the MERA backbone?
Answer: Yes - the Dollar Hill facility is critical to what is called the East Simulcast Zone, the 101
corridor. The Dollar Hill/San Rafael Hill facility provides a microwave hub, which is
necessary to tie all of the rest of the systems together. He depicted the Dollar Hill site as
being in the center of the hub, with all of the systems tied together through this loop. The
Dollar Hill/San Rafael Hill facility is the most central site to the highest population area of
the City. San Rafael has agreed this is a valuable site and has used it in its radio systems
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 7
for over 30 years. It is situated to provide the required coverage and enhanced in -building
portable penetration along the 101 corridor, the downtown San Rafael area, the Terra
Linda and Northgate Industrial areas, the Civic Center area and other nearby
communities.
Question: If MERA must be considered an inter -dependent system, how can the location of the
Tiburon or Bolinas antenna be changed?
Answer: There has been no decision by MERA to relocate these proposed facilities. The Tiburon
site, part of the East Simulcast Zone, is in the southernmost tip of the East Simulcast
Zone, and has very few inter -relationships with the other sites with respect to simulcast.
The Bolinas site is a stand-alone site; it is not part of any simulcast zone and is what is
referred to as a "fill-in" site, covering the small population areas of Stinson Beach and
Bolinas only. It is served by leased telephone lines, is not part of the microwave network,
is not synchronized with any other site and does not affect any of the simulcast zones.
Question: Could the San Pedro Ridge antenna cover downtown San Rafael?
Answer: No — Due to the surrounding hills the radio waves would need to penetrate, the San Pedro
Ridge antenna could not cover the San Rafael area alone; multiple sites are required to
cover this area. The City of San Rafael and the other Public Safety Agencies in MERA
dictated the amount of coverage, which was primarily in -building portable. Mr. Chuck
stated that even if the FCC granted an exemption and the output power of the transmitters
could be substantially increased, it would not cover the areas, as the hills would physically
block it. San Rafael Police have used this site for 30 years and can attest to how valuable
it is.
Question: Could the Forbes Hill antenna cover downtown San Rafael?
Answer: No —The Forbes Hill site alone cannot provide the required in -building portable coverage.
The surrounding hills block the radio signals to the northern areas, Terra Linda, Northgate
and the Civic Center.
This site is not only to cover downtown San Rafael.
Question: Can a transmitter in downtown San Rafael cover the downtown area?
Answer: Absolutely — a transmitter site, which in the present case is 9 transmitters making up a
transmitter site, placed in the center of downtown San Rafael, would cover downtown San
Rafael; however, these sites are not that specific, in that this site also covers the Terra
Linda, Northgate and Civic Center areas. Should there be a transmitter in downtown San
Rafael only, additional sites would need to be developed to cover the other areas.
Councilmember Heller requested further clarification on what coverage public safety services had requested
and why. In response, Mr. Chuck, MERA Communications Engineer stated that when MERA was first
formed, coverage requirements were one of the first issues evaluated. MERA established a Technical
Advisory Committee, the TAC Committee, which is comprised of representatives from almost all of the
agencies, who decided on a requirement of 97% coverage throughout the County, and 95% in -building
coverage in the populated areas. This was the criterion dictated by users and was what the system was
designed to meet. On a question of clarification from Councilmember Heller, Mr. Chuck confirmed that
large buildings, such as Bank of America, Macys, the Civic Center, Prisons, Hospitals, Shopping Centers
and larger homes were all evaluated as part of the system design for in -building coverage.
Regarding alternatives, Councilmember Cohen explored the idea that if a different site to the proposed were
used, which relied on increased power from Forbes for downtown, would this require multiple transmitters in
and throughout residential areas of downtown and Terra Linda to function. Mr. Chuck stated this was more
than likely. There was a possibility that higher sites could be used, but none had been located; therefore, it
would mean lower elevation sites, with more of them, and they would be closer to residences. He explained
that each site consists of 9 transmitters and the antennas, not just one little transmitter here and there.
Community Development Director Robert Brown, introduced Mr. John Roberto, Planning Consultant to
MERA, who prepared the draft and final Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), who would cover the EIR
process, the opportunities afforded the public for participation, and the alternative analyses included in the
EIR.
John Roberto, Planning and Environmental Consultant to MERA and MERA staff, stated he became
involved with the project subsequent to Motorola being retained and the commencement of site evaluation.
He stated that he and planner, Scott Davidson, were retained because the project was large, comprising 17
sites, 15 sites in Marin County and 2 in Sonoma County. Various analyses were carried out to assist
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 8
Motorola and MERA in evaluating sites under consideration, and he alluded to an initial study which looked
at environmental information for various sites. During the environmental review process, he stated, the
question of which sites were considered arose at neighborhood meetings and various public hearings. He
explained there were 34 sites considered by Motorola and MERA at the instigation of the system and site
evaluation process, with a view to meeting the objectives of the radio coverage requested by the providers.
The sites were evaluated in terms of environmental issues which could be associated, and whether these
issues would be difficult to overcome, and listed:
• The geologic conditions at the site;
• Wildlife;
• Plant issues;
• Whether placing facilities in this position would change the visual character of the site;
• Whether there was existing road access;
• The General Plan policies of the various communities as it related to these sites;
• The overall Telecommunications Plan developed by the County, and used by the City, as a guide
for telecommunications;
• Potential height of new towers, how high they needed to be and whether there was radio coverage;
• Ownership;
• Entering into leases;
• Whether the sites were developed or vacant.
Mr. Roberto stated that looking at all of these criteria, sites were selected, some of which did not work for
Motorola in terms of coverage, and finally a plan was developed which included 17 sites.
Having developed a project, the environmental effects were evaluated in an initial study. Mr. Roberto
stated that he, Scott Davidson, Planner and Linda Christman, who at that time was the Executive Director of
MERA, determined that there were four sites where the visual effects of the project could be significant, and
these included:
• San Rafael/Dollar Hill
• Forbes Hill
• The Bolinas Ridge
From that factor alone, reported Mr. Roberto, it was determined to prepare an Environmental Impact Report
for the entire project, which was documented in the initial study prepared on September 16th. On
September 20th, a Notice of Preparation was published and issued to all responsible agencies and those on
the list. As MERA was an agency joined by a Joint Powers Agreement, which was not subject to a number
of rules and regulations, State regulations and the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) for noticing
were followed. One of the agencies receiving this notice was the City of San Rafael, who responded on
October 18th, indicating visual issues, amongst others, should be evaluated in the Environmental Impact
Report, together with seeking alternatives to the project.
Mr. Roberto reported that on November 15, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was distributed
and on November 16, he, Linda Christman and Richard Chuck, met with the San Rafael Federated
Homeowners Association to inform them of the project, as it was known that two of the sites had potential
significant impacts. It was made known that the EIR was in circulation and where copies could be obtained.
This was a group representing a number of Homeowners Associations; therefore, they were encouraged to
convey to other Associations, Mr. Roberto's willingness to attend any of their meetings. Consequently, he
reported, he attended a meeting at a residence in Fairhills to discuss the project, its design and specifically,
the Dollar Hill/San Rafael Hill site.
Mr. Roberto reported that on December 9, MERA held a noticed Public Hearing on the draft EIR to obtain
input, and many of the individuals here present this evening, appeared at that meeting, to discuss the RF
(Radio Frequency) effects of the potential MERA system. On December 14, a meeting was held with a
large group in the Sun Valley neighborhood to present the project and receive input, and also to confirm that
comment could be made on the draft EIR up and until December 29th, as was conveyed to all others. On
December 291h, stated Mr. Roberto, the public comment on the draft EIR ended. On February 3rd, the final
EIR was distributed for review and comment. Having prepared responses, a further meeting was held, on
February 81h, with the San Rafael Homeowners Association, specifically to address the issue of RF.
On February 24, 2000 MERA held a Public Hearing to certify the final EIR and on February 251h, a Notice
of Determination was filed with the State, which initiated a 30 -day appeal period to the adequacy of the
environmental document. This appeal period ended on March 24, 2000.
Mr. Roberto stated that this process in San Rafael demonstrated the extent of public outreach by MERA
and he would enter into the record the official copies of the published Notice of Preparation, Notice of
Completion of the Public Hearing MERA held on this project, and the Notice of Determination.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 9
He reiterated he was confirming the process undertaken by MERA, as there had been accusations to the
effect that MERA did not conduct public outreach, nor carry out direct mailings to residents within several
feet. He pointed out there were 17 sites and it was not required by law to mail with a project of this size.
However, general circulation newspaper publications are necessary, which was done with publication in the
Marin Independent Journal and in Sonoma with the Press Democrat. Various City Departments were
notified, including the City Manager, prior to preparing the EIR, to obtain specific input on the visual impact
and it was agreed there would be significant impact; MERA did not do this in a vacuum, he stated, they
went out especially in San Rafael and those areas considered to have potential significant visual impact.
On the question of alternatives, Mr. Roberto stated that in the Environmental Impact Report alternatives to
the system were considered, the system being 17 sites working together to provide coverage. The Bolinas
site is somewhat different in that it is not connected by microwaves to the others and provides coverage
along the coast; it was a difficult site to deal with. A microwave link was designed at one time to the Bolinas
site but there were some biological issues, access issues and tree removal issues, amongst others, and
MERA decided the issues were too great; therefore abandoning that link in favor of telephones. This
decision was made following the information, which emanated from the EIR and prior to adoption of the
project. MERA considered the information in the EIR before it finally approved a project of 17 sites and how
those projects would be designed.
Other alternatives explored in the EIR included a potential satellite system, a potential cellular phone
system and other options for a land based system. The Turrini site, now referred to as Westcom, was
considered as an option, together with two other sites, to ascertain what the potential impacts would be for
Dollar/San Rafael Hill and also Forbes Hill. One of the findings was that Forbes could not be eliminated, a
site would always be necessary there for the required coverage. Mr. Roberts reported that the Dollar Hill
site optimized the coverage; it was key, tying in all the other sites and providing the simulcast zone, all of
which needed to come together to provide repetitive coverage, which is what the Police, Fire and
Emergency Services required.
Continuing, Mr. Roberto stated that having appeared before the Design Review Board, modifying the tower
design to a tapered tower and lowering the microwave dishes to the lowest spot on the towers to still
achieve the connections needed with the other towers, a unanimous approval was received. Subsequently,
unanimous approval was received from the Planning Commission for all three sites in San Rafael. The
appeal being heard this evening was on the San Rafael/Dollar Hill site. Mr. Roberto stated he strongly
encouraged the City Council, as the Police and Fire Departments had, to deny the appeal and allow the
system to go forward to provide the protection for the community and the rest of Marin County.
Councilmember Phillips requested clarification on the period between February 25th and March 24th, asking
if Mr. Roberto, or any other appropriate agency received comments with regard to the EIR. Mr. Roberto
stated that no comment was received after March 24th; comments were received, however, between
February 3rd and February 24th on the final EIR, and were responded to; they are included in the
administrative record. Councilmember Phillips inquired if comments had been received during the
subsequent 30 -day period. Mr. Roberto stated he did not know of anything received, which required a
response; they did respond to anything received before the EIR was certified. He stated that if someone
sent in a letter late, which may be produced this evening, he was not aware of it.
Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the significance of the 30 -day period and its passage. Mr. Roberto,
noting he was not an attorney, stated it was his understanding that once an environmental document is
certified, if there are any challenges to that document regarding its assessment of the impacts on the
environment, these need to be brought to Court within the 30 day period, or the right to do so has ended.
He emphasized that this was a layman's interpretation and would defer to the attorneys for the legal
interpretation. Councilmember Phillips stated he appreciated Mr. Roberto's summation, stating that if there
were further comments he would be interested.
Mike Remy, on behalf of the attorneys, stated that Mr. Roberto had accurately explained the Statute of
Limitations. The Statute of Limitations to challenge a CEQA determination is 30 days from the date the
Notice of Determination is filed; in this case it was filed on February 25, 2000.
Requesting clarification on alternatives, Councilmember Cohen stated that a question which appears to
recur, at least in the testimony of the Planning Commission hearings, and also letters received, was with
regard to alternatives. He stated, that from his understanding, there are two types of review alternatives;
one being the CEQA EIR review done by the EIR consultants in terms of evaluating alternatives to the
project, which is all 17 sites. Additionally, there were analyses of alternate locations of radio antennas, as
part of this project during the engineering phase of design. Mr. Roberto confirmed this to be so.
When developing the project, reported Mr. Roberto, the technicians brought himself and Mr. Davis into the
process because of their familiarity with the various communities in Marin. Having worked in Marin himself
for 30 years, he was familiar with a lot of the areas and the sensitivity involved. Evaluating the sites was a
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 10
staff process. Community documents and other sources were used to see what could be done to make the
system work and to minimize its environmental effects, as CEQA requires. He stated that the principle was
consistent with planning policy, zoning and CEQA, in formulating the project to bring to MERA for approval.
Councilmember Heller asked Mr. Roberto to outline what CEQA meant, as there were a lot of new faces in
the audience this evening who did not understand the process and what the initials stood for. She also
requested a brief synopsis of why satellite technology was discarded as this was a question repeatedly
posed in letters from the public at the various hearings.
Mr. Roberto explained that CEQA referred to the California Environmental Quality Act, the intent of which is
to protect the environment. He stated there are guidelines established to implement the Act, namely the
CEQA guidelines, which spell out a process of evaluation:
• The environment should be taken into consideration immediately upon designing a project, which,
explained Mr. Roberto, is what MERA did. They documented this in their Initial Study, taking steps
in their evaluation to protect the environment as set out and described under CEQA and its
guidelines.
The Act also says that in looking at geology, soils, hydrology, visual, if there is any potential impact
that might be deemed significant, an EIR must be prepared and the public must be involved in the
procedure, through a process of notification to the effect that the document has been prepared and
giving time to respond. The guidelines state that the notice should be published and the Notice of
Preparation should be distributed to the responsible agencies. Mr. Roberto stated that MERA went
beyond that: going out to the communities, talking to staff, meeting with appropriate neighborhood
groups and the Federated Homeowners Association.
He noted, however, that CEQA does provide that environmental protection is not the only factor; and in this
situation, there is a visual impact on San Rafael/Dollar Hill, which the EIR determined could not be reduced
to a level of insignificance, even after the implementation of the mitigation measures of the Design Review
Board.
Continuing, Mr. Roberto reported that CEQA states (and the Attorneys could clarify) that the environmental
information must be considered, as well as other information, when reviewing a project. In this case the
Police and Fire Departments are concerned with health and safety, and every community has the right to
make a determination that the benefits of a project override the environmental impact. In this situation, one
significant impact was found when all the factors were analyzed. The Planning Commission established,
however, that the benefits to the community, in terms of Police, Fire, Ambulance, Public Works and the
overall communications and safety network, far outweighed the significant environmental effect of seeing
the tower on the hill. The law allows for this, reported Mr. Roberto; many communities do this even on
projects not involving public health and safety but where it is felt the merits of the project might outweigh a
potential significant impact.
On the question of satellites, Richard Chuck, MERA Communications Engineer, stated this is something
that has been under review since the commencement of the EIR, and the primary reason for not going with
a satellite system was the unavailability of in -building coverage, together with the unreliability and
maintenance difficulties. Furthermore, explained Mr. Chuck, there are substantial delays in a signal
travelling from the earth to a satellite and back, which can make a critical difference to a command's travel
time, and also there were not a lot of options for equipment for the satellite type service needed by the
public safety user. Lastly, he stated, the cost would be fairly substantial.
