No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 739 Penny Royal Lane Appealcarr no Agenda Item No: 5.b Meeting Date: November 19, 2012 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Department, Planning Division Prepared by: Paul A, Jensen, CDD Director [kt] City Manager Approval-::' / 4 - SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission action approving a wireless antenna infrastructure improvement within the public right-of-way near 714 Penny Royal Lane/adjacent to 739 Penny Royal Lane (Node LUC-003A) as part of a Master Use Permit No. UP11-20, Master Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED11-24 and Exception No. EX12-002 for ExteNet Systems, LLC Wireless Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Infrastructure project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 12-17) granting Master Use Permit, Master Design Review Permit and Exception approvals for installation of wireless antenna node infrastructure within public rights-of-way, comprised of an initial installation of 5 antenna nodes, including node LUC-003A (714 Penny Royal Lane) which is the subject of this appeal. BACKGROUND: Overview of Planninq Commission Review and Decision On September 25, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a telephone corporation project consisting of installation of wireless antenna infrastructure on existing PG&E poles in the public right of way. A detailed Project Description is found in the attached September 25, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5, pages 28-29 of this report) The project sponsor, ExteNet Systems, LLC, is licensed by the Ca Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to install telephone equipment infrastructure within public rights of way pursuant to CPUC Code Section 7901-7912. The equipment would be provided for wireless service providers (e.g., carriers) to serve its customers. ExteNet is pursuing necessary zoning entitlements within the City of San Rafael, the County and the City of Novato as part of a larger infrastructure network project extending through the Lucas Valley area. The Planning Commission granted approval for an initial five nodes within the City, with the ability to expand the system in compliance with the parameters established by the Master Use and Design approvals. The approval allows staff to consider approval for additional nodes added to the network through review of an Administrative Design Review Permit (UP11-020 Condition's No. 2 & 3, and ED11-024 Condition No. 5). The Planning Commission Resolution is attached (Exhibit 4. pages 29 to 24 of this report) Prior to formal submittal of its application. ExteNet had filed a pre -application review to determine the applicable City requirements. Based on this review. the City Planning Division and City Attorneys office had concluded that the project was subject to the City of San Rafael Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance: thus requiring Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit approvals. If and File No.: Council Meeting: l ( f Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT /8^mee; 2 when those planning applications are approved, a ministerial encroachment permit would be required for the work required hoinstall the equipment inCity rights ofway. More detailed information nnthe background related to this application is provided in the September 25 2012 Report tothe Planning Comrnisoion, including o review ofutility equipment installation in rights ofway, the state and local regulatory authority and CEQA determination that applies to this request (Exhibit 5, pages 20-28mfthis report). Staff reports, attachments, audio and video of the Planning Commission September 25, 2012 meeting and Design Review Board June 19 and August 7, 2012 meetings can be found on the City website address: http://vpmxw.citYofoannafae|,ono/meednqs. Overview ufDeukJnReview Board Review Prior tothe Planning Commission's review and action, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project at two meatingm, and ultimately recommended approval of the proposed antenna node designs and locations (including the subject node) at its August 7, 2012 meeting. The Board recommended relocation ofone antenna node that was proposed adjacent toaresidential front yard and design techniques and locations for remaining proposed and any future nodes. The subject node location under appeal (Node LUC-003A) was supported subject to placement of related equipment cabinets below grade within the existing sidewalk. The Board concluded that the requirement for undergrounding along with recommended replacement of utility poles with new poles to achieve increased heights desired by the utility company, and concealment of cabling proposed from cabinets to antenna on the utility poles would adequately address the aesthetic impacts nfthe project. Asunnmoryofthe DRB action incontained inthe September 25Planning Commission report (Exhibit 5,pages 35-36pfthis rmpwnU. VVina|esa Telecommunications Fooi|ib/ Review Criteria The San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.360 - Wireless Telecommunications regulations identify design uriterio, performance standards and a ranking of preferred and least preferred locations. The City iaprecluded from evaluating such facilities based on Radio Frequency (RF) hea|th, provided that established federal thresholds are not exceeded. RFanalysis have been provided that the equipment would be in compliance with the federal RFthresholds and, thonafore, deemed to ba''safe"Adetai|ed analysis of the project can be found on pages 6 through 11 of the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 5, pages 31-36 of this report). A discussion of the subject Node LUC-003A RF analysis is found onpage ofthe PCreport (Exhibit 5, page 34 ofthis repmmt). The City ordinance identifies residential and open space areas as least -preferred locations for wireless antenna facilities; which should be avoided unless there are no other feasible alternative sites. An alternative site analysis is required for new monopoles or towers proposed in residential areas (Exhibit 5- 4, pages 43bm47of this report). The subject site proposes collocation of its infrastructure on existing utility poles. Given the nature ofthis project (i.o.aeate|ephoneinhaotruoturep ject.whiohisdesigned to be collocated on existing facilities, and its intended coverage area which requires a close -in relationship with the neighborhoods to