Community Development Director Brown introduced Mr. Bill Hammett and Mr. Mark Neumann, Hammett &
Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, who would discuss the physics of the Radio Frequency emissions, the
FCC standards and the analyses they performed on San Rafael Hill. He stated these two gentlemen were
not present at the Planning Commission Hearing, which was unfortunate noted Mr. Brown, in that they could
have cleared up several misconceptions resulting from that Hearing. For the record, Mr. Brown stated he
would indicate the professional qualifications of Mr. Hammett and Mr. Newman:
Mr. Hammett is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the University of Illinois, with a Bachelor's
Degree in Engineering and a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is a registered
Mechanical/Electrical Engineer in California and has been President of Hammett & Edison, which
specializes in Radio and Television installations, since 1989; also, reported Mr. Brown, it was
important to note that Mr. Hammett has written what has been called the definitive reference text on
Radio Frequency Radiation.
• Mr. Neumann is an Associate Engineer with Hammett & Edison and is a graduate of MIT in
Electrical Engineering.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 11
Bill Hammett, Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, stated he manages a firm of 11
people located in the City of Sonoma and a regular part of their practice involves the calculation,
measurement and where appropriate, the mitigation, of RF (Radio Frequency) exposure conditions. He
stated they are retained for this type of work by commercial wireless carriers, radio and television stations,
landlords, cities and counties and individual citizens, adding that the book mentioned was published by
McGraw Hill in 1997 and is entitled "Radio Frequency Radiation Issues and Standards".
Mr. Hammett explained that radios work by sending out energy, using frequencies assigned by the FCC
(Federal Communication Commission) and this is where the term RF emanates — these are radio
frequencies. For MERA's use, which is two-way, the energy is sent out from the Dollar Hilltop site, with
voice or other data, and then goes silent and listens. A mobile unit (hand held unit) will receive this signal
and the person using it will push the button, (push to talk) respond, and release the button, and this radio
goes silent to listen for a return. This is a two-way communication which he described as a "duty cycle" in
that it is not on constantly; at most it is on only half of the time when a conversation is taking place. In
reality, he stated, the typical "duty cycle" is of the order of approximately 10%. For the purposes of the
study, reported Mr. Hammett, in order to be conservative and have a worst case scenario, it was assumed
these were on all of the time; accordingly, the energy coming from these facilities is overstated.
He stated that Radio Frequencies have been used for decades for communications purposes; they have
been researched for decades and there have been standards for exposure for decades. The current levels
were set by the NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement) in 1986; this is a
congressionally chartered corporation, they were affirmed by a second body in 1992 and reaffirmed in 1999.
This is what the FCC, the licensing body for people who use radio frequencies, be they cities or private
parties, has adopted. The APA (Administrative Procedures Act) is the expert agency on exposure effects
and they have endorsed the adoption by the FCC of these standards. Mr. Hammett noted that the limits in
these standards were set by the different standard setting bodies, by looking at all the research; they did not
do independent research, but looked at all the research that had been published, and identified a threshold
above which effects might occur but below which no effects occurred. They then applied a 50 times safety
factor at that threshold in order to arrive at a protection level for members of the public. These standards
are designed to protect everyone, whatever gender, age, size or state of health. The standards the facility
is being assessed against are designed to protect at continuous exposure, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, 52 weeks per year.
There is controversy over the standards, however, in that there are groups who will rally against the
installation of new radio systems. Mr. Hammett stated he suspected more would be heard on this subject at
this evening's meeting and he would be happy to answer any questions which may arise as a result.
He noted that a single research study, no matter how alarming its results, has very little meaning by itself.
However, it should be recognized that the nature of scientific inquiry is that any one study may or may not
show what the author thinks it does, because of extraneous factors which may not have been accounted
for. He stated that it is when other researchers in other institutions, with their own facilities and their own
different extraneous factors, replicate those results, the cause and effect relationship begins to have some
scientific merit.
The issue, Mr. Hammett stated, is how much of a safety factor does one enjoy in a particular situation;
everyone who sets these standards is looking at the same body of research, so those arguing for some
tighter standards are really requesting greater safety factors. The FCC standard uses a 50 times safety
factor and the U.S. Congress has shielded certain wireless services from having anyone apply any larger
safety factor. Some commoners this evening, he stated, may suggest that the members of the City Council
should become their own expert agency and set more strict requirements for MERA, but based on the
studies Mark Neumann would describe, this is not necessary, because the contributions from MERA at the
nearby homes are so small they already have an extra safety factor of hundreds or thousands of times
below the standard.
Mr. Hammett introduced Mark Neumann, the engineer on his staff who did detailed work at the site.
Mark Neumann, Engineer with Hammett & Edison, stated he had been with the firm for approximately 3'/2
years, the majority of which time had been spent in the fields of Radio Frequency Exposure analyses and
compliance with the FCC guidelines. Hammett & Edison were contracted by MERA, he reported, to provide
the RF exposure analyses for the Dollar Hill site, as well as the other sites throughout Marin and Sonoma
Counties. Explaining what the analyses entails, Mr. Neumann stated that as there were existing facilities at
Dollar Hill, the first step in any analyses for determining compliance, is to establish what the existing RF
exposure levels are. He visited the site for the first time on June 18, 1999, in order to make measurements
of existing RF exposure levels. The instrument used at that time was a meter, by a company called Wandel
& Goltermann. This meter has a shaped probe and effectively, its job is to weight all the frequencies at the
site to take into account the frequency dependence of the FCC exposure standard. The meter then reads
out directly the percentage of the FCC exposure limit, which makes it a very useful tool for determining
compliance at sites with multiple transmitting facilities. Continuing, Mr. Newman stated that a survey was
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 12
made of the site, effectively from the Turrini tower, up past the existing Dollar Hill site on the other side of
the hill, in order to establish the existing RF exposure levels, and the site was criss-crossed repeatedly in
order to determine the point at which the maximum RF exposure levels occur. For San Rafael Hill this
occurs roughly midway between the Turrini and Dollar Hill broadcast sites, with the maximum exposure
level at that point of 52% of the FCC public exposure limit. Based on observations of the site, stated Mr.
Neumann, it was quite evident that the majority of this was due to the fact that there is an existing FM
station at the top of the Turrini site.
Continuing, Mr. Neumann stated that having determined the site was in compliance with the FCC guidelines
under current conditions, the next step was to calculate what the expected contributions would be from the
proposed MERA facility, and over -weigh them on to existing conditions. Using information provided by
MERA, of the RF statistics of this facility, as well as site plan and topographical maps, the maximum
ambient RF levels were calculated. These calculations were necessarily conservative, reported Mr.
Neumann. Firstly, the calculations are done with a methodology mandated by the FCC; several
conservative safety factors are included, such as assuming the maximum amount of signals reflected from
the ground as opposed to absorbed. This, he stated, guarantees that when a site is evaluated by
compliance, subsequent measurements will always be less than anything shown by calculation.
Noting Mr. Hammett's comments, he stated that the second conservative assumption was that all the radios
for MERA were on all of the time. Several studies have been done in Urban areas, one of which was used,
of typical occupancy rates for Police and Fire systems in San Francisco, with a result of approximately 2 —
12%, meaning effectively the calculations are approximately 90% conservative, assuming everything is on
all the time. He stated the maximum ambient levels under those conditions for the MERA site were
calculated to be 24% of the FCC public exposure limit. Mr. Neumann stated that it is important to then
compare where those levels occur, versus existing conditions. He explained that at the point previously
mentioned, where the maximum existing exposure levels of 52% of the limit occurred, the contributions of
MERA at that point are less than 1 % of the FCC limit, thereby increasing the total to approximately 53% of
the limit. At the point where the MERA facilities had the maximum contribution of 24%, the existing levels
measured only 28%, making a total of 52%. These comparisons were made throughout the area to ensure
that the contributions of existing conditions with the calculated conditions were in all cases, less than the
FCC public exposure limit, and this was determined to be the case.
Mr. Neumann reported that on the first site visit it was noted that several of the existing facilities, at both
Dollar Hill and the Turrini site, were two-way facilities, and in an effort to ensure that these two sites would
comply with the FCC limit, under any operating conditions, regardless of how unlikely, the next step was to
try to create a calculation data base of all the existing facilities for the site, to determine what the worst case
condition would be, with all antennas on all of the time. He stated that unfortunately, there was not a
complete database available for Dollar or Turrini. He explained that at the time of the site visit, an inventory
was made of all the antenna types and heights which existed at both sites and this information was
compared with the FCC database. Using that information, in addition to topographical maps, powers,
heights and antenna types were assigned for all the facilities at both sites. He stated that some of this
information came from the FCC database, some from known limits on different types of useages and others
from knowledge of typical transmitting facilities.
Having created this database, explained Mr. Neumann, calculations were done of what would be the worst
case maximums — all the antennas on constantly for the existing facilities - this was 68% of the FCC public
exposure limit. By way of confirmation, this point done by calculation was coincident with the point identified
by measurement and further verification that the calculations supported the measurements and vice versa.
Also, noted Mr. Neumann, it supported a previous conclusion that the dominant contributor at that point
was, in fact, the FM station, which was contributing approximately 40% of the FCC limit of that 68%, which
was as expected. Adding the contributions from the MERA facilities to these calculations, it is guaranteed
that under any and all conditions, the site is in compliance with the FCC public exposure guidelines.
Mr. Neumann stated that following completion of the initial study, the question was raised as to how one
would relate the exposure levels at nearby homes to this 24% number given by MERA. Subsequent to their
initial report, additional information was provided to MERA, where calculations were done at the nearby
homes. These calculations were performed under the same criteria as the initial ones, assuming all the
antennas were on all of the time, assuming all the conservative factors, using topographical maps, looking
at the evaluation differences between homes and the MERA site, as well as the distances. This translated
into the 24% exposure level occurring inside the fenced compound in the center of the Dollar Hill facility,
and when the nearby homes which ring the site were taken into consideration, the maximum level found
anywhere was less than two-tenths of 1 % of the FCC public exposure limit; in other words, Mr. Neumann
noted, 500 times below, and assuming all the antennas constantly on.
Mr. Neumann confirmed Mr. Roberto's statement that the 24% exposure level is right up on the hill and
when one moves even small distances from the center point, it quickly decreases to single digit
percentages, decreasing to hundreds or thousands of a percent the greater the distance.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 13
Councilmember Phillips inquired of Mr. Neumann if the methods used are generally accepted in his
profession as being sound in result and principles, and could be relied upon.
Replying, Mr. Neumann stated that some of them are mandated and all of them are accepted. He gave an
example of the FCC when evaluating compliance of the site, stating, in general, that measurements take
precedence over calculations; therefore, when the initial analyses of the site by measurement is considered,
where peak measurements over a period of an hour or more were taken, this takes precedence over
calculations in determining compliance of the site, again, because the calculations are conservative. He
stated that the calculation methodology is actually prescribed by the FCC; therefore the conservative
assumptions were used in his work.
In terms of evaluating existing facilities, Mr. Neumann stated that multi -use broadcast sites often run into
this type of issue. Again, compliance can be determined by measurement, noting it is acceptable to good
engineering practice, to try to develop the worst case scenario and add an additional safety factor to assure
the client, that under any conditions, the site would comply.
Councilmember Phillips asked if the suggestion was that he, as a layperson, relying upon experts such as
Mr. Neumann, could feel comfortable that reasonable standards were applied, in drawing the conclusion
that he would, therefore, perhaps, depend on.
Responding, Mr. Neumann stated that for determining compliance of the site, it goes a step beyond that,
explaining that measurement is the preferred method of the FCC and the calculations done for the MERA
contributions used this method; therefore, under those conditions, there is quite an assurance that the site
complies with the FCC guidelines. He stated that the attempt to ensure compliance, under any operating
conditions, is based on sound engineering knowledge of existing facilities, together with information
provided, be it from the FCC database or through visual inspection, and can be relied upon to add another
factor of conservatism to those calculations.
Councilmember Cohen stated Mr. Neumann had covered this subject very well and reiterated that there had
been numerous allegations or concerns expressed that nobody had really looked at the overall impact. He
confirmed with Mr. Neumann that the existing impact was measured and asked if this was done one time or
repeatedly and where the measurements were done. Mr. Neumann stated that the initial survey on which
the report was based was on one site visit, probably covering approximately 1 — 2 hours, criss-crossing a
complete survey, to determine the RF exposure conditions. He stated that he had subsequently been back
to the site on two separate occasions for different projects for further measurements, and even though time
had passed where changes could have occurred, the measurements had corroborated the initial ones.
Councilmember Cohen requested confirmation on the fact that where there were known values of the
existing antenna output, it was used, and where this was not available calculations were based on assumed
conservative values for the types of antennas located up there. Clarifying, Mr. Neumann stated that there
were cellular and PCS broadcast antennas up there; the typical transmitting facilities for these are very well
known, so very conservative assumptions were made on how much power they might be outputting. The
numbers guessed would probably have been two - three times what was actually there.
Councilmember Cohen stated that Mr. Neumann represented an existing condition of approximately 50% of
the federal standard and asked for clarification on where this was located. Mr. Neumann stated that the
24% is roughly right in the center of Dollar Hill; the triangle on the chart he was referring to, to the upper
right represented the Turrini/Westcom tower and roughly at the mid point between those two, in the middle
of the road, was where that maximum point was.
Referring to the .02% at the MERA surrounding residences, Councilmember Cohen inquired if this was the
MERA increment, to which Mr. Neumann replied in the affirmative. Continuing, Councilmember Cohen
inquired if their calculations were done of MERA, plus existing facilities, for RF exposure at those
residences. Mr. Neumann explained that having been requested by MERA to calculate contributions from
their facility at the nearby homes, a further request was made to ascertain if calculations could be done of
all the existing facilities.
Using charts depicting San Rafael/Dollar Hill, he illustrated measured levels from the initial site showing:
• 21/2% at the far side;
• 171/2% directly adjacent to the hill;
• 13'/2% on the upper west side, rising to 22% descending down the hill, to reach the 52% maximum
roughly midway between the two and again, dropping off.
As measurements were not made at each of these individual homes, the same database was used as was
used for the worst case calculations. Mr. Neumann pointed out that the maximum at any point is 1 % of the
FCC public exposure standard; others vary considerably, based on elevation and distance. He stated that
calculations were then done of existing conditions, plus the additions of the MERA facilities.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 14
Councilmember Cohen asked for verification that the calculations done. were authenticated by onsite
measurement, to be even more conservative than anything actually measured, and were further justified by
the location. Also, that the highest intensity, based on the calculations, was in fact, the same location where
the highest intensity RF exposure was measured. He noted that the maximum exposure at the most
exposed residences appeared to be 1.02% of the federal standard. MERA he stated, at its greatest impact,
would be two one hundreds of 1 %; therefore, if it is assumed that both of those were at the same place, the
highest exposure in any of these residences would be 1.02% of the federal standard. Mr. Neumann stated
that the maximum contribution from MERA is 0.02%; maximum calculated existing is 1.0%.
City Attorney Ragghianti requested that Mr. Neumann identify both of the transparencies he was referring to
in his presentation, by name, title or date and later cause to be copied and placed into the record.
Mr. Neumann stated that the current transparency showed the existing measuring conditions which were
recorded at the time of the first site visit, June 18, 1999, as well as calculated contributions from the existing
facilities at nearby homes. The previous transparency depicted calculations from the contributions of the
proposed MERA facilities at the site.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated Mr. Neumann had mentioned that on June 18, 1999 a measurement made
at the site using a meter, and requested confirmation of the name so enabling it to be entered into the
record correctly. Mr. Neumann confirmed the name was Wandel & Goltermann.
Councilmember Phillips inquired of Mr. Neumann that should he reside in a home in the most immediate
area and had small children, would he have any concern regarding living next to this facility. Mr. Neumann
responded that he currently lives closer to a cellular site than any of the homes in question are to the MERA
facility. Following up, Councilmember Phillips inquired if the RF readings were similar, to which Mr.
Neumann responded that he had not measured them, and stated he would not have any issues residing in
any of those homes.
As Mr. Van Zandt, Attorney, would be the next speaker, Vice -Mayor Miller requested that he formulate his
approach so that his presentation could be easily followed.
Michael Van Zandt, Attorney with the firm of McQuaid, Metzler, Bedford & Van Zandt, stated he was present
on behalf of 60 families in the Chula Vista, Graceland and Fairhills neighborhoods of San Rafael, and being
a resident of San Rafael, residing at 86 Graceland, was in attendance in a dual capacity. He stated he
appreciated the opportunity of speaking to the City Council this evening. His main group of presenters
consisted of 5 speakers: Mr. Van Zandt, followed by Dr. Bill Curry, Ph.D., Physicist and consultant on RF
analysis, Libby Kelley, Director of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, Bruce Gurney and Noemi
Bolvary, with other members of his group who would speak as members of the public.
Vice -Mayor Miller confirmed with Mr. Van Zandt that he would keep within the 5 speakers noted; others who
wished to speak would do so as members of the public during the Public Hearing. He thanked Mr. Van
Zandt for being present this evening and Mr. Van Zandt stated he appreciated the opportunity.
Addressing the need for a superior radio system, Mr. Van Zandt stated he wished to make it clear that the
group he represented supported the need for an updated radio system for the City of San Rafael and the
County of Marin. A number of people were in attendance this evening, some with small children, whom he
asked to indicate by raising their hands, if in fact, they supported an updated radio system for the City and
County. Mr. Van Zandt confirmed this was indicative of how most people felt about the system. He
reported he had asked the neighbors and citizens present whether or not this particular site, the site on San
Rafael Hill, was one they would support. Phrasing the question negatively this evening, he asked if they
opposed siting the MERA tower on San Rafael Hill, by a show of hands.
To clarify, Mr. Van Zandt stated it was not the idea of an updated radio system that was objected to, but the
process being pursued by MERA, in particular, to gain approval, which included the siting decisions,
discussed this evening, and much of the analyses done in support of the RF exposure issue. He stated that
the proposal is what a Commissioner from Tiburon Town Council alluded to as a LULU (Locally Unwanted
Land Use). Antennas, at these power levels, should not be placed in anyone's back yard; they should not
be placed in, near, or around residential areas, and certainly, should not be placed in the City's open space.
One of the issues not mentioned during the presentation by the Applicant, stated Mr. Van Zandt, was the
use of the open space trail on the top of San Rafael Hill, a very popular hiking trail and one which he hikes
himself, to the top of San Rafael Hill.
Mr. Van Zandt stated that the objections to the proposed antennae are based on several concerns; a
primary concern being that the decision this evening by the City Council would forever change the character
of San Rafael Hill. He stated it is realized there are already some antennas on San Rafael Hill; the Turrini
tower was placed there in 1966, after quite long and tortured consideration by the City. A moratorium was
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 15
imposed while the City reviewed the situation, to determine whether or not to allow the Turrini tower to be
placed there, and after long deliberations it was decided in the affirmative. This, he stated, is separate and
apart from the proposed MERA site, where the current Johnson system for Fire and Police antennas are
situated. This site has never been reviewed by the City Council; it is not a site that has any current permits,
it is not zoned for its current use and its use is inconsistent with the General Plan.
It was his opinion, Mr. Van Zandt stated, that the MERA proposal violates the zoning ordinance and is
inconsistent with the City of San Rafael's General Plan. Zoning for the area is parks and open space;
however, the actual designation is what is called "secured open space". There are a number of permitted
uses for such open spaces:
• animal grazing;
• horse keeping;
• picnic areas;
• hiking trails;
• wildlife preserve;
These are permitted uses, whereby a permit is not necessary to engage in these uses in the open space.
Conditional uses which are permitted include public facilities, including utility facilities, examples of which
are: pump stations, water tanks, but excluding maintenance or storage yards, where industrial activities are
not permitted. The zoning ordinances, reported Mr. Van Zandt, do not define what a public or utility facility
is but the City staff had analogized MERA to a public utility. This, he stated is not even close to the utilities
listed in the zoning ordinance, where there is no mention whatsoever, of antennas or telecommunications
facilities, as permitted uses under the POS (Public Open Space) zoning. San Rafael Hill, he stated, is not
zoned as an antenna farm, but if the project were approved consistent with the Planning Commission's
approval, that is exactly what San Rafael Hill would become.
Mr. Van Zandt reported that chapter of the City Code, which is the Open Space, says:
"Public utilities shall be located so that minimum harm is done to the environment"
Continuing, he stated that the City has determined, as has MERA, that there will be a significant
environmental impact from the location of the MERA antenna on San Rafael Hill, yet the City staff, in
particular, has interpreted this phrase to imply, ("Public utilities shall be located so that minimum harm is
done to the environment") there can be a significant impact as long as it is painted.
Speaking on some of the policies in the General Plan, Mr. Van Zandt stated that NE -5 was mislabeled in the
General Plan as NE -7. NE -7 in his appeal, stated that the open space shall be maintained in a natural state;
the uses are limited to those with minimal impact on the environment which maintains a natural state. He
noted that there was no reasonable interpretation he could think of, which would allow a 75 -foot
telecommunications facility into the open space, and claim it maintains a natural state in the environment.
Policy NE -10, he stated, addressed utilities in open space, and assuming an antenna is a utility, a concept
with which he disagrees, the policy says utilities in open space shall be discouraged, but throughout the
process he had not heard anyone in the City infer that it was the policy of the City of San Rafael to
discourage placing a utility, such as an antenna, in the open space. The subsequent part of this phrase in
policy NE -10 stated that when necessary, the utilities should be located and designed to minimize harm to
the area's environment and visual quality. Here, he stated, there is a clear conflict between what was
proposed by MERA to its environmental impact process, and what the City Staff and Planning Commission
approved; they are in fact, approving and recommending to the City Council that a significant harm to the
environment, based on visual quality, be approved in the open space.
He noted that staff says there can be significant environmental impact from the tower and still minimize the
harm, but he believes this denies the plain meaning of the language in the General Plan. He stated it was
akin to saying "one could have a waste incinerator in the open space as long as the smoke is disguised to
look like fog". He noted that a 75 -foot antenna cannot be hidden, and its effects cannot be minimized on the
top of San Rafael Hill.
Another issue with regard to the General Plan, stated Mr. Van Zandt, was intensity of use, and in the open
space the intensity of use, essentially, is zero, which is pursuant to LU -18 b. Staff, he stated, calculated the
area the MERA support buildings would require, and believe they are within that intensity of use; however,
given the dominance of these structures, it could not be said the intensity as proposed by MERA is
essentially zero; therefore, he would reiterate this proposal violates the zoning ordinances and in his
opinion, is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Addressing how the analyses were carried out, Mr. Van Zandt stated that a major concern had been the
lack of information, from the City and MERA, concerning the inventory of antennas at the MERA site, and as
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 16
Mr. Neumann indicated, he himself had problems finding all the antennas. The City staff now admits, he
stated, that none of the antennas on the MERA site have City permits or approval, meaning there has been
no review process whatsoever. He stated that this meant the City had no idea what antennas are there, at
what frequency they operate, what power levels they are emitting and whether or not they exceed the FCC
standards for Radio Frequency radiation, despite the statements made by Messrs. Neumann and Hammett.
During the course of the appeal, noted Mr. Van Zandt, he made three Public Records Act requests: two to
MERA and one to the City, which he was submitting for the record. In those Public Records Act requests
he was basically looking for an inventory of antennas, frequencies, power levels, etc., in order to provide
this information to Dr. Curry to enable him to conduct his analyses. He was informed that the City had
some information, but not a lot concerning these antennas; however, the City, apparently, had a list of
antennas at the MERA site, with frequency and power levels for approximately 10 antennas.
Using slides, Mr. Van Zandt stated that in response to the Public Records Act request he was given a
package of material, which included loose documents. He stated it was difficult to ascertain from where a
lot of this material emanated; some apparently had come from the Marin County Radio Shop; however, one
document included an antenna located on San Rafael Hill, with its frequency and power levels noted; he
counted 10 antennas there, although Broadlink had stated it had 12 antennas, with very low wattage. Mr.
Van Zandt stated that Dr. Curry was able to use this information as a starting point for determining the
number of antennas at the proposed site.
Again referring to slides, Mr. Van Zandt stated that another piece of material in the package was a list of
other antennas shown by position from various schematics. He stated that of interest are the letter
designations after the antennas, which say FBI G2, San Rafael Fire — Green, C1. These, he stated,
correspond to antenna positions on the various telephone poles and the one lattice tower already at the
MERA site. Again, he stated there was some frequency information, but no power level information for
these particular antennas.
The most comprehensive list of antennas he found, reported Mr. Van Zandt, was a list provided in the
material packet, of approximately 36 separate antennas, which needed to be included in the calculations of
the RF environment on San Rafael Hill. He stated it had been represented at various meetings by City staff
primarily, that not all of these antennas are on top of the hill. The FCC lists approximately 33 active
antennas; he counted 36 antennas on the list. He physically counted 32 antennas at the proposed MERA
site; therefore, the present list may be the most comprehensive. Unfortunately, he stated this list does not
give power levels or frequencies; therefore, knowledge of the antennas and their uses is essential in order
to conduct calculations. One disturbing factor concerning the list, he stated, is an antenna at the bottom
listed "I", and stating "unknown antenna"; it would be very difficult to do calculations on that description of an
antenna, noted Mr. Van Zandt. Again, he stated, he requested this information in order to conduct
calculations, and this was what the City provided.
Using a further slide, Mr. Van Zandt, pointed out this was a list of antennas they were given which were to
be consolidated on the new MERA tower; however this number changed in the process. The EIR said there
would be 9 antennas essentially on the MERA tower: 5 MERA proposed and 4 existing antennas, but this
number changed to 14. This list reflected 25 and he now understood that staff was recommending only the
5 MERA antennas be placed on the MERA tower. He stated it was not relevant to his analysis as in any
event, the 5 MERA antennas would be there in conjunction with the 30 some already there, which would
continue to operate.
As indicated, stated Mr. Van Zandt, the City apparently wished to separate the 20 antennas, the remaining
16 would stay on their poles. The basic issue of concern to him on going through the analyses with Dr.
Curry, was that the City had no control over these antennas, there was no baseline data on the RF
environment created by the antennas and he wondered how further antennas could be allowed without
having control of the existing ones. MERA and the Planning Commission are essentially allowing 5
additional antennas, with 1,800 watts of power, to be added to an existing environment that no one in this
room truly understood. Mr. Van Zandt reported that MERA inferred its consultant had an inventory of
antennas at the MERA site, but Dr. Curry was informed when speaking with Hammett & Edison, that it had
no such inventory.
In the Public Records Act request made to Mr. Arner, Executive Director of MERA, the inventory,
frequencies, power levels, etc., were requested, but this request was directed by Mr. Arner to Hammett &
Edison, who provided a response, which contained raw data to be used by Dr. Curry to carry out his
analyses. Mr. Van Zandt stated he did not understand how calculations could be done to advise the City
Council on whether or not it was safe to proceed, without the full understanding of all the antennas, power
levels and frequencies being operated on San Rafael Hill. He questioned how exposure calculations were
carried out without this information. Regarding the staff report provided to the City Council, Mr. Van Zandt
noted it stated that Hammett & Edison had this inventory, but Hammett & Edison also assumed a total watt
output of 700 watts for the MERA site.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 17
Referring to a slide depicting 10 antennas, without the MERA contribution, and to page 9 of the staff report,
which stated "700 watts was used assuming a single broadcast....", Mr. Van Zandt stated this was Hammett
& Edison doing assumptions on the wattage output from the proposed MERA site, and pointed out that the
antennas depicted in the slide total up to over 1,300 watts of effected radiated power, which is what is being
analyzed, not 700 watts. He stated that in totaling the entire 36 antennas, there is something approaching
5,000 watts of power, not 700, which is off by a factor of 6.
MERA and the City were asked for a complete inventory of antennas at the Turrini (Westcom) site, noted
Mr. Van Zandt; the City had a better file, albeit not complete. Hammett & Edison had admitted this in their
analyses of the Turrini tower, when they stated they needed to make some conservative assumptions. He
stated that based on the antennas he saw from the City's files, he estimated there was approximately
10,000 watts of effected radiated power on the Turrini tower; Hammett & Edison had estimated over 15,000
watts of power, but having incomplete data on the inventory, power levels or frequencies of the individual
antennas. Nonetheless, reported Mr. Van Zandt, Staff had pointed to the analyses carried out by Hammett
& Edison for the Planning Commission (Exhibit 12) and stated it was very important to note, as Mr.
Neumann had testified, that the analyses done by Hammett & Edison, was a combination of ambient, or
spot measurements, and a calculation of the MERA contribution to the Radio Frequency radiation exposure
levels.
He stated it was very important to note that their calculations were not based on their full knowledge of the
inventory of the antennas, as they do not have this knowledge. He noted Hammett & Edison had no idea of
how many antennas were operating, or at what power or frequency levels they were operating at, when they
took their ambient measurements; these were spot measurements and comparable to anecdotal
information. The only means of deciding the full potential exposure, when an antenna is placed in this
situation, is to request the operator to turn it on, go up with an ambient field measuring device and measure
the power output and frequency. The other possible way, stated Mr. Van Zandt, and the means they
attempted, was to determine the manufacturer and what the power level and frequency was of the antenna,
and calculate it. Conducting spot measurements, there is no way to tell whether 1%, 5% or 50% of the
antennas are on; therefore, in his opinion, those calculations are meaningless for determining whether or
not the FCC standards are being exceeded.
The measurements taken and calculations done, as he read the documents provided by Hammett & Edison,
significantly underestimate the potential exposure to RFR if all antennas are on. He stated Dr. Curry would
attest to the fact that under certain conditions the MERA antenna, combined with the remainder of the
existing antennas, and the Turrini site, would cause hot spots on the open space trail where exposure would
be in excess of the FCC standards for RFR exposure. Clearly, he stated, there would be exposure above
200 microwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2), which is the standard the FCC set depending on the
frequency. The MERA standard is 320 microwatts per centimeter squared, but many of the antennas on
San Rafael Hill have an exposure limit based on 200 microwatts per centimeter squared, including the
dominant source up there, the FM antenna. Mr. Van Zandt stated it is his belief that there could be as high
as 420 microwatts per centimeter squared exposure at certain points along the open space trail.