be covered) it has been established that there would not be alternative public right of way sites outside of the residential neighborhoods that could meet the service coverage objectives ofthe area. |tiopossible for the carrier toplace equipment onother utility pole locations; however, this may lead togaps incoverage. APPEAL: Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal ofthe Planning Commission's action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellant, David Carey, submitted a letter dated October 1, 2012, which iaincluded aaExhibit 3(pages Y7-Y9ofthis reppm0.Mr. Carey, aneighbor adjacent toone ofthe five nodes approved as part of the Master Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission has appealed the location near his residence (The antenna at Node LUC003A would be located at the top of a PG&E pole near 714Penny Royal Lane that iaadjacent tothe side and rear yard ofthe appellant's residence, The appellant provided comments regarding Node LUC003A at the Design Review Board and Planning Commission hearings. The October 1 st letter of appeal states that node LUC003A near is house is one of five (5) locations proposed on telephone poles, and that the subject node is immediately adjacent to his property and backyard. The following points have been identified in the appeal letter: � The appellant strongly objects tothe installation due toafear ofhealth risks Uzhis family from transmission of cellular signals. The antenna transmitter would be located less than one hundred SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT /Pmue: 3 � The Design Review Board had requested that the two nmja locations at Hibiscus and the subject site at Penny Royal Lane be relocated [e.g., to less visible locations outside of immediate residential neighborhoods]. The site at Hibiscus way was relocated to median location along Freitas Parkway, while the one on Penny Royal was left. This would be the only house with a cell phone tower adjacent hua backyard. This iaacomplete violation. This installation should be relocated to medians of divided secondary roads in a similar manner as the other 4 nodes proposed within the City. � The telephone poles will have a sign posted with a health warning that will have animpact on property values. � There kaplenty ofcell phone coverage from multiple carriers inthis immediate area. There hanu need for ecell phone transmission tower on Penny Royal Lane. It is of no benefit hothe San � Request that ExteNetfind analternate location that would not pose ahealth risk that in unnecessary. ANALYSIS: The appeal that was filed contests only one ofthe five locations approved bvthe Planning Commission. Given that the one location was part of a application that includes five separate locations, the attached Staff Report to the Planning Commission includes discussion and analysis and documents relating toall five locations. Below in boldlitalics are the appeal points identified in the appellant's October 1st letter regarding the appeal of the proposed 739 Penny Royal Lane location. Immediatley following each point of appeal, o staff response is provided: t The appellant strongly objects tothe installation due tmafear mfhealth risks bohis family from transmission of cellular signals. The antenna transmitter would be located less than one hundred feet from their patio area and gardens. As noted inthe Background section above, adetailed analysis of the project has been conducted by staff, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission that resulted in adoption of findings and conditions of approval to support the project as presented in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-17 (Exhibit 4, pages Y9-24ofthis report).The criteria for approval ofthepnojeuthavebeen deemed satisfied based on the analysis found in the September 25 1h Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 5, pages 30-35 of this report) and findings in the Planning Commission Resolution. Based on the Federal Telecommunications Act of18SOosamended, a local government is precluded from denying any wireless facility based on perceived health risks, where the facility has been found to comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and within the limits established by the FCC for Radio Frequency (RF) emissions. A study was presented by the applicant's engineer confirming that any new RF emissions for this site, as well as the other four sites, would be at 5% the FCC's established threshold and limit for public exposure limits.The City ofSan Rafael then conducted a third party peer review (conducted by Jonathan Kramer and Associates) of the RFemission study and confirmed the findings ofthe applicant's study that the equipment would be in compliance with FCC mandates and would operate at 5% of the FCC standard (Exhibit 5-4, pages 43-47 of this report). Given that the proposed facility would operate within the established FCC standards, the City does not have the ability topreclude this facility based solely onperceived health impacts. Therefore, staff would not recommend support of the appeal on this point. 2. The Design Review Board had requested that the two node locations at Hibiscus and the subject site mtPenny Royal Lane �relocated [e.g., to less visible locations outside nf immediate residential neighborhoods]. The site at Hibiscus way was relocated to median location along Freitas Parkway, while the one on Penny Royal was left. This would bethe only house with a cell phone tower adjacent to a backyard. This is a complete violation. This installation should be relocated to medians of divided secondary roads in a similar manner as the other 4nodes proposed within the City. Staff had suggested relocating or undergrounding the subject node locations on Hibiscus and Penny SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 4 buffer between the utility poles and adjacent lots. This recommendation was made due to the visual implications of the equipment associated with these facilities. As noted on pages 10-11 of the PC staff report, the DRB's recommendation was to place the equipment associated with these node locations below ground. In response, ExteNet placed Penny Royal Lane underground and relocated Hibiscus Way to Freitas Parkway arterial road frontage. The Board supported these revisions as they complied with its prior direction. The Planning Commission also supported the design concepts recommended by the Board, with further direction provided to require all equipment cabinets be placed below grade. There was no further direction given to relocate all proposed poles to median/arterial collector street locations on order to avoid placement directly adjacent to a residential side yard location. Based on the determinations made by the Board and Planning Commission, staff would not recommend support of the appeal on this point. 