As would be seen, stated Mr. Van Zandt, Dr. Curry had done some analyses on reflectivity of radio waves,
and one of the interesting phenomena was that if the trail was wet the exposure is intensified. He noted that
since Dr. Curry estimated all sources on Turrini at a height of 105 feet, and at only 10,000 watts, there
probably was more exposure from Turrini than calculated, and when combined with the MERA contribution
and the proposed MERA site contribution, the calculations were conservative. MERA, Hammett & Edison
and the City, he stated, had forced the neighbors to expend their resources to have this independent
analyses carried out; this was not just or fair and the City, he stated, had let them down; they should not
have had to provide independent analyses such as this, to inform the City Council. This type of information,
he stated, should have been furnished by the City.
As an aside, stated Mr. Van Zandt, Hammett & Edison had claimed they did not have detailed information
on the Turrini site, yet in May of 2000, as alluded to by Mr. Neumann, he did a study for Metricom, which
was performed in support of an Environmental Design Review here in the City of San Rafael. In this report,
Mr. Neumann indicated he had done an inventory of the antennas on the Turrini tower; the report to the
Planning Commission in support of their approval of the project, stated they had insufficient information on
the Turrini site.
Mr. Van Zandt reported it was stated in the Metricom report:
There are 20 omni whip antennas, 14 panel antennas, 5 Yagi antennas, 2 dipole antennas and one 6,000
watt FM station, for a total of approximately 42 antennas on the Turrini site.
Mr. Van Zandt noted that with this information, Hammett & Edison could have carried out very
comprehensive calculations of the potential exposure from Turrini. Another interesting part of this report
stated that new antennas would cause exposure; these new antennas are 1262 watts effective radiated
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 18
power and would cause exposure at 53% of the FCC standard, without the addition of the MERA antennas
contribution.
Addressing issues under CEQA, (California Environmental Quality Act) Mr. Van Zandt stated that clearly,
with this kind of evidence, the City cannot rely on an addendum under CEQA in order to make its decision
or to support an overriding consideration with regard to visual impacts; there is a lot more in terms of
impacts than just visual. The City, he stated, is required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report
because of the Land Use Impacts noted — the zoning and General Plan problems — and because the
analyses shows that the MERA antennas could exceed FCC standards. He noted that the way Staff has
recommended altering the proposal by the applicant, by removing the other non -permitted City antennas,
and only placing the MERA antennas on the tower, is a classic case of segmentation of the environmental
documentation. He noted the City Council had heard a statement made to get MERA approved with the 5
antennas, then later go through a permitting process to get the other City antennas approved, in order that
they can go on the MERA tower. He stated this was a classic case of segmentation and was a violation of
CEQA. The entire proposal must be assessed for its cumulative impacts, parts could not be segmented out
which would go through without rising to the levels of a significant impact, and then included in the project.
He stated that MERA's EIR did not address the health effects from RFR at all, whether from thermal or non -
thermal effects; there were public comments on the health effects, which Libby Kelley would speak to, but
Mr. Van Zandt stated he wanted to bring to Council's attention the fact that should they be of the opinion
they were adopting a EIR which fully considered the health effects from the MERA antennas, that was not
what the MERA EIR did. The City should independently evaluate health effects from these antennas, he
stated, especially given the fact that there would be a transcending of the FCC exposure limits on the top of
the hill. He stated there had been some discussion regarding theTelecommunications Act of 1996 and its
preemptive effect on local governments, prohibiting them from considering health effects. Mr. Van Zandt
stated they had supplied a legal opinion to that effect and he believed there had been some changes in
position from the City Attorney's office, but the current position is that local governments are preempted
from considering health effects; however, he wished to point out that the preemptive effect of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 on local governments considering health effects is based on personal
wireless facilities; these are specifically defined in the Act and do not include public safety
telecommunications facilities, such as MERA.
Addressing alternative sites, Mr. Van Zandt urged the City to look for alternative sites to San Rafael Hill,
which would allow the coverage MERA needs without impacting residences, health or the open space trails
in San Rafael. Returning to his comments regarding the Tiburon situation, where he was involved in the
Planning Commission's presentation and also the appeal to the Town Council where MERA withdrew its
appeal at the beginning of the hearing. The understanding was that the site would not be submitted for one
year; therefore, it would be a surprise to the people in Tiburon to learn that MERA was still contemplating
putting an antenna within 10 feet of a residence. However, it was discovered during the process, that
despite the fact that MERA informed the Town of Tiburon repeatedly, that there were no alternative or
feasible sites, the fact was they had approximately 8 less feasible sites, and he felt this present case was
similar.
Mr. Van Zandt stated he did not put his clients through the time or expense of conducting an alternative site
study but they did look at San Pedro Ridge, which MERA states cannot see downtown San Rafael;
however, he stated he could go downtown in San Rafael and look up at San Pedro Ridge. MERA stated
they would have to boost the power, thereby causing some interference problems, which Mr. Van Zandt
stated could be worked out with the FCC. Repeaters were suggested in downtown San Rafael. Other cities
are looking into similar situations where repeaters would be operated at a lower power level, stated Mr. Van
Zandt. However, regardless of what the analyses shows on alternative sites, it is unacceptable and unlawful
for the City of San Rafael to allow an antenna facility which would violate FCC standards and elevate the
already dangerous exposure levels to the nearby houses.
He stated that Dr. Curry would address the exposures at the houses and affirmed they believe they are
below the FCC limits. Dr. Curry would also discuss some of the standards around the world, which have
been used to protect the health and safety of individuals from radio frequency radiation.
Mr. Van Zandt posed the question to the City Council members on whether they and their families would
like to live near these antennas; whether they would like to take their child or dog for a walk down the open
space trail, past the Turrini site and past the MERA site, knowing potentially, they could be at 50%, 60% or
70% of the FCC standard; however, he believed it could be more in the region of 200% of the FCC
standard. He stated that an independent review of the City's wireless facilities was needed, especially
those proposed for San Rafael Hill, and a moratorium was needed on any new antennas, until the City puts
in place a comprehensive wireless facilities ordinance.
The City Council should grant the appeal to deny MERA its application, find alternative sites acceptable to
the City and citizens to provide the health and safety coverage which is so desperately needed. He noted
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 18
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 19
the comments this evening from the Police and Fire, agreeing it is a priority, but should not be done at the
expense of the health and safety of citizens.
Councilmember Heller requested clarification on the depictions in the map Mr. Van Zandt has used in his
presentation. Mr. Van Zandt confirmed that the map represented the various high points in and around San
Rafael Hill, the Turrini site, the MERA site, San Pedro Ridge, where the roads were not residential but fire
roads, Forbes Hill and others. He stated there were alternatives which could be less feasible, could
possibly cause coverage issues but which could be dealt with using repeater sites, amongst other options.
Councilmember Cohen referenced the area just alluded to by Mr. Van Zandt and referred him to an
argument made earlier, in which Mr. Van Zandt stated it was his view that any siting of an antenna in an
open space area violated San Rafael's General Plan and Zoning and inquired if the area in question would
not fall victim of the same argument. In his response, Mr. Van Zandt stated this was possible and would
require a zoning ordinance change and an amendment to the General Plan. He noted his preference would
be to start the process over and propose several sites which would, perhaps, have to go through that
amendment process, pointing out that there was no way to site this antenna within the City confines, as he
saw it, without going through this process.
Councilmember Phillips complimented Mr. Van Zandt on being a fine attorney, stating he was impressed
with his presentation; however, he was curious as to whether or not Dr. Curry would discuss other site
locations as if not, it seemed there was testimony that this present site was preferred by far, from a
coverage standpoint. He was not persuaded by Mr. Van Zandt's argument and requested that perhaps Mr.
Van Zandt could help him understand the position taken regarding alternate sites.
Responding, Mr. Van Zandt stated that the alternative site process, which was presented in more detail to
the Planning Commission, was one, which could best be described as the path of least resistance.
Referring to the chart used by Mr. Roberto depicting the site analysis process, Mr. Van Zandt stated it
basically identified the potential obstacles to the selection of sites. It seemed, he stated, that when sites
were evaluated, many of them were owned by public entities; the idea being that the leases might be
cheaper and they had existing facilities; however, that was not the universe of sites within the County of
Marin or the other counties where sites have to be placed.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was trying to determine whether or not there was any credibility to the
suggestion that there may be alternate sites, as he had not yet heard anything persuasive. Mr. Van Zandt
stated this was not the citizens' burden, noting he was not a telecommunications engineer. Qualifying his
statement, Councilmember Phillips noted he was attempting to determine the degree of credibility he should
be factoring into his decision-making, and thanking Mr. Van Zandt for his time, stated his question was
answered.
Mr. Van Zandt introduced Dr. Bill Curry, Ph.D. in Physics, a Physicist who had worked with the Argonne
National Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory as a researcher, is a Director of the M.R. Network,
a network of scientists and other concerned citizens across the country, focusing on electromagnetic
radiation issues, and is one of the principal authors of the Salzburg Resolution, an international resolution
passed last year by noted scientists, recommending to the world that they adopt more stringent standards
for radio frequency radiation exposure.
Dr. Bill Curry stated he and his wife, Dr. Gretchen Fleming, reside in the town of Glen Elen, Illinois,
approximately 20 miles west of Chicago; he is a retired Physicist, noting his Ph.D. was in Electrical
Engineering, not Physics; his Masters and Bachelor's Degrees were in Physics. Dr. Curry stated he was a
resident of the Bay Area some 30 years ago.
In evaluating the situation, Dr. Curry stated his first task was to locate the site, not being familiar with the
local terrain. Referring to slides, he identified his approximation of the MERA site on what he referred to as
the Dollar Hill portion of San Rafael Hill, as there are two summits. He stated he established a path along
which to carry out computations:
• path (a) a due eastward path toward the freeway;
• path (b) a straight line approximately along Dollar Drive up to the residences around Chula Vista;
• Path (c) along a direction which eventually crosses San Rafael Hill major summit.
He did not know the locations of the residences along these areas, as he could not correlate the addresses
given with positions on maps.
Using Slide 2, Dr. Curry stated the major disagreements between his calculations and those of Hammett &
Edison were the sources, and a question mark on the slide denoted where he had to make an educated
guess. He stated that the third slide he would be presenting would have footnotes indicating approximately
what the educated guesses were, and why it was necessary to make them.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 19
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 20
The current slide depicted as much inventory of antennas Dr. Curry presumed would be on the MERA
tower, which could be accumulated in terms of their frequencies and power levels, noting there was quite a
range of frequencies; the existing antennas in the fenced in area generally referred to as the MERA site and
the MERA antenna itself. He stated they were shown on the slide from 150 MHz up to 900 MHz, but it
should be borne in mind that the FCC standards are a function of frequency; therefore, he could not say
what the standard is for the lumped effect of all of this radiation. He added this was one of the problems
encountered in attempting to analyze the reports produced by Hammett & Edison, where only a percent of
the FCC standard was given, not radiation densities. This percent of FCC standards meant they were
weighted across the shaped response of the instrument, hence in endeavoring to do these calculations the
objective was to achieve absolute numbers, radiation density expressed as microwatts or milowatts per
square centimeter.
A subsequent slide alluded to antennas, which in Dr. Curry's original material, were intended to be kept
near MERA but not on the MERA tower and he pointed out there was a host of San Rafael Fire frequencies
with no indication of the power level. He, therefore, made some guesses of these power levels on the basis
of similar antennas; the total RF power emitted from all these antennas was 1175.
Returning to the preceding slide, Dr. Curry explained that the basic problem was the fact that the total of all
the information, combined with some of the guesses, produced a power level of 3580 watts effective
radiated power, which was intended for the MERA tower, but he now understood would not be. This, he
stated, disagreed violently with what he became aware of today, were Hammett & Edison's assumptions of
an initial 375 watts, then doubled to 700 watts'; however, he was open to correction on this. Combining all of
the antennas on and near the MERA site, noted Dr. Curry, and discarding all of those by which he had
inserted a question mark, the end result was nevertheless, more power than was stated in the papers
received today.
Continuing, Dr. Curry stated that the situation on the Turrini Tower (Westcom) was better in that there was
more definite data available; however, his estimates provided less than those of Hammett & Edison for the
total power level, adding they possibly had more information than he.
Digressing, Dr. Curry stated that Effective Radiated Power (ERP) had been discussed, together with
Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) and explaining these terms, Dr. Curry stated they are an effort to
give an understanding of what it means to have a radio signal, which is not going out isotropically, not
equally in all directions, but in effect, focused as the output of a light bulb can be focused by a glass lens.
Therefore, ERP means the power level referenced to some standard antenna. He referred to a red figure
on an antenna pattern chart from the manufacturer of the MERA antenna, and explained this was a
radiation pattern for an ideal Dipole antenna — an antenna which has size equal to one half wavelength — it
always gives a donut shape in the vertical plane; in the horizontal plane it emits radiation equally in all
directions. The actual MERA antenna, he stated, was what he referred to as a more ragged shape on the
chart, pointing out it had multiple lobes; where there were smooth contours, some ragged lobes were
extending, which would be responsible for a hot spot, being a downward projected area in which the gain of
the antenna was higher than it would be for the ideal dipole antenna; this meant the gain would have a plus
figure. This, Dr. Curry stated, was a logarithmic scale, the gain being measured in decibels. To do the
calculations, this gain has to be converted into gain relative to isotropic emission, and subsequently, the
effective isotropic radiated power is calculated. He noted there are places where the gain is very low and
where the antenna would radiate much less than an actual ideal dipole antenna, and referred to places
where the lobes extend outward and inward.
In order to calculate the radiation density properly, Dr. Curry stated that a determination needed to be made
of what the elevation angle would be that an observer, in any given position, would have in terms of the line
of sight to the antenna; the angle between the horizon and the line of site between the observer and the
antenna and then either read the gain off a plot or hopefully, have a computer program which would have
the data stored, which is what Hammett & Edison uses. Unfortunately, he stated, he had to read it off the
plot, which was the tedious part of the procedure.
Calling attention to a slide, Dr. Curry stated this was his calculation of the radiation from MERA alone, which
was 1,800 watts power output and he warned not to be confused by the variation in radiation density as this
was a distant scale, not a linear scale. Dr. Curry stated he had put many more points for calculations close
to MERA than he did way back, alluding to the chart, and on account of the lobe structure previously
mentioned, there was a hot spot in the area. Blue, red and yellow graphs representing assumptions
regarding whether the ground was reflecting and how much were presented. The FCC, he stated, uses a
standard factor of 2.56, which means the ground is reflecting 60% of the radiation, which impinges upon it.
The blue curve shown assumes 0 reflectivity, which means the ground is not reflecting, and the red curve
assumes the FCC value. The yellow curve assumes 100% reflection, which he stated one would approach
on a very rainy day, as the electrical conductivity of the ground increases by orders of magnitude in the
presence of water.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 20
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 21
He illustrated the MERA contribution along path A, the Eastward path. Referring to the first hot spot, he
stated it was pretty big when the effects of all the other sources were taken into account, including the
Turrini tower sources, and it rapidly declines going down the hill. It was agreed, he stated, that when
reaching the residences these calculations did not indicate that there would be significantly large radiation
densities; what these calculations and those of Hammett & Edison, do not include is the possibility of
ground wave effects, which Dr. Curry stated eventually would have to be taken into consideration.
He illustrated his calculation along Dollar Drive, Path B, which is a straight-line approximation, with the
MERA effect dropping off very rapidly. The yellow section, which indicated approximately what could be
expected on a rainy day, was quite a bit higher, almost to the FCC standard for the frequency of the
radiation which MERA would employ.
Another slide depicted the total sources, including the effect of the Turrini tower, indicating its location,
where he stated it could be seen there were 3 hot spots. There was nothing surprising about this, stated Dr.
Curry, as he assumed the Turrini tower sources, because so many were radiating in different directions,
were effectively isotropic radiation.
Referring to MERA radiation along Path C, Dr. Curry stated that Path C goes somewhat west of Turrini
tower and eventually ends up somewhere in the Fairhills neighborhood. The same hot spot was present,
together with another smaller hot spot, and then the MERA radiation drops down very low.
Dr. Curry stated that with all the radiation sources included, the yellow curve was a little over 500
microwatts per squared centimeter. He depicted another hot spot up close to 100 microwatts per square
centimeter and stated that even though this is well below the FCC standards, there are a lot of people
suffering at such radiation levels, and should there be a discussion of anecdotal stories, he stated he had
met people on both coasts of this country and in Europe who suffer terribly from RF radiation.
Dr. Curry stated that the reason for presenting the current slide was to offer an argument for their being a
radiation enhancement larger than the 2.56 factor offered by the FCC. The 2.56 factor assumes 60%
reflection of the radiant fields and is based on work carried out by the EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) over a period of 5 — 10 years. This characterized the situation around FM antennas and on
antennas mounted on rooftops, and was basically an attempt to understand the hazardous environment,
which might exist for people servicing these. Dr. Curry stated that over a period of years, measurements
were accumulated, and this rough factor was decided upon; therefore, this is an average factor which does
not necessarily, apply to any one situation.
A geological map of the San Rafael area, presented by Dr. Curry, depicted what is approximately called the
Eastern end of San Rafael Hill and represented the entire eastern portion of the San Rafael hill ridge as
chert and shale; shale has a relatively higher electrical conductivity than a lot of other minerals; therefore,
Dr. Curry stated he was arguing for dry conditions where if the radiation enhancement factor is placed as a
function of elevation angle, a result is produced, alluding to a slide. He stated he did not know the electrical
properties of chert; however, he did check with Dr. Mike Lane, regarding its probabilities, and Dr. Lane
thought the shale properties were the best guess. Therefore, he stated that at certain elevation angles,
generally between 15 and 20 degrees, there is a radiation enhancement larger than the FCC value of 2.56.
Dr. Curry stated he had prepared other graphs which had materialized into slides, which illustrate what
happens when you assume the ground is wet and increase the conductivity by a factor of 100 - two peaks,
depicted in the slide, go significantly above the FCC level of 2.56. More important, stated Dr. Curry, is the
fact that this was carried out at the MERA frequency, and this radiation enhancement factor depends on the
height above ground, the frequency of radiation and the elevation angle of the observer. Therefore, doing
likewise at twice the frequency would mean twice as many peaks, with more of them extending above that
line. His interpretation of this was that with all the different frequencies all over Dollar Hill, there would
probably be a lot of peaks, if all the plots were included, above the 2.56 figure. His educated guess, he
stated, is that this factor varies between approximately 3 and 4, going from dry to wet conditions. This,
therefore, was his argument to verify that the yellow curve is probably more representative of the actual
situation than the curve based on the FCC's 2.56 factor, which assumes 60% reflection.
Vice -Mayor Miller thanked Dr. Curry.
Councilmember Phillips commented he had a son who is an aeronautical engineer whom he found difficult
to understand and confirming he had some difficulty following the curves, etc. Referencing the yellow curve
in the presentation, which could not be seen, he stated this was not possibly the best approach. He stated
he had inquired earlier if there was a generally accepted process to go through, to which Mr. Neumann of
Hammett & Edison, had replied there was, and which he followed. He inquired if Dr. Curry had followed the
generally accepted process and if so, why the different conclusions, and if there was professional courtesy
in his occupation for communication on the differing results. This, he stated was important in making an
informed decision.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 21
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 22
Responding, Dr. Curry stated that the difference was because of the fact that neither party knew what the
sources were; therefore, each had to make some guesses and utilize as much material as was found. He
stated that the material Mr. Van Zandt compiled from the City and MERA did include some licenses, from
which he was able to obtain some information. He made some guesses in the case of antennas which did
not show the power level, on the basis of the similarity to those in some of the licenses.
He was not aware until this morning that Hammett & Edison had used much lower power levels on the
sources in and around the MERA area; they had agreed fairly well with those on the Turrini tower as there
was some data available — his was an underestimate at 10,560 watts effective radiated power, with
Hammett & Edison having something like 15,000; therefore, he omitted something, adding he was
stumbling around in the dark in terms of all the properties of the Fire and Police antennas. There was one
pubic service antenna listed for the MERA site, which was not either Fire or Police; therefore, he did not
know if there were additional antennas for hospitals and ambulances.
Councilmember Phillips confirmed that there was quite a lot of information Dr. Curry was lacking in his
presentation, "stumbling around in the dark" striking him as not being very scientific; therefore, he was
wondering how much reliance to place upon Dr. Curry's input.
In reply, Dr. Curry stated that if the antennas for which he had a question mark were eliminated totally,
those remaining would still add up to a power level higher than what was seen in the documents received
this morning, which indicated Hammett & Edison's assumptions.
Councilmember Phillips stated he would be curious if he were in Dr. Curry's shoes as to why the results
would be so much different from another professional.
Dr. Curry stated he was curious and in fact, had limited contact with Mr. Hammett through e-mail and a
telephone call, eventually getting together, where Mr. Hammett explained why he could not furnish any
absolute numbers regarding the radiation density which they had measured, because of the shaped
response of the instrument, and could only get the percent of FCC standards. Dr. Curry stated he inquired
regarding the percent of which FCC standard — 890 MGz, 200 MGz or 400 MGz, and the information Mr.
Hammett sent by e-mail was what he could have read off the figure; this was the extent of the
communication, noted Dr. Curry.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would assume that further response would be heard regarding the
assumptions in terms of the data; therefore, he would not enter into speculation regarding why the numbers
differ; however, he wanted to be clear in his understanding that it appeared that even based on assuming
100% reflection, on a very rainy day when the ground is saturated, the peaks appear to occur at about 20
feet; therefore, if he was standing 20 feet from the source of the radiation on a very wet day he might
experience this peak, and at 60 — 80 feet away, they drop off to almost zero. This, he stated, seemed to
be the consistent pattern on the charts and requested confirmation on this.
Dr. Curry stated this was a consequence of the fact that not knowing the distribution of the sources and,
especially not knowing parameters such as the gain patterns for the other sources, he lumped them all onto
the MERA tower. Councilmember Cohen stated that the impacts referred to appear consistently to occur in
close proximity to the antennas. Dr. Curry confirmed this, adding that if this were redone and the
information for all the sources was available, it could be expected to be broadened, because those sources
do occupy a significant region, and more than that occupied by the MERA tower. He stated this is a
deficiency he could not remedy because of insufficient information and time. Alluding to the paper read this
morning from Hammett & Edison, they used the practice of lumping sources together in the same location
also, putting them at a slightly different height than his 25 -foot height for MERA.
Libby Kelley, Consultant to San Rafael neighbors concerned about the MERA application approved by the
San Rafael Planning Commission, stated she was present this evening in support of their appeal. She
stated she was also the Executive Director of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, based in Novato
and is a resident of Marin County, living in Novato. Ms. Kelley stated she is a citizen who has been
challenging the FCC policy and the Federal Telecommunications Act in court. In 1997 they had a case
which went to the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the FCC rules governing human exposure to radio
frequency radiation; that appeal was denied by the Appeals Court in February 2000. Another case went to
the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Communications Act of 1996, under
Section 704, and taking issue with the limited ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to fulfil its
mission to guarantee the public health and safety from antennas. That case also, was turned away by the
U.S. Supreme Court, denying certiorari. She stated they were reconsidering their options at this point and
were certainly not stopping, noting she was one of the founding members of the Electromagnetic Radiation
Network Board, which Dr Curry is also with. Ms. Kelley commented they are citizens and professionals
concerned about the safety of radio frequency radiation.
Her purpose this evening, reported Ms. Kelley, was to review the science on radio frequency radiation; she
had been following the issue in Marin County closely and had been commenting on the commercial wireless
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 22
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 23
facilities and now the public safety facilities. To her, she stated the issues are similar in that if one is
concerned about health, as she is, to look at the body of research on radio frequency radiation, as she had,
and with her public health background, she felt obliged to report that the citizens of Marin County are
potentially placed at risk when antennas are sited near homes and schools. There is a body of research
Ms. Kelly noted, which shows there could be harmful effects. Confirming she had a Masters Degree in
Health Administration and formerly worked with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in
Washington D.C. She stated she had seen major public health issues from the inside of Government and
how they had been addressed, and believed this issue was yet another one of those major public health
issues which needed to be addressed.
She stated she would address this issue in the context of the science of the public policy and confirmed this
was an international issue, with the same discussion taking place in towns across the country.
Using a chart, Ms. Kelley explained this was a comparative chart of international standards set around the
world for radio frequency radiation exposure at frequencies between 800 and 900 MGz. She pointed out
there was quite a difference; and referenced Salzberg in Austria, which represents approximately 1.3 -million
people. The Salzburg Resolution last June, where Dr. Curry spoke, adopted a single standard for what is
considered the safe threshold for exposure from all sources, at .1 microwatts per centimeter squared, for all
pulsed RF signals, which includes all the sources of RF radiation, not just each antenna. This is quite
different than the U.S. standard, which is based on each licensed permitted antenna.
The other countries, she stated, go up from there: Switzerland had adopted a precautionary standard of 4.2,
China 6.6; there are a lot of internal standards which vary; these are at the 800 and 900 MGz, Italy at 10
and the United States and Canada are around 580 microwatts per centimeter squared. The U.S. standard
is a lot higher than the other countries, reported Ms. Kelly, and one of the reasons for this is that the other
countries have looked at the science and have taken the position that, based on precautionary reasons,
they would prefer to have these emissions as low as possible. The U.S. standard is also that shared by the
move to set an international standard which is being supported by the U.S. military and the International
Commission on Radiation standard setting (NCIRP). The FCC standard which is 200 microwatts per
centimeter squared from the cellular antennas, is based on research which was published prior to 1985.
She stated Mr. Hammett was heard to describe that these standards are revised periodically; the last time
being 1999, but since the people who determine these standards are basically engineers and not public
health people, or medical doctors, they tend to be based more on signal, and on the engineering
relationship of getting signal out, as opposed to the science that looks at the effects of non thermal radiation
on human health and the environment. These standards, she stated, do not take into account the digital
signals, nor do they consider chronic exposure. These features have been pointed out repeatedly by
government scientists, FEPA, FCC, NIOSH, OSHA, EPA and FDA. In June, 1999, they wrote to the IEEE
(Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers) requesting when revising the standards, to take non -
thermal exposure, chronic exposures and digital signals into account, as well as the effects on people who
are sensitive. She concurred with Dr. Curry, as both being in this field, they know of a lot of anecdotal
stories which indicate there are people who are experiencing health symptoms; some of these people are
medically diagnosed as being sensitive and just experiencing symptoms; some of these people reside in
Marin County, she noted.
Moving to the second chart which addresses the health studies, Ms. Kelley stated the studies she would
describe relate to tissue absorption of between 25 microwatts per centimeter squared and 120 microwatts
per centimeter squared, as these are parallel to the kinds of ERP levels which Dr. Curry had found
surrounding the Turrini and MERA towers. These exposure conditions are all well within the FCC
standards; they are roughly between 12% and 60% of standard and parenthetically, she added, FCC
standards are always frequency dependent. Some of the studies would refer to different frequencies which
may or may not be relative to the MERA frequencies, but when all the antennas on the hilltop are combined,
studies would be found to compare with some of these frequencies.
The first study on the chart by Belokrinitskiy found that at very low levels of exposure, 10 — 25
microwatts per centimeter squared, there were changes in the hippocampus of the brain. This study
was accepted by IEEE and is on their list of finalist papers.
• The second study by Veyret found immune system effects at 30 microwatts per centimeter squared.
Veyret found that exposure to very low power pulse microwaves significantly effects the immune system
and especially, with amplitude modulated frequencies, such as the MERA system.
Study No. 3 was at 50 microwatts per centimeter squared, which is by Mann, and one of the many sleep
studies carried out. It shows that there were qualitative differences in the sleep of the individuals
exposed to the fields, both in terms of the duration of sleep and the wakefulness they had during the
night, and in the morning EEGs carried out showed altered brain waves, even though the exposure had
taken place the previous night. Ms. Kelley mentioned there were many other sleep studies, one of
which exposed people the night before going to sleep and measured EEGs in the morning, with similar
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 23
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 24
results. What happens with these people, she noted, is that they lose rim sleep, which slows them
down, their brain does not process information adequately, and could affect function, learning, the ability
to drive a car or respond to an emergency; therefore, rim sleep is very important and these exposures
could interfere with that.
• The 4t" study, by Elekes, states that at 100 microwatts per centimeter squared, changes were found in
immune function, again at amplitude -modulated RFR signals.
• The final study, at 120 microwatts per centimeter squared, by Salford, carried out in 1993 and replicated
10 times, represents the pathological change in the blood brain barrier. The blood brain barrier,
reported Ms. Kelley, has a vital role in the body to exclude toxins from the blood stream from reaching
sensitive brain areas; this barrier is known to protect the brain from toxic or other harmful compounds. It
is selectively permeable, allowing some molecules to pass but restricting others.
Continuing, Ms. Kelly noted there had been studies showing that when the blood brain barrier is breached,
blood products and other toxins, seep through into the brain and this is viewed by many scientists as a
possible cause of certain viral cancers. A replication of this study in July of last year, reported in the
Bioelectromagnetics magazine, stated that even at 2 minutes of exposure the cellular studies showed
changes in the blood brain barrier. The scientists concluded, therefore, that the study showed there was a
relationship between these exposures and the use of wireless telecommunications.
Scientists like Dr. Henry Lyle, reported Ms. Kelly, have projected that the long-term low intensity exposures
to radio frequency radiation from wireless facilities, antennas and towers, are equal to the short-term high
intensity exposure conditions from holding a cell phone, or wireless local area network device, close to the
body or head periodically. It is the same radiation, same frequencies, the exposure conditions are different,
but ultimately over time, she stated, it may have the same effects on the biological system.
Ms. Kelley produced a scan of the human head from an engineering study carried out by Dr. Owen Ghandi
at the University of Utah, stating that the study depicted three human head models: a male head, a ten year
old head in the center, and a five year old head at the bottom.
• The male head is legal, she stated; the exposure condition shows a certain amount of energy
penetration into the brain when the model head has a cell phone by the ear, emphasizing that the red
and yellow parts depict the most intense radiation.
• The center model, the ten year brain - here the radiation absorption into this brain is approximately 30%
greater than for the male head.
• The five-year-old brain represents a radiation absorption of 70% of the child's brain.
Ms. Kelley reported that even though the human male head is receiving approximately 10% radiation, it is
considered a legal exposure, according to the current FCC standards of 1.6 watts per kilogram. What the
child is absorbing under the same experimental conditions is not a safe human exposure, and over time that
child's brain could be subject to neurological and behavioral changes which could lead eventually, to other
health problems, including cancer.