3. The telephone poles will have a sign posted with a health warning that will have an impact on property values. The warning signs consist of an 8" by 10" standard sign placed on the utility pole 6' below the antenna on the pole -top. These are required to be posted on the poles for notification to utility workers and are not intended to be visible at street level (see LUC-3A Peer Review Report attached as Exhibit 5-4, pages 43-47 of this report). The findings required for approval or denial of the zoning entitlement does not require analysis of any potential affects on property values, which is difficult to determine and generally considered to be outside of the City's scope of review. 4. There is plenty of cell phone coverage from multiple carriers in this immediate area. There is no need for a cell phone transmission tower on Penny Royal Lane. It is of no benefit to the San Rafael citizens living here. Staff cannot recommend support of the appeal based on the appellant's conclusion. The State PUC has regulatory authority in determining the need for such equipment. The City purview in this case is fairly limited to the aesthetic impacts of the project and assuring conformance with City design policies. As such, undergrounding and concealment of equipment has been required to the extent feasible, which is deemed to be an appropriate requirement and supported by City General Plan policies and design criteria. 5. Request that ExteNet find an alternate location that would not pose a health risk that is unnecessary. As stated above the City cannot regulate this facility based on perceived health risks, as the analysis prepared for the project indicates the facility would comply with FCC regulations. Based on this finding the facility is considered to pose no health risk. However, the City may consider the aesthetic impacts of the facility, and encourage locations that provide the lowest potential for visual impact on neighborhoods. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant, ExteNet LLC has submitted an application fee deposit that will cover the full cost of staff time processing this zoning application and appeal. There will be no short-term or ongoing fiscal impact related to this project. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission approval (staff recommended). 2. Grant the appeal and amend the approval of the Planning Commission (ED11-024 Condition No. 3) to eliminate the subject node LUC003A from the initial approved 5 node sites. Under this scenario, the applicant could proceed with the remaining four approved node locations, and could apply for an alternate node location under the terms of the entitlements. 3. Continue the matter with direction for further information or modifications to the project entitlements. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pau: 5 ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt eResolution denying ihemppea|anduoholdingthnyPkanningCommisoion action approving the entitlements for all five initial antenna node sites (Exhibit2,pages 7~1Gwfthis EXHIBITS Pagm# 1. Vicinity Map (Node LUCOU3A) 0 2. Draft City Council Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning 7 Commission's approval 3. Letter ufAppeal from David Carey, Oct 1.2812 17 4. Planning Commission Resolution No.12-17 18 5. Planning Commission September 25.2012Report and Exhibits 25 5-1 Vininib/LoomdonyWaps 39 5-2 ExteNedSystems 7/O/12 Memo hothe DRB 40 5-3 Peer Review ofRFRReports 43 5-4 Lucas Valley DAGproject uonatruotionandcovenagemops OO 6-5 Public Correspondence. 69 O. City Council Public Hearing Notice 86 Project Plans (LUC 003A) —714 Penny Royal Lane Site (Distributed to City Council only, under Vicinity .• - ExteNet LUC-003A W, - SCALE 1 : 4,562 200 0 200 400 600 FEET 0 CC fleeting Nov. 19, 20-12 File No. AP 12-006 Exhibit I- Vicinity Map RESOLUTION 13462 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP12-006) OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 12-17 GRANTING APPROVAL FOR PLACEMENT OF A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY NODE (LUC-003A) WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 739 PENNY ROYAL LANE. WHEREAS, on November 16. 2010 ExteNet Systems, LLC submitted a pre -application review (PA10-004) for installation of telecommunications equipment onto existing PG&E utility poles in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2011, ExteNet Systems, LLC (a telephone corporation) filed formal zoning applications (UP 11-20, ED 11-24 & EX 12-002) for installation of five omni -antenna and related wireless telephone equipment infrastructure placed on existing utility poles in public rights-of-way throughout the Lucas Valley area of San Rafael, in PD and R residential zoning districts within the Santa Margarita, Terra Linda and Mont Marin -San Rafael Park neighborhood areas (within Manuel T. Freitas, Las Gallinas Ave., Penny Royal Lane and Del Ganado Road rights-of-way), and WHEREAS, pursuant to the pre -application review (PA 10-004) conducted for the project, at the request of the applicant, it was confirmed and established that ExteNet Systems has: i) obtained a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which is required for a telephone corporation to utilize public rights of way pursuant to PUC Section 7901, ii) demonstrated that they are a member of the Joint Poles Authority, established to assure joint use and maintenance of utility poles, and iii) understood the City's position that the project would remain subject to the City of San Rafael Wireless Communications Facilities provisions of Municipal Code Section 14.16.360; and WHEREAS, on June 19 and August 7, 2012 the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the project. On August 7, 2012, the DRB by a vote of 4-0-2 (with Chair Kent and Member Lentini absent) recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission, with certain conditions, including: 1) their support of project without inclusion of an extended skirt at the base of the antenna; 2) alternate placement/location of underground antennae on Manuel Freitas instead of Hibiscus Way; and 3) underground placement of all cabinets at all five locations. and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(b) and Section 15303(d) ofthe CEQA Guidelines which exempts utility extensions and utilit-y improvements; and WHEREAS. on September 25. 