Another study Ms. Kelley alluded to concerned the watts per kilogram exposures with hand held devices, as
this involves behavioral change and related to her point regarding chronic exposures to cell towers, which
some scientists believe, may eventually have the same impact. Deandrea found that performance of
cognitive tasks may be disrupted at levels of exposure lower than required, due to thermal effects of RF
exposure. Unlike the disruption of performance of a simple task, the disruption of cognitive function could
lead to profound errors in judgment, due to alteration to perception, disruption of memory processes,
attention and learning ability, which could result in modified, if not totally disruptive behavior. This, stated
Ms. Kelly, is one of the few studies, which looks at the effects on behavior from this type of radiation.
Regarding public policy, Ms. Kelly stated research is needed, as there is no independent research in this
country. Efforts are being made to enact legislation to do this, the bill in California made it through the
Senate and Assembly Health Committee, but failed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in August.
That bill, she stated, would have authorized the California State Health Department to conduct a review of
this body of research. Bill Hammett is correct, she stated, there is one study which states no harm and
another study which shows harm. There are a lot of science wars concerning good, bad and junk science
but what we need to know is what the position is of the public health agency who has looked at the data.
This has been done in Britain and that is why the Stuart report resulted in policy changes now being
implemented by the British Government, to limit cell phone use, especially for children and only in
emergencies and not to put wireless facilities close to homes. In this country, reported Ms. Kelley, it is not
possible to do this until this kind of research review is available.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 24
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 25
The Marin Telecommunications policy, noted Ms. Kelley, issued a statement to the effect that they would
practice prudent avoidance in siting wireless facilities, and inquired if siting the MERA and Turrini towers
near these residences is practicing prudent avoidance in Marin County. She stated she believed it was not,
and hoped her remarks would be taken into consideration. She hoped the recommendations made by Mr.
Van Zandt, Attorney for the residents, and the analyses provided by Dr. Curry, would be taken into account.
Councilmember Heller, referring to Chart #1 which depicted a system based on 800 — 900 MGz, stated that
our system is in the 420 — 450 MGz range and inquired if this meant the same. Responding, Ms. Kelly
stated that all the standards are frequency dependent, as explained by Dr. Curry. The MERA system, she
confirmed, is not based on 800 or 900 but many of the commercial facilities located up there are, adding it
was a cell phone frequency. Councilmember Heller confirmed with Ms. Kelly that the Radio System was not
a cell phone frequency.
Councilmember Phillips inquired if applying Ms. Kelly's standards would result in the complete elimination of
all of our public safety radio systems. Responding, Ms. Kelly stated that not being an engineer she could
not technically advise on this, adding her advice was to not put these near homes, and there were
alternatives which should be examined by people who understood engineering.
Bruce Gurney, Citizen of San Rafael, 85 Oakmont Avenue, Member of the Fairhills Area, referred to the
intensity map shown by Hammett & Edison and stated that the location where the intensity in the
surrounding neighborhood was greatest, he noted with some horror, was probably very close to his
residence. Last week, he faxed his comments, thoughts and concerns and hoped the Councilmembers had
an opportunity to evaluate them, and that they would be entered in the record. Therefore, the comments he
would make this evening would address other issues.
Mr. Gurney stated that his first comment pertained to the Environmental Impact Report, a copy of which he
obtained last year and had read. He stated it was a substantial document and did not presume that
Councilmembers had read significant parts of it. He was not an expert on CEQA, he noted, nor some of the
other issues described, but considered himself a thoughtful and reasoned person and had done his best to
thoughtfully read the EIR. He deduced it was inadequate and incomplete, particularly with respect to the
issue of hazards, and noting the review presented by MERA, various criteria were applied to the siting of
these antennas, geography and impact on sensitive species. However, he stated that note should be taken
that one particular sensitive species, homosapiens, was not included anywhere in that list, and he thought,
therefore, that a significant omission in the area of hazards assessment, had been made by the EIR.
Mr. Gurney noted presentations had been made by a number of participants this evening concerning health
effects and the standard applied by the FCC, and there was mention of thermal and non -thermal radiation.
He wished to inform the Council of his understanding of that difference, to enable them to comprehend what
the FCC standard meant for them should they stand near one of the towers. He stated he understood the
FCC standard to apply to thermal effects, the effect in a microwave oven when cooking, and a rise in
temperature. It should be understood, however, that there are other effects of radiation, such as when
exposed to an x-ray, one does not feel warmer, yet there are significant biological and chemical changes
occurring in the body, which are recognized and understood, but the exposure to that kind of radiation is
limited. Correspondingly, he stated, it is known that to spend too much time in the sun would produce a
sunburn, but it is also understood that significantly lower exposures, which do not raise the temperature of
the skin, but when accumulated over time, can result in skin cancer. He stated it was important to
recognize that the standard being applied by the FCC is a pretty relaxed standard when long-term exposure
is considered.
As was seen, noted Mr. Gurney, other countries had taken a much more prudent stand and issued a
reminder that the present discussion was regarding whether we are 50% below or a factor of 2 above a
standard which addresses very aggressive temperature rise effects on the body. In his opinion, Mr. Gurney,
stated whether we are a little below or a little above is not the issue, we are close to a pretty relaxed
standard, and there was a need to recognize that in the present open space we are going to be exposing
people to ever larger amounts of radiation, if there is not concern to limit that radiation.
His first point therefore, was that human health was not considered in the EIR, which in his opinion, is a very
significant defect.
The second issue of concern to Mr. Gurney was fire, explaining that the existence of generators and the fuel
for them on the hill, has not been included in the EIR and that constitutes a very significant fire hazard,
noting that should one of the tanks explode in a fire, there would be a very significant impact on the
firefighters, residents and all involved.
Mr. Gurney noted that a lot of discussion had been heard this evening regarding the total exposure and
what was clear to him was that exposure is very close to, if not exceeding the standard, which is of real
concern.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 25
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 26
Still focusing on the EIR, Mr. Gurney stated another area where it falls short is in its assessment of the
aesthetics; he did not expect MERA or County residents to understand the particular excitement and pride
that the residents of San Rafael have concerning the Mission, the hill behind the Mission and the aesthetics
of San Rafael Hill. It is proposed to place an antenna on San Rafael Hill because it is a prominent location,
but this coin has another side, as that particular hill is visible to many people, including people coming
through San Rafael on Highway101. He wondered what message was being sent if one of the true jewels in
our topography is not protected for present residents, their children and for the aesthetics of all. He stated it
was an intrusion into a beautiful open space and hoped Councilmembers had a chance at some point, to
have ventured up there to see the beautiful view of the surrounding bay, adding it would be a shame, if at
the same time, we were exposing people unnecessarily to health hazards.
Another defect in the EIR, noted Mr. Gurney was with regard to the alternative locations, which he felt were
not adequately investigated, noting that the data presented this evening, described as a compilation of
reports and investigations carried out, were woefully inadequate, at least in convincing him that those
alternative sites were really considered, without putting forward a reason. He had a problem with the whole
process taken by MERA in bringing this to the City of San Rafael, opining that the process was backwards.
He stated it was now being requested that we decide whether it is a good or bad idea, pursuant to
identifying the sites, putting together the program, spending a lot of money on engineering and as he
understood it, actually bought the equipment, valued at tens of millions of dollars. He would have chosen to
consult with citizens, members of the City staff, Planning Commission and perhaps the City Council, in
advance, whereas now it is presented as a fate accompli, with a request for approval, which sends the
wrong message.
Referring to John Roberto's statement that no community input on the sites was sought, Mr. Gurney felt
there should have been, noting he was not consulted nor to his knowledge, were any of the residents. He,
therefore, believed that with his interpretation of the EIR, it is inadequate, there is not sufficient knowledge
of what is being placed on the hill; enough thought has not been given as to whether this is the correct place
to site the antenna, and having proceeded so far into the project, he felt it was less likely that alternatives
would be considered in a fresh way. He did not see any overseeing from the County to ensure that an
adequate job had been done, having chosen this path so early, and he did not feel that there had been any
body available to ensure that this is in the public interest of the County. The City Council, however, was
such a body, he stated, who could review the evidence, having the privilege and pleasure of dreaming the
dream of what San Rafael would be like in the future. You are our visionaries, he commented, who have
been elected to represent the community and he urged them to consider San Rafael in the biggest and
broadest sense. It was in their power to move in the direction of RF hazards, or a safe living environment;
there was a responsibility to act on behalf of San Rafael residents. He stated that MERA is a County
agency coming with a request, and his request to the City Council was to consider that request in the light
of, and on behalf of, the citizens of San Rafael.
Referring to Acting Police Chief Cronin's statement that he wanted a technology which extended back to the
middle of the last century, Mr. Gurney stated he wanted a technology which would extend 50 years into the
new millennium, and was concerned that this system was antiquated and there would be regret that it was
chosen, in light of advances in telecommunications, suggesting that perhaps an independent assessment of
available alternatives should be obtained.
In conclusion, Mr. Gurney stated he wished to make it personal for the City Council, asking them to consider
how they would explain to their spouse, family, children or friends why they would be willing to live so close
to a tower such as this, so close to a cluster of radiation which either comes close to, or in spots, exceeds
the FCC regulations. He asked them to consider what it would be like to take a walk along that path
knowing what they now know, and act accordingly.
Complimenting Mr. Gurney on an eloquent presentation, and noting he had a Ph.D., Councilmember Heller
inquired what his discipline was. Responding, Mr. Gurney stated he had a Ph.D. in Physics from Cornell
University.
On a point of order, Mr. Gurney stated he had received two letters from individuals who had to leave earlier,
which he submitted for the record.
Councilmember Cohen reiterated Councilmember Heller's remarks on the eloquence of Mr. Gurney's
presentation, and stated he wished to assure him that he and his colleagues made a valiant effort to read
the approximate 1,500 pages before him, including the EIR and the 500 plus pages in this evening's staff
report, which included Mr. Gurney's letter.
Noemi Bolvary, resident stated she submitted a letter and also chose to submit the letter she forwarded to
the Planning Commission. She is a homeowner and not an expert on either telecommunications;
engineering or physics and it would be noted from her letter that she is not scientific. The matter came to
her attention in the spring of 2000, and it should be noted from the information received from John Roberto
that the community involvement may have happened, but without their knowledge. She stated that at the
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 26
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 27
time they came to the first set of meetings hosted by the City, they were able to sit in on a meeting but were
told that the EIR was complete and final and could not be questioned. They asked the question "What's up
there, can we find out and is it harmful to us"? As of the testimony today, and even with Dr. Curry, whom
they hired to procure this information and represent an independent opinion, Ms. Bolvary stated there still
was no information. She would submit that this was completely inadequate, the City needed to provide the
information and they themselves, in order to be responsible, needed to have the information, to enable
them to make a public policy decision.
Noting there were several interests involved, including the emergency services, and hoping she was clear in
her letter when she expressed they absolutely respect and appreciate the services of all the departments
and there was no question that they are dealing with old equipment and would appreciate something more
up to date, this was very much understood and no homeowner had any ideas contrary to this. The question,
however, is how to implement something that also considers the interests of the homeowners, their property
values, health values, neighborhood standards, the laws the City already has, and how these could be
combined with the request from the emergency services to have up-to-date equipment. She stressed that
the EIR from MERA has completely excluded people; if this were pastureland with nothing but cows at the
designated sites this would be a correct way to proceed, she stated.
Noting that Fairhills had 180 homes with the surrounding neighborhoods on the southern and eastern down
slope having approximately 300 — 400 other homes, Ms. Bolvary stated there is a significant density of
people living at very close range; each one of these homes would see the antennas on a daily basis, noting
she had exhibits of what could be seen from her windows; therefore, there were a lot of people affected,
both visually and in health terms. She stated a lot was heard concerning health effects and confirmed that
she had described this in her letter to be an involuntary exposure; it was not similar to smoking where to do
so bring consequences, rather it was more analogous to second-hand smoke, in that one may not be using
a cell phone, but the towers were shooting out radiation, and the scary situation was that her house could
not protect her. She noted it was not similar to x-rays performed at a hospital, rather this was analogous to
an x-ray machine coming into her house. She stated she used this comparison to demonstrate that they, as
neighbors, were aware of the growing threat of this antenna farm, and as of now, are still unaware of what
they face, but are scared.
She reported she had developed a mistrust of the MERA information because of their withholding of what
would have been relevant information, information which could have been supplied in February of last year,
or in May when they attended the first meeting, to enable them to procure an independent opinion. The
result of having received inadequate information and several times, misleading information has made the
issue even more worrisome with the progression of time. MERA has a vested interest, she stated, as the
money has been expended, in her estimation $21 -million was spent several years ago, with the equipment
sitting in storage, and now there is an urgency to install it because the Fire and Police Departments need it.
Referring to the last page of her letter which specified some action items, Ms. Bolvary stated this is the
procedure they feel should have been followed at the beginning of the process, and was MERA's job to do.
That had not been done, the EIR was incomplete, inadequate and misleading. She reiterated:
• The MERA application should be rejected;
• MERA be directed to find alternative sites, residents were not considered nor were San Rafael's
requirements and her request was to have MERA return to do that job, but since their previous effort
proved ineffective, she requested that the City Council obtain all the relevant data requested and
make it public;
• As it was done with taxpayer money; therefore, it was their entitlement to review this;
• The City should obtain an independent assessment of the antennas and the alternative sites.
In representing lots of neighbors, including the dozens who had to leave, and having attended many lengthy
meetings, she was requesting that the City Council obtain independent verification of the results, stating
they did not trust MERA, having earned their distrust through the processes already experienced. Today
she stated the testimony of scientists was heard which speaks for itself.
She also requested that the City enact a moratorium on the installation of the RF and microwave antennas
until there is a comprehensive plan. She stated MERA would love to divide and conquer but her house and
the path receives the radiation daily from all of the antennas, and at this point there are approximately 60 —
70 antennas. She explained that not evaluating the big picture perhaps meant being misled by MERA.
Everyone believed the emergency services should have up-to-date communication, stated Ms. Bolvary;
however, whatever is installed would probably remain there for 20 or 30 years. 50 years ago when these
antennas were installed, she stated, they began with one antenna and these were now up to 80, combining
the two towers. Also it should be considered that given the growth of the wireless industry, there may be
applications for up to 200 more antennas and wondered where this would stop.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 27
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 28
She requested the Council step back from installing these on San Rafael Hill, and request MERA to find an
alternative site. She wondered, however, how San Rafael Hill would be utilized and where the appropriate
locations would be for current and future wireless antenna facilities. .
Calling Ms. Bolvary's attention to the letter she submitted, Councilmember Heller confirmed it had been
read by all very thoroughly; however, the paragraph which discussed the older residents in the
neighborhood and their fear that their services would be cut off, disturbed her. She felt it was such a
disservice that such a rumor would be initiated, and requested guidance on what the City could do to
reassure everyone that should there be any health or safety emergencies, the Police and Fire would be
there within minutes.
Ms. Bolvary's response was to the effect that addressing the issue had helped and she appreciated
Councilmember Heller's having read her letter in detail, stating she needed to bring it to the City Council's
attention lest they not be informed by MERA or City staff, and was an issue which affects the majority of
homeowners, especially those in her Homeowners Association.
Responding to Councilmember Phillips inquiry on how far Ms. Bolvary lived from the proposed site, she
stated she lived on Fairhills and was not sure of the distance. Councilmember Phillips, alluding to Dr.
Curry's table and assuming Ms. Bolvary lived at a 1,200 foot distance, pointed out that according to the
graph she was at virtually zero impact and yet the picture she was portraying was x-rays would be
bombarding her residence, and wondered if this was reflective of Dr. Curry or an overstatement.
Ms. Bolvary stated she did not believe the MERA information was a spot measurement and Dr. Curry's
calculations were different. Her point was both were still dealing with incomplete data and furthermore,
even the levels she believed she was exposed to would be considered illegal in many of the other countries
where decisions have already been made. In the United States, the laws and standards are old but those
who have made more recent decisions would already consider our exposure at our distance dangerous,
and this was the concern.
Not wishing to debate the point, Councilmember Phillips stated that to look at the graph clearly this
conclusion could not be drawn; expressing this was an overstatement. Ms. Bolvary stated more would be
known when both produced full data and their conclusions, which was why she was requesting that the City
Council demand the full inventory to carry out the calculations.
Mr. Van Zandt, Resident and Attorney for the residents, stated this concluded his presentation.
Vice -Mayor Miller declared there would be a five-minute recess.
Resuming, Vice -Mayor Miller declared the Public Hearing opened, and reminded those in attendance there
had been four (4) hours of full blown testimony; the materials presented had been read and it was the desire
of the City Council to hear from everyone who wished to speak but if the point had already been made, he
urged speakers to be brief; he would be maintaining a strict three (3) minute time limit for presentations.
As Ms. Mary Ellen Irwin was ill and needed to return to her home, he invited her to speak at the outset.
Mary Ellen Irwin, 34 Wildwood Way, San Rafael stated it was hard to follow the experts and effective
speakers but she did wish to be a memory bank in view of all that was said. This is an area which is full of
fire and new equipment has been needed for at least ten to twelve years, she stated. One of the worst fires
since moving into her home, noted Ms. Irwin, and there have been four, was on San Rafael Hill in 1991 and
to jog memories she introduced a map depicting where Fairhills is, with the designation of fire culpability:
• White normal
• Yellow had fire danger
• Orange a great deal of fire danger
• Red extremely high fire danger
Chula Vista Area, San Rafael Hill, Fairhills and Rafael Highlands were all in the red area.
Ms. Irwin introduced a picture depicting a view of the 1991 fire from her backyard, which, she stated, started
on San Rafael Hill and swept over the hill, It portrayed flames, smoke and a view down from her home on
the plane dropping material to extinguish the fire. She stated the fire came to within 200 feet of her home
and closer to many others. The difficulty of communications between fire departments was similar then.
The third picture depicted a variety of fire engines in the Wildwood Way cul de sac. From some of these
pictures, she noted, firefighters could be seen over on San Rafael Hill who could not communicate.
She emphasized it is time to install the equipment, to enable its use by the emergency services. Radio
communications are constantly upgraded and she felt that in 10 years the same conversation would be
taking place on the need to have a further improved system, but presently, we own this system and are
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 28
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 29
desperately in need of it; all of San Rafael is subject to east winds, which is when such fires happen. There
has been a reprieve for approximately 3 — 4 years, with many new residents never having lived through one
of these fires, but when the wind whips up and one smells smoke, she stated, "the car is loaded and turned
round to face out', and when told to evacuate they have no hesitation in so doing. She instances last year's
fire on San Rafael Hill, which occurred at night, and when neighbors arrived she and her husband were
loading their car.
Patrick Murphy, President of Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association stated he was a member of
the Steering Committee of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. He had been involved in the
project since the beginning, when MERA came to the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and laid out
their plans for this project. At that meeting there were approximately 40 people, as there was great concern
at that time concerning health. He got involved; however, he could not spearhead the drive and concern
with health, yet other people picked up this banner and carried it. This, he stated, is still a live issue which
has never really been addressed, according to many people. He stated he saw a parallel between the
Caltrans meeting and the MERA project; the science or lack thereof, was for scientists to address. He had
talked to Police Officers and they need this system, as was confirmed by the Fire Chief and Acting Police
Chief this evening, but he had a problem with access to the site, stating he receives phone calls weekly
from residents on Chula Vista regarding trucks. He requested that the present sites be maintained, adding
this has been documented and is a problem which should be addressed. Peripheral concerns relate to the
use permit for the Turrini site which is due for review in approximately 3 — 4 months and Mr. Murphy stated
they would like to have some public input on the conditions of that use permit in the future.
The Design Review Board in a November meeting asked City staff to map out all the locations of the
cellular towers in the City and he hoped this had been undertaken. These were his major concerns relating
to this project and its peripheral concerns, adding the project was for public safety and he endorsed it as an
individual and as an organization.
June Hitchner, 22 Chula Vista, stated her home is closest to the Westcom towers and across the hill from
San Pedro Ridge. She stated she walks San Rafael Hill with a neighbor 7 days per week and works outside
in her garden almost every day. She believed that since she is outside so much her exposure to radiation
from the towers is much higher than being behind closed doors. Her neighborhood, she reported, was
experiencing changes since she moved to this location 11 years ago. Older families are selling to younger
people with children and she questioned if these children would be affected in the future from radiation.
Every time a cell site is installed at Westcom tower the radiation goes up.
Ms. Hitchner stated she randomly picked a week in December to assess how many cars pass her house
entering San Rafael cell sites; she counted 17 vehicles in a five day period; there could have been more,
she commented. The cell sites on Westcom tower are maintained regularly and traffic is constant 7 days
per week. San Rafael Hill, she stated, had become a vehicle service road. When workers enter to service
these cell sites, they leave garbage behind, which she had documented. Garbage was left throughout the
months of November and December and she had called and had the garbage removed. "Our beautiful park
is a disgrace to the residents who reside there and who love it", she noted. She invited the City Council to
take what she said under consideration, submitting a picture.
George Huff, Fairhills resident, stated that he was in general support of the appellants and the points
outlined by Michael Van Zandt and the other speakers, adding that this was a classic cost benefit type
analyses, between two competing issues of current public safety. A new radio system is needed, which
nobody was debating, but in order to has a cost benefit decision we have to have a reasonable semblance
of the cost; the benefits were obvious. Dr. Curry and Mr. Neumann had made educated guesses but the
residents would like to know the cost in terms of health. He stated it would be interesting to know what the
exposure levels were when all the antennas, including the MERA antennas, were turned on and measured
at the nearest residence.
While understanding the urgency from the Police and Fire Departments' point of view, he felt an
independent study should have been carried out 6 months ago, thus alleviating the residents of the burden
of appearing to be delaying the radio system, when they simply want clarification on health implications.
Concluding, Mr. Huff stated the radiation of the antennas has got to be managed so that in 20 years this will
not be a City Council issue at 12:00 midnight.
Councilmember Cohen pointed out that it was a calculated exposure and the maximum rate was at 1.02%
of the federal standard and he would request staff clarify this at the conclusion of the public hearing.
Semi Salmi, 12 Oakmont Court concurred with George Huff and stated he did not have a problem with
antennas per se and did not dispute the need for a modern radio system for our emergency services, but
was concerned with proliferation of antennae and transmitters on or near the site. There is an apparent lack
of knowledge on the full extent and scope of the RF environment, he stated. The installations, on both sites,
have not been controlled or monitored adequately or at all, and life safety was indeed the issue. Virtually
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 29
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 30
all-new residents are moving in with children, he having three children under the age of 6 and he uses the
trails constantly.
He walks to work in downtown San Rafael most days on the trail system and was troubled by the notion of
fewer residents there and perhaps not in close proximity to the antennas. He questioned the
appropriateness of jeopardizing the health of a few for the greater good, and wondered what controls there
would be in place for future placement at Turrini and other sites, if any. He felt there was some process in
place for further monitoring, but questioned who would control future placements and what eventual level of
exposure was acceptable.
Dr. John E. Jansheski, Greenbrae, retired dentist, stated he had practiced dentistry in Mill Valley for 40
years. He now had a business in San Rafael and is very dependent on, and happy with, the Police and Fire
Services and would certainly wish to help make the service better. Dr. Jansheski stated that when in World
War II he had taught fixed station radio transmitting, and at that time the transmitters were as big as this
whole project. All of these have since been refined so well that it is tremendous to see how the radiation
has been reduced. He pointed out the electromagnetic radiation field has arms of radiation, in increasing
order of intensity:
• Radio frequency;
• Infrared
• Visible light/Sunlight
• Ultra Violet Light
• X-ray — ionized radiation
• Gamma Ray — ionized radiation.
With these forms of radiation, reported Dr. Jansheski, the least bothersome is radio.
Noting there are all kinds of radio waves, Dr. Jansheski stated he would like to dispel a myth with one basic
physical fact, which all the physicists present would have to agree on. The radiation at issue reduces
according to the inverse square of the distance one is away from it. To walk by Dollar Hill at a distance of
250 feet from radiation, Dr. Jansheski noted:
• 5 feet away would be 1/251h exposure;
• 100 feet away would be 1/10,0001h exposure.
He stated there is more radiation walking over that hill in the sunshine. He joined the City Council in placing
great importance on this and urged its passing.
Raymond Sladens, 36 Chula Vista, stated his residence is approximately half a mile from the proposed
towers. Being a retired architect and with knowledge of the environment, design and aesthetics, it appeared
to him that Marin County had two landmarks, Mt. Tamalpais and San Rafael Hill. He had seen old etchings
and paintings of how the hill appeared 100 years ago, and it was difficult to believe that the City of San
Rafael would allow this monstrosity to be built. Regardless of what is proposed, stated Mr. Sladens, he felt
sure it would grow branches and dishes and wires and would become an Eiffel Tower. He had lived in San
Francisco near Twin Peaks, where a small tower had evolved into a monstrous one, questioning if the same
would be true of San Rafael. There was abundant discussion on the safety of the community, Police and
Fire Departments, he noted, without mention of health safety. Technical facilities seemed to be of the
utmost importance and he felt a more human approach should be taken.
Mr. Sladens reported he had lived 40 years in his current home. He and his children walked the trails,
picking flowers; he does not do this any more because it is becoming an enclosed enclave and with the
proposed construction would become more and more congested. He reported that in the last ten years he
had noticed 3 cases of cancer in his nearest neighbors and with himself leukemia. He asked the City to
conduct a health survey of San Rafael Hill before permitting any more transmission towers.
Ann Clifford stated she was a resident of Fairhills for a week and two days, having lived in Gerstle Park for a
decade; her husband and his family are long time San Rafael residents. As new residents, she stated they
had made a commitment to stay in San Rafael because of the promise seen with the downtown facelift. She
was troubled to learn of the plans for San Rafael Hill and disturbed when she understood the lack of
baseline data available regarding the inventory of antennas on existing hills. She wondered why the
experts present had not physically counted these. She stated she failed to understand how a decision could
be made without at least knowing these facts, so that collectively, we could be aware of the risk to the
community we are so proud to be a part of.
She was excited that San Rafael has been so energized in the past 5 years, which was why she committed
quite a premium to stay here and be part of the community. She hoped we could look forward and see what
this wonderful place can continue to be and seriously consider the alternatives, to be certain there are no
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 30
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 31
other viable alternatives to protect the public interests before building a monolithic tower which could evolve
into something we are not proud of. She requested a little due diligence and further research with all vested
parties, which perhaps would produce a better end result.
Michael Stone, 60 Chula Vista stated he did not come to make a statement but having listened he felt
compelled to. He was concerned with credibility in the matter of alternative sites because from the
documentation distributed one could see that alternative sites are dealt with entirely on the basis of
conclusions without facts. San Pedro Ridge, which in his opinion made the most sense, was reported to
have poor coverage in downtown San Rafael but there was nothing in the documentation to support that.
Unacceptable in -building coverage in downtown San Rafael was sited, but again, he stated, there was no
supporting evidence. Mr. Stone stated it could be determined from the documentation that when asked this
question in the past the MERA experts responded that it was way too complex to explain. He noted he had
learned over the years that if experts tell you that it is too complex to be explained, he either does not know
or does not want to tell you, and he felt this was the case in this instance.
There being no further comment from the audience, Vice -Mayor Miller closed the public hearing and
announced a five minute recess.
Continuing, Community Development Director Brown stated that a great majority of the questions related to
Dr. Curry's presentation of Radio Frequencies and also the question Mr. Huff raised concerning the
measurement of RFs and he would like to have Mr. Hammett respond to all of those questions.
Addressing key points, Mr. Hammett, Hammett & Edison stated:
Dr. Curry's guesses were clearly guesses. One of the ways to assess how well the projections are is by
comparing them to measurements and when the projections he made of calculated levels are contrasted
they match the measurements very well. They had the high field in between the two towers which shows up
in their calculations and in the measurements, meaning good corroboration, but to look at Dr. Curry's
calculations they do not show this. Rather they show the high spike right at the site and then dropping off
very rapidly.
At this point Councilmember Phillips requested further clarification.
Hammett introduced a graph (slide) and stated that a good set of calculations should come up with
something that matches what you measure in the field, they may not be exactly the same, but should show
the same general character. The path in Dr. Curry's material does not show the change that actually is
observed. He stated that looking from Dollar Hill toward the North, which is roughly Dr. Curry's path B, there
is a high field almost half -way between the two towers, which is the result largely of the FM station on the
Turrini tower; yet to look at Dr. Curry's Path B, it does not show. Mr. Hammett stated that what is found is a
high spike right at the site itself, but this characteristic, which is the combination of the different facilities at
the site is not found. He stated that when the calculations were done, a very careful visual survey of the site
was carried out. Mark Neumann carefully wrote down height estimates, antenna estimates, the makes and
models. From their experience they know a lot of these antennas and have the patterns in their computer;
therefore, they were in a position to build a fairly accurate inventory just from a visual inspection, which Dr.
Curry did not do. This is the reason their calculations match the measurements very well.
As could be recognized by some people, and confirmed by Dr. Curry, by the time you get down to the
homes the levels are very low, being below the level of significance.
Regarding professional courtesy, Mr. Hammett stated there was professional courtesy; he had
received e-mail from Dr. Curry and responded within a week, which was a week ago. His question was a
request to forward the actual measured and calculated radiation densities that Mr. Neumann obtained and
presented in normalized form in the report dated September 31, (actually August 31). The e-mail from Mr.
Hammett to Dr. Curry, which they had as an overhead, provided exactly that information. The following day
a nice reply was received from Dr. Curry, expressing appreciation for the data and for explaining the shaped
response of the W & G Instrument (he was not aware of that). In the response Dr. Curry also stated he did
not have a computer program to do the calculations and basically, had to calculate each case separately.
Mr. Neumann stated It concluded by saying thank you for sending me the data for the report of August 31.
That was the professional courtesy; they responded to exactly what was requested.
He referred to a slide presented by Ms. Libby Kelley which depicted different exposure levels in other
countries. The Salzburg Resolution, on the top, signed by a variety of people, including Dr. Curry, bore a
figure of 0.1. Mr. Hammett stated this was not correct as the number in reading the actual document, is 10,
which is the lowest of any of the levels. He noted the levels for the MERA proposal are .5, which easily
meets each one of the standards at the homes. This was a very key point, submitted Mr. Hammett. These
are less than the FCC standards, due to what is called the precautionary principle. There is no scientific
basis for it, it simply requires extra safety factors, which is what the precautionary principle is all about. The
only difference, therefore, is on the trail, which is where Dr. Curry declares it will be double. Mr. Hammett
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 31
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 32
stated this would not be the case and the measurements corroborate the validity of their projections, using a
generally accepted ground reflection factor, as specified by the FCC, and supported by thousands of
measurements. Mr. Hammett stated he also has in his computer program the model of the terrain, which
drops off very rapidly, and was one of the factors which reduces them even lower than that shown by Dr.