2012. the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project zoning entitlements, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the x\,rittcn report of the Community Development Department staff. and WHEREAS. on September 25. 2012 the City of San Rafael Planning Commission b\, Resolution No. 12-17 approved a Master t!sc Permit (UPI 1-20), Master Erik ironmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11-24) and Exception for I leight (EX 12-002), pursuant to the applicable provisions of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.360 (Wireless communications facilities) for the ExteNet Distributed Antenna System wireless antenna facility infrastructure project consisting of initial installation of 5 wireless antenna nodes placed on existing utility poles locations within City public rights of way; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, on October 2, 2012, David J. Carey, filed a timely appeal (AP12-006) of the Planning Commission action to include antenna node LUC-003A as part of its action granting the master zoning entitlements for the ExteNet DAS project; and; WHEREAS, on November 2, 2012, at least 15 days before the scheduled hearing date on the subject appeal, the City of San Rafael Planning Division and City Clerk caused notice of the appeal to be mailed to residents within at least 300 feet of the subject project location and interested parties, posted notice on-site and published notice in the Marin Independent Journal, in compliance with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.29 (Public Notice); and; WHEREAS, on November 19, 2012, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, accepting staff's written and verbal report and all public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (AP 12-006) and upholds the September 25, 2012 decision of the Planning Commission action granting a Master Use Permit (UPI 1-020), a Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11-024) and Exception (EX12-0021) for the ExteNet Systems, LLC in its entirety approving a wireless infrastructure distributed antenna system network within public rights of way consisting of five initial antenna nodes including node LUC-003A at 739 Penny Royal Lane, which is the subject of this appeal. The City Council finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal Point #1. The appellant strongly objects to the installation due to afear of health risks to his family from transmission of cellular signals. The antenna transmitter would be located less than one hundred feet from their patio area and gardens. Response and Finding: The point of appeal that the appellant strongly objects to the installation due to a fear of health risks to his family from transmission of cellular signals, that antenna transmitter would be located less than one hundred feet from their patio area and gardens is not sufficient to uphold the appeal. As noted in the staff report provided to the City Council, a detailed analysis of the project has been conducted by staff. the Design Review Board and Planning Commission that resulted in adoption of findings and conditions to support the project by Planning Commission (PC) Resolution No. 12-17. The criteria for approval of the project have been deemed satisfied based on the analysis found on pages 6 through 11 of'staffs report to the Planning Commission and findings in PC Resolution No. 12-17. Based on the federal Telecommunications Act, a local goverriment is precluded from denying any \\ircless facility based on perceived health risks. where the facility has been found to comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and within the limits established b\ the FCC for Radio Frequency (RF) emissions. A study was presented by the applicant's engineer confirming that an} new RF emissions would be at 50,'o of the FCC's established threshold and limit. The City of San Rafael then conducted a third party peer review (Jonathan Kramer and Associates) of the RF emissions study and confirmed the findings of the applicant's study that the equipment would be in compliance with FCC mandates; as discussed on PC Report pages 5-6 and 9-10, and PC Exhibit 4. Given that the proposed facility would operate within the established FCC standards, the City does not have the ability to preclude this facility based solely on perceived health impacts. Appeal Point #2. The Design Review Board had requested that the two node locations at Hibiscus and the subject site at Penny Royal Lane be relocated [e.g., to less visible locations outside of immediate residential neighborhoods]. The site at Hibiscus Way was relocated to median location along Freitas Parkway, while the one on Penny Royal was left. This would be the only house with a cell phone tower adjacent to a backyard. This is a complete violation. This installation should be relocated to medians of divided secondary roads in a similar manner as the other 4 nodes proposed within the City. Response and Finding: The point of the appeal that the Design Review Board had requested that the two node locations at Hibiscus and the subject site at Penny Royal Lane be relocated [e.g., to less visible locations outside of immediate residential neighborhoods], that the site at Hibiscus Way was relocated to median location along Freitas Parkway, while the one on Penny Royal was left, that this would be the only house with a cell phone tower adjacent to a backyard, that this is a complete violation and that this installation should be relocated to medians of divided secondary roads in a similar manner as the other 4 nodes proposed within the City does not provide sufficient grounds to uphold the appeal. As discussed in the staff report to the City Council, staff had suggested relocating or undergrounding the subject node locations on Hibiscus and Penny Royal Lane (subject site), which were immediately adjacent to residential yard areas and lacked any buffer between the utility poles and adjacent lots. This recommendation was made due to the visual implications of the equipment associated with these facilities. As noted on pages 10 and 11 of the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission staff report, the Design Review