Curry.
Regarding the question on the 1.02 — and referring to a graph, he depicted the calculated value worst case
for the existing facilities to be 1.0. This is the calculated contribution for MERA and at that same location if
shifted slightly it is 1.002. To compare any of the other locations where you have both the calculated
existing and the calculated addition, none of those add up to that number; therefore 1.002 is the highest.
Councilmember Cohen asked for clarification on his interpretation that when these two are added together
with all the antennas identified up there radiating at full power, including the MERA system with all the
antennas on, it is still 1 % of the federal standard at the highest. Mr. Hammett confirmed this was exactly
right.
The final point was the personal question by several people: Mr. Hammett stated that if he were lucky
enough to live in this neighborhood he would be very happy to walk his dog every morning with Mr. Van
Zandt, on the trail and through the spot with 52% of the standard presently and which will be 53% when
MERA is there. People are not being asked to approve children's use of cell phones, rather to approve an
emergency radio system that meets all the standards, he stated. It provides at the homes that extra prudent
avoidance, the lows at the homes being hundreds or thousands of times less. Having listened very carefully
to Dr. Curry's presentation, he had not heard anything to change his professional opinion that this site easily
meets all the standards.
Councilmember Cohen stated there was one factual question which he would appreciate Mr. Hammett
addressing which was the wattage, maximum power output, as this obviously would effect the calculations.
He had taken the point that the calculations and measurements gave the same answers, which seemed like
a fairly compelling argument, but it was of concern that Dr. Curry had assumed a much higher power output.
He inquired how far apart they were and what Mr. Hammett thought the correct number was.
Responding, Mr. Hammett suspected they were not far apart and if Dr. Curry were to refine his calculations
to take into account the terrain and a reasonable reflection factor, those differences would shrink
considerably. The differences were probably 4:1, the ground reflection factor alone is a 2:1 difference. In
terms of power, Mr. Hammett stated he shook his head because Dr. Curry stated "well you started at 375
and doubled". The number Mr. Hammett stated he used for the calculations was 700 watts and in addition
to an assumption about the power, an assumption also has to be made about the radiation pattern of the
antennas. Dr. Curry showed one of the patterns for the MERA antennas, but Mr. Hammett stated that
assumptions have to be made about every single one of the antennas that were visually observed being
there, and the assumption made by Hammett & Edison was conservative. Therefore, in combination with
the power assumption it is necessary to consider the pattern assumption, as both have an equal impact on
what is generated for a projected level. Mr. Hammett stated Dr. Curry might be using a higher power and a
different pattern; however, the key is when these two factors are combined, what do you actually get and
how does it compare with what is really there?
Regarding inventory of antennas and their output, Councilmember Phillips inquired how concerned we
should be concerning the apparent lack of inventory of the site. Responding, Mr. Hammett stated there
should be no concern as when the projection is done it is based on a visual count of antennas and
subsequently, assumptions are made for each one as to power level. There was "no stumbling in the dark",
they were there in daylight and looked at exactly what was on the towers in order to build a database to do
the projections.
Councilmember Phillips confirmed with Mr. Hammett that his estimate was within a reasonable range and
not just a number out of the hat. Mr. Hammett added they had studied similar sites for lots of clients for lots
of years and know the types of antennas and the powers they run.
Community Development Director Brown noted there was a question regarding potential fire hazard, and
reported that this was addressed in the Initial Study, page 117 and in the draft EIR on pages 11 through 21
and also in the Planning Commission record. He stated that basically, the Fire Chief's point was that the
propane tanks have pressure release systems, and in his extensive experience, propane tank installation
for emergency generators, which are present at other locations for utility facilities, have not been the cause
of fire. Mr. Brown stated the Fire Chief indicated he believed there is no potential impact in terms of an
increase in fire hazard.
Mr. Brown noted that the issues regarding zoning and the General Plan were well covered in the staff
report, as was the adequacy of the analysis of health effects, as it relates to the requirements of CEQA, and
did not wish to revisit them.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 32
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 33
Councilmember Phillips returned to the "Hot Spots" issue and inquired if when walking within approximately
60 feet of the site, being satisfied the nearest residence is clearly not in danger, would that create any
hazard.
Mr. Hammett responded in the negative and qualified this by stating that the presumption is if it complies
with the standards it is safe. The standards employ time averaging, it is averaged over a 30 -minute time
period; therefore, it is a fairly localized area. He had been to the site and observed it himself, noting one
could stand in that area for 30 minutes and the average would still only be 52% of the standard. In addition,
the standards have a spatially averaged factor, which means averaging from the ground or knees up to the
head, measuring average over the torso. To be extra conservative, he stated they take the highest level;
therefore, to average over that height would achieve an even lower level. With a combination of these
factors, he assured Councilmember Phillips, there was no need to worry about it being unsafe, even when
raining.
Mr. Van Zandt noted for the record that as the Appellant they should have the first and last word but
apparently, would not be given that opportunity. He noted this as an objection.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that in his opinion, the Public Hearing had been closed and Council had
requested that staff provide them with a response to matters which had been mentioned in the
presentations, as well as in public comments and did not believe it was necessary to permit the Appellant to
speak again. It certainly was not a matter that presented a legal issue, particularly at 12:20 a.m.
Councilmember Cohen inquired if permitting Mr. Van Zandt to make a comment would raise a legal issue.
Mr. Ragghianti stated it would not; he was confirming it was not an obligation of the Council, rather a matter
of choice. Councilmember Cohen requested that the Vice -Mayor allow Mr. Van Zandt to make a brief
comment, as a courtesy.
While Mr. Van Zandt conferred with Dr. Curry, City Attorney Ragghianti stated that one of the problems
which arises in circumstances like this, is that as soon as Mr. Van Zandt has completed his consultation
with Dr. Curry we would ask our experts to comment on what Dr. Curry had to say and this could go on
adinfinitum. Councilmember Cohen noted this.
Vice -Mayor Miller stated the privilege would be afforded Mr. Van Zandt with a three-minute restriction
Mr. Van Zandt stated that having worked with Dr. Curry over the last month he could assure Council that
what he did was not a guess, nor stumbling around in the dark and resented the remarks made by Mr.
Hammett with regard to Dr. Curry's calculations. The fact of the matter was that they asked Hammett &
Edison for the inventory of the antennas, and their calculations, but all they received was an e-mail, which
Mr. Van Zandt produced earlier. In fact, he stated, if the antennas and power levels, etc. were identified,
that information was not revealed to them and he did not believe they had done this. If they had done so,
he stated, they would have discovered there was over 5,000 watts of power on the MERA proposed site,
not 700. On looking at Dr. Curry's spreadsheets, Mr. Van Zandt confirmed that he did account for terrain in
his calculations, which he would supply for the record. The main problem was different power assumptions
between Hammett & Edison and Dr. Curry's work and it was only necessary to look at the City's own
documentation to realize that Hammett & Edison missed their power calculations by a factor of 6. Dr. Curry
used the same FCC equations but afforded Council the courtesy of looking at the extra reflective properties
which in his opinion, should be taken into account. Therefore, he did, in fact, use the generally approved
and appropriate methods and calculations and having looked at the spreadsheet for the maximum power at
86 Graceland, it was 15 microwatts per centimeter squared, which was far above 1.02%.
Vice -Mayor Miller brought the item back to Council for discussion and stated that since Councilmember
Heller had been deeply involved with the whole radio system for a number of years and had studied it
extensively, she should offer her insights.
Councilmember Heller stated she was involved with the Police Department when the study of the failing
radio system was initiated, and had sat with the committee working on it for many years, eventually getting
to the point where a system appropriate for San Rafael was decided upon. She stated they talked to the
County which was beginning to put together the MERA system, and San Rafael police officers very nicely
and bravely stated that with their failing system they would go into the County system, rather than having a
localized San Rafael system which would again, put them and our citizens in jeopardy. She stated there
was certainly a need for the Police to have a better system, and alluded to the previous night's problems.
Referring to the Public Hearing, Ms. Heller stated she disliked listening to dueling experts and felt it was
difficult and unfair to all four Councilmembers to sort out all of the technical details and values. However, all
of them had gone through this previously and knew how to read the EIRs and staff report and she
appreciated everything brought before Council this evening. She was aware of the many concerns in the
neighborhood and did not feel persuaded that there is a danger at this point, which had not been considered
on the staff side. A new system was needed which would encompass a very valuable asset to the public
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 33
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 34
health and the safety of all San Rafael citizens, and this was what she had to evaluate, not just one small
area of the city but the 17 square miles which encompassed San Rafael and the 54,000 people residing
here, together with the 250,000 people who live within the entire county of Marin because this is what the
system would entail and these are the people who would be protected. She noted she would be voting
against the Appeal.
Councilmember Phillips stated that he, too, had spent a considerable amount of time perusing the material
provided and was struck by staff's valiant effort to provide the information as needed to make a decision. He
appreciated the Consultants who had been quite professional in their presentations also. This led him to
the conclusion that with regard to the FCC standards, we are not in any way endangering the residents and
if he felt otherwise he would be the first to say so and be quite concerned. He was satisfied that due
consideration had been given by Hammett & Edison in bringing a comfort level, particularly when weighed
against the very clear need for a public communication system. He had on one occasion needed the
service and was pleased that the paramedics were in a position to respond, and suspected each and every
one present would require the same kind of response. He felt that the residents of San Rafael deserve a
quick and immediate response and furthermore, the public safety officers deserve our support so that their
difficult task can be done with all due safety, noting more than enough time had been expended on this
issue. Councilmember Heller first got involved in 1994-95; the issue had been going on for a considerable
length of time and we had been very fortunate that there were not more unfortunate ocurrences due to the
present system.
He stated he would reject the appeal noting there was a need for periodic review, as issues change over
time, particularly if there should be modification of the usage as proposed
Councilmember Cohen stated there were a number of issues raised this evening, which were raised in the
appeal letter received and followed up by testimony. On the issue of the adequacy of the EIR he reiterated
that there was a public process; there was an extensive effort to do outreach on the part of MERA to involve
neighbors in the discussion about the EIR. He knew that some people had just become involved in this
discussion recently and in some cases, apparently, very recently; however, this did not change the fact that
there was a process required by CEQA and followed by MERA, which certified the EIR, which was not
challenged. Above and beyond the legal adequacy of the EIR, he had reviewed it and was satisfied and
would be able to sleep with a clear conscience that this is a valid certifiable EIR which adequately
addresses the issues upon which decisions can be based. The public health issues, he stated, revolves
around whether or not we accept the adequacy of the FCC standard and on that he did not feel qualified. It
was not a question of dueling experts, he stated, but whether or not he felt qualified to insert the judgment
of the San Rafael City Council above and beyond the Federal Communications Commission, and he did
not.
Councilmember Cohen noted what he gleaned from experts was that depending on whether or not you
have an opinion about how reflective the ground is, if you are standing right under the antenna you might
get exposed to 100% of the federal standard, should you stand there for a while, but once you move away
that exposure falls off rapidly, and on reaching the homes, exposure falls to well below the federal standard.
Public Health issues should still be a concern, without the compulsion to overturn the FCC standard or
challenge it.
Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Brown, Community Development Director, had pointed out the issues
about the General Plan and Zoning were addressed in the staff report, and he felt very comfortable with the
staff analysis and response to the General Plan and Zoning issues raised and was not swayed by the
argument that this is in violation of either the General Plan or Zoning.
There are two issues, stated Councilmember Cohen, aesthetics and public safety. With regard to
aesthetics he concurred that the hill would be more unsightly with the antenna on it, and agreed with the
finding of the overall consideration made on the issue of public safety. He stated there was a lot of
discussion regarding the vision of San Rafael, but he also had a vision about the obligation to uphold the
public safety. Councilmember Cohen noted he was asked, "Would he walk there with his kids"? He replied
that he had and would continue to do so, and had not heard anything this evening, which would make him
hesitate. The question to him was not about explaining radio frequency but rather how he would explain to
someone whose house burned down that he knew about this problem with radio communications but did
not deal with it, and because of that our firefighters could not save your house, and I am really sorry.
A bigger question for him personally is how he would say to the men and women of San Rafael's Police and
Fire Departments who put on their uniform and equipment every day and put their lives on the line for the
rest of us, how he was willing to sit here knowing this system has been broken for at least 7 years and allow
it to continue to be broken, while we decide whether or not there might be some slightly more optimal
position or better way. He was convinced that a lot of thought had gone into this; people of good will had
done their best and he would support the move to deny the appeal.
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 34
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 35
He agreed with Councilmember Phillips regarding review and noted that lest anyone was wondering if, in
fact, he had read the materials, there appeared to be a typo in the Resolution which changed the nature of
the point that Councilmember Phillips phrased and he wanted to highlight this, particularly for the benefit of
those in the audience who had remained.
Paragraph 19 under the Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit, and Environmental and Design Review
Permit 2-9 of the Resolution and on hand lettered page 18 of the staff report.
Paragraph 9, middle of the paragraph says "quarterly report on a quarterly basis for the first two years
following approval then monitor report semi-annual at the discretion of the Community Development
Director, this report shall demonstrate compliance with FCC standards. If the FCC establishes a different
standard for human exposure to RF AND the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with such standard by
submitting a radio frequency report to the city within 90 days of the effective date of the standard or longer
period as requested by the Applicant and subsequently approved by the Community Development Director".
He stated he did not understand the "AND"; it should read: "If the FCC establishes a different standard for
human exposure to RF, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with such standard by submitting a
radio frequency report within 90 days of the effective date of the standard."
He would prefer if there was then a sentence to the effect that if a compelling reason was given as to why a
longer period was needed, that could subsequently be approved by the Community Development Director,
but he felt that 90 days after the adoption of such a standard would be ample time for them to demonstrate
compliance with it. He would prefer to strike the "or longer period" and the "AND" changed to a comma.
Councilmember Cohen made one other point, not necessarily part of this Resolution or the associated
findings, but regarding current and future antennas, and emphasized the need for monitoring, to ensure that
should some other entity place an antenna there, we are aware of what it is, how it is radiating and what its
impacts are, and to the extent that we are not precluded by the Telecommunications Act from regulating
this, that we ensure we do understand what else might be placed on the Turrini site, etc.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 10763 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING
AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO: A) ACCEPT THE MARIN PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (MERA) CERTIFIED
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), B) ADOPT
THE SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR, C) APPROVE THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, D)
APPROVE THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND E) APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (EDOO-53) AND USE PERMIT
(UP00-43) FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AT SAN RAFAEL/
DOLLAR HILL FOR THE MARIN PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS RADIO SYSTEM (MERA) San
Rafael/Dollar Hill, Robert Dollar Drive, AP 11-051-02, San
Rafael, CA
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips and Vice -Mayor Miller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT/ COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (due to potential conflict of interest.)
DISQUALIFIED:
There being no further business, the City Council Special Meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m., Tuesday,
January 23, 2001.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12001
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Special Public Hearing) 01/22/2001 Page 35