Board recommended placing equipment associated with the two nodes located adjacent to residential yards below ground. In response, ExteNet placed Penny Royal Lane equipment underground and relocated the Hibiscus Way site to Freitas Parkway arterial road frontage. The Board supported these revisions as they complied with its prior direction. The Planning Commission also supported the design concepts recommended by the Board, with further direction provided to require all equipment cabinets be placed below grade. There was no further direction given to relocate all proposed poles to median/arterial collector street locations in order to avoid placement directly adjacent to a residential side yard location. Based on the determinations made by the Board and Planning Commission, staff would not recommend support of the appeal on this point. Appeal Point #3. The telephone poles will have a sign posted with a health warning that will have an impact on property values. Response and Finding.: The point of appeal that the telephone poles will have a sign posted with a health warning that will have an impact on property values does not provide sufficient grounds to uphold the appeal. As noted in staffs report to the City- Council. the warning signs consist of an 8 by 10- standard sign placed on the utility pole 6' below the antenna on the pole -top. These are required to be posted on the poles for notification to utility �\orkers and are not intended to be visible at street level: xNhich is described on page 5 of the Peer RevieNN, Report prepared for the subject site 3 LUC-3A, attached as CC Report Exhibit 5-4. The findings required for approval or denial of the zoning entitlement does not require analysis of any potential affects on property values, which is difficult to determine and generally considered to be outside of the City's scope of review. Appeal Point 44. There is plenty of cell phone coverage from multiple carriers in this immediate area. There is no need for a cell phone transmission tower on Penny Royal Lane. It is of no benefit to the San Rafael citizens living here. Response and Findiniz: The point of appeal that there is plenty of cell phone coverage from multiple carriers in this immediate area, that there is no need for a cell phone transmission tower on Penny Royal Lane, and that it is of no benefit to the San Rafael citizens living here does not provide sufficient grounds to uphold the appeal. As discussed in the report to the City Council, the State Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority in determining the need for such equipment. The City purview in this case is limited to design compatibility and aesthetic impacts of the project, through assuring conformance with City design policies. Undergrounding and concealment of equipment has been required to the extent feasible, which is deemed appropriate and supported by City General Plan policies and design criteria. Appeal Point #5. Request that ExteNet find an alternate location that would not pose a health risk that is unnecessary. Response and Finding: The appeal request that ExteNet find an alternate location that would not pose a health risk that is unnecessary cannot be supported. As stated above the City cannot regulate this facility based on perceived health risks. as the analysis prepared for the project indicates the facility would comply with FCC regulations. Based on finding that the facility would not generate RF emissions exceeding 5% of the FCC exposure limit for the general public and therefore is considered to pose no health risk. The City purview is primarily related to consideration of the aesthetic impacts of the facility, and the City may encourage locations that provide the lowest potential for visual impact on neighborhoods. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby deny the Appeal (AP12-006) and upholds the September 25, 2012 decision of the Planning Commission action granting a Master Use Permit (UPI 1-020), a Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11-024) and Exception (EX 12-002) for the ExteNet Systems, LLC in its entirety approving a wireless infrastructure distributed antenna system network within public rights of way consisting of five initial antenna nodes including node LUC-003A which is the subject of this appeal based on the following findings: Master Use Permit (UP 11-020) Findings A. The project. as conditioned. is in accord with the pertinent San Rafael General Plan 2020 Infrastructure Element policies including. Policy I-2 (adequaev of irrtr•astructur•e). I-4 (utility under•gr•ounding), and 1-15 (access to reliable, rnoder•n and cost-effective telecorninunications) and the general objectives and purposes of the zoning ordinance given that, i) the proposed wireless antenna infrastructure omni - antenna. supports and equipment cabinets would be designed to minimize visual impacts, including screening and undergrounding of cabinets to be compatible with the existing neighborhood and other 4 utility infrastructure improvements in the neighborhoods, and ii) project conditions require modification or relocation of the wireless antenna infrastructure_ at such time as the other electric, cable and telephone utility infrastructure that share the above ground utility pole infrastructure can be relocated underground which would render the joint utility pole obsolete. B. The project, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity or the general welfare of the City given that the facility has been reviewed to assure compliance with Federal Communications Commission limits on general public exposure to radio-frequency radiation emissions would be met, the wireless antenna has been required to be designed to blend with existing infrastructure, and an encroachment permit is required to be obtained to assure the time, manner and place of access to the public rights-of-way is conducted in accord with City Public Works Department requirements. C. The project, as conditioned complies with each provision of San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.360 given that all required entitlements have been submitted and reviewed for this case, including design review, and the design would result in wireless antenna infrastructure improvement project that minimizes visual impacts of the facility to the maximum extent deemed feasible and necessary; as discussed further in the Environmental and Design Review Permit findings. Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (EDI1-024) Findings A. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25 (Design Review) given that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for compliance with the Wireless communications facility criteria in SRMC Section 14.16.360 to ensure that the design is compatible with its setting, as required by the General Plan and "Zoning Ordinance. B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria given that the project design would minimize visual impacts by concealing conduit runs, replacing existing utility poles to minimize aesthetic impacts of taller pole heights required by the antenna, minimizing the size of equipment enclosures and undergrounding related mechanical equipment, and has applied for and obtained approval for an exception to exceed the maximum 30 foot height limit that applies to the area, which may be permitted for wireless facilities through design review approval. C. As conditioned, the project design minimizes environmental impacts and given that it involves a minor utility infrastructure project located within public rights-of-way, which qualifies for a categorical exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); pursuant to Sections 15301.b and 15303.d. t). The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity given that the project has been reviewed by the appropriate agencies and conditioned accordingly, and as fiirther discussed under Use Permit Finding B above. Exception (EX12-002) Findings A. There are special circumstances applicable to the project that warrant an exception to the 30 -foot height limit, given that the project involves a wireless telephone infrastructure improvement that would require a location on utility poles which typically are not subject to the zoning height limit provisions, and which is considered appropriate to achieve coverage and minimize design impacts of the project. B. Granting of the exception would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the health, safety or welfare of the general public, as discussed in Use Permit Finding B and Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding D above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael upholds and approves the requests for a Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to height subject to the following conditions: Master Use Permit (UPI1-020) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. This approval grants a Master Use Permit for installation of distributed antenna system (DAS) wireless antenna infrastructure within public rights-of-way by the ExteNet Systems telephone corporation, and its successor(s), as indicated on approved plans and subject to compliance with all Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11-024) conditions of approval. 2. Any changes, modifications, expansions, alterations, etc. proposed to the distributed antenna system "DAS" network infrastructure shall be subject to prior review and approval by the Planning Division to assure it remains in compliance with this approval. The Community Development Director shall determine whether such change, modification, expansion, alteration, etc. shall require a major or minor amendment to this use permit approval. 3. An expansion of the DAS system network shall be permitted under the terms of this use permit without requiring an amendment, provided that it consists of an expansion of the original system approved under this permit with antenna nodes similarly spaced and designed consistent with the related design approval ED] 1-024 and a minor design permit is obtained. 4. The DAS system equipment shall not preclude any efforts in the future to underground utility wires and utility infrastructure in the area. In the event that other utility equipment is proposed to be placed underground, the telephone corporation responsible for the DAS equipment shall agree to obtain rel ised zoning approvals to relocate its infrastructure or retain the equipment on stand alone utility poles. �. The applicant shall comply Nvith all post -approval requirements for wireless facilities as required by Section 14.16.360.N of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance. as they may be updated from time to time, including the folloNx ing: 6 a. Within forty-five (45) days of commencement of operations, the applicant for the wireless communication facility shall provide the community development department with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating that the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest point of public access and in the direction of maximum radiation from each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR. b. The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall participate in and pay proportionate cost for periodic review of measurement by the City of the RFR of the facility, to be scheduled and conducted on a routine basis by the City. c. The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall remove any abandoned facilities or restore the existing approved use of a facility within ninety (90) days of termination of use. d. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within forty-five (45) days of notification. e. Owner or operators of all approved wireless communication facilities shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. Upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed. f. The City will contract with a qualified expert to perform the testing and the owners or operators shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for its facility. 6. ExteNet and or its client(s) shall place and maintain an 8" wide by 12" high permanent RFR caution sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6" tall utility pole extension just above the cross arm. The sign shall be compliant with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI 095.2 for color, symbol and content conventions. The sign shall provide at all times a working local or toll free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall reach a live person who can exert transmitter power -down control over this site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to climbing above the base of the utility pole extension. 7. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for the work within public -rights-of-way. 8. This Use Permit approval shall be valid for two years from date of approNal, and shall expire unless an encroachment permit has been submitted and work is pursued diligentl} to completion. N Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (EDI1-024) Conditions of Approval Cormnuniry Develolmient Departrnent, Planning Division 1. This Design Review Permit (EDI1-024)shall be valid for two years from approval, or until September 25, 2014, and shall be null and void if an encroachment permit is not issued or a time extension granted prior to the expiration date. Once the encroachment permit is issued and the facilities are installed, the Design Review Permit shall remain valid and run with the land subject to all conditions of approval. 2. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of this project, as presented for approval by the Planning Commission on September 25, 2012, shall be the same as required for the issuance of an encroachment permit, except as further conditioned herein. Any future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The distributed antenna system network infrastructure shall be designed as indicated on approved plans, consisting of initial installation of five antenna nodes comprised of the following details or components: a. A small 2'2" by 16" diameter omni -antenna attached to the top of a utility pole replacement, without need for any extension arm. b. New poles shall be placed in the same location as existing utility poles. c. Conduit runs shall be concealed with U -Guard painted to match the pole. d. Equipment cabinets shall be placed in underground vaults, in order to minimize visual blight and potential for graffiti. e. Existing utility poles may be replaced with taller poles (e.g., allowing placement of wireless antenna on poles exceeding the height limit established for the area) if necessary to provide the minimum 6 -feet of separation required for safety between the proposed antenna facility equipment and PG&E electrical transmission lines. 4. Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit, the following changes shall be made to the plan and installed accordingly: a. The "skirting" proposed on the project plans to conceal the bracket and wire connections below the omni -antennas shall not be utilized (consistent with the recommendation of the Design Ret iexN Board to reduce the visual impact of the facility). b. The location I.UC-004B is approved at the Manual T Freitas,Nlunson Park location instead of the previously proposed Hibiscus Nkay site. c. All utilitx cabinets for all locations shall be placed underground. S. Additional nodes may be added to the network, as deemed permitted under the terms of Master Use Permit (UPI 1-020), through grant of an administrative environmental and design review permit and subject to compliance with stealth design approaches approved herein and shown on project plans. 6. Construction activities shall comply with City's Noise Ordinance. Department Qf Public Works 7. The applicant shall apply for and receive an encroachment permit for this work prior to any construction or operation occurring. Proper security such as a bond shall be required to assure the equipment shall be removed in the event of its discontinued use. 8. It is recommended and in the interest of the City to have a single contractor perform work in one neighborhood to avoid conflicts. 9. The applicant shall pursue utilization of the smallest equipment cabinet enclosure possible. 10. ExteNet shall enter into an agreement with PG&E or AT&T to remove the facilities firom the joint utility pole and public rights-of-way if in the future they are no longer needed. 1. Provide a signed agreement with AT&T or PG&E allowing the use of the existing utility pole and infrastructure. Provide verification that ExteNet has rights to work on these facilities and is covered under state franchise agreement, 12. Provide evidence of easements for any infrastructure occurring outside of public rights of way. Exception (EX12-002) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department, Planning Division I. This Exception EX 12-002 permits new omni -antenna to be placed on utility poles in excess of the 30 - foot height limit established in the subject residential areas, as part of a wireless antenna infrastructure project, consistent with and subject to related zoning entitlements UP 11-020 and ED 11-024 granted for the ExteNet Lucas Valley DAS Infrastructure Project. 1, ESTHER C. BEIRINE, Clerk of' the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Rafael, held on :Monday. the 19t" ofNoN ember 20 1-2, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBLRS: Connolly. Heller. Levine,;McCullough& Mayor Phillips NOES: COL1NCILME."vIBfRS: None ABSI','N'I-: COUNCILME,M131"RS: None ESTI IER C. BEIR-Nf,-. (Cty ,;ler,.,_ 9 David J. Carey 739 Penny Royal Lane San Rafael, CA 94903 415-305-4831 October 1, 2012 San Rafael City Council San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: Appeal to thXP anning Commission decision to allow an Extenet transmitter on Penny Royal Lane. Dear Mr. Mayor and San Rafael City Council, On September 2521' the Planning Commission approved the installation of cell phone transmission equipment in Terra Linda. One of the locations is on a telephone pole immediately adjacent to my property in my backyard. I strongly object to the installation, as I fear health risks to my family from the transmission of cellular signals. The transmitter will be located at the top of the pole, forty-three feet high and less than one hundred feet from our patio area and gardens. I believe there are a total of five of these installations planned for Terra Linda. In Extenet's original plans there were two in residential areas, one on Hibiscus Way and one on Penny Royal Lane. The three others are on medians of divided secondary reads, Las Gallinas, Freitas Parkway and Del Ganado. The Design Review Board requested that the two in the residential areas be relocated. The one on Hibiscus Way was relocated to Freitas Parkway, the one on Penny Royal behind my house was left I believe this one should be relocated as well. You can imagine how we feel being the only house in San Rafael with a cell phone tower in our backyard. This is complete violation. The telephone poles will have a sign posted with a health warning that some type of electronic transmission is being made. What do think that will do to the resale value of my property when I go to retire in 10 years. I wouldn't buy a house with a warning for dangerous transmission right in the back yard, I an-, honestly appalled the Planning Commission approved this without requesting the transmitter planned for my backyard be located elsewhere. There is plenty of cell phone coverage from multiple carriers in this inlinediate area. Most people on my street have Internet DSL service with Wi-Fi, which also connects I- It t - -aiisn ,_0 Cell prones, There is no need for a cell nhmie ti . iission tower on Penny Royal Lane. It is of no benefit to the San Rafael citizens living here. CC 1Ve6tir79 Nov. 19, 2012 File No, AP 12-006 Exhibit 3- Appeal Letter I respectfully request that you hear and approve my appeal and ask the Extenet people to find an alternate location for this transmitter. We have lived in our house and been a part of this community for twenty-one years and would like to remain here without the threat of a health risk that is completely unnecessary. Thank you for your consideration. ,5in,j�erely, David J. Carey----- WV1011IR11114191W111116ya RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MASTER USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND EXCEPTION (HEIGHT) FOR THE EXTENET SYSTEMS, LLC, LUCAS VALLEY "DAS" WIRELESS ANTENNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS-O&WAY WHEREAS, on March 25, 2011, ExteNet Systems, LLC (a telephone corporation) filed applications for installation of five omni -antenna and related wireless telephone equipment infrastructure placed on existing utility poles in public rights-of-way throughout the Lucas Valley area of San Rafael, in PD and R residential zoning districts within the Santa Margarita, Terra Linda and Mont Marin -San Rafael Park neighborhood areas (within Manuel T. Freitas, Las Gallinas Ave., Penny Royal Lane and Del Ganado Road rights-of-way); and WHEREAS, pursuant to a pre -application review PA 10-004 conducted for the project, at the request of the applicant, it was confirmed and established that ExteNet Systems has, i) obtained a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which is required for a telephone corporate to utilize public rights of way pursuant to PUC Section 7901, ii) that Extenet Systems is a member of the Joint Poles Authority, established to assure joint use and maintenance of utility poles, and iii) that the project would remain subject to the City of San Rafael Wireless communications facilities provisions of its municipal code, section 14.16.360; and WHERE AS, on June 19 and August 7, 2012 the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the project. On August 7, 2012, the DRIB by a vote of 4-0-2 (with Chair Kent and Member Lentini abssnt) recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission, with certain conditions, including: 1) their support of project without extended skirt at the base of the antenna; 2) alternate placement/location of underground antennae on Manuel Freitas instead of Hibiscus Way; and 3) underground placement of all cabinets; and W1 ERE AS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt 'troin the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(b) and Section 15303(d) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts utility extensions and utility improvements; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2012, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project zoning entitlements, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the C, written report of the Community De -N clopment Department staff KIEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of'proccedings upon lvhich this decision is based is the Community Development Department fl' !RESOLVE j-,, the Planning Celli ni ission makes the '10110\�illg findings: Use Permit (UPI 1-020) Fiqfflngs 1 h Proicct.aS Condi-Lioned. accold- kith he pel ipent San Rafa,--] General Plan ...020;` 1llfras-LrLlCt1,lFe Elenici-it poiik:-Ixsli: 11i 2i-1-olic-v 1`--2 qj'hv1 asirlicitli-4 1-4' tiitililj and --T 'i io 'hie, Modern C'no-, C0St-C/,:,,,eC[i1v tel - the general objectives and purposes of the zoning ordinance given that, i) th CC illieeting Nov. 19, 2012 File No. AP 12-006 Exhibit 4- PC Resolution 12-17 antenna infrastructure omni -antenna, supports and equipment cabinets would be designed to minimize visual impacts, including screening and undergrounding of cabinets to be compatible with the existing neighborhood and other utility infrastructure improvements in the neighborhoods, and ii) project conditions require modification or relocation of the wireless antenna infrastructure at such time as the other electric, cable and telephone utility infrastructure that share the above ground utility pole infrastructure can be relocated underground which would tender the joint utility pole obsolete. B. The project, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity or the general welfare of the City given that the facility has been reviewed to assure compliance with Federal Communications Commission limits on general public exposure to radio-frequency radiation emissions would be met, the wireless antenna has been required to be designed to blend with existing infrastructure, and an 0 encroachment permit is required to be obtained to assure the time, manner and place of access to the public rights-of-way is conducted in accord with City Public Works Department requirements. C. The project, as conditioned complies with each provision of San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.360 given that all required entitlements have been submitted and reviewed for this case, including design review, and the design would result in wireless antenna infrastructure improvement project that minimizes visual impacts of the facility to the maximum extent deemed feasible and necessary; as discussed further in the Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings. Environmental and Design Review Permit (EDI 1-024) Findings A. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25 (Design Review) given that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for compliance with the Wireless communications facility criteria in SRMC Section 14.16.3 60 to ensure that the design is compatible with its setting, as required by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria given that the project design would minimize visual impacts by concealing conduit runs, replacing existing utility poles to minimize aesthetic impacts of taller pole by heights required the antenna, 0 1 minimizing the size of equipment enclosures and tnAergroundii— related mechanical equipment and has applied for and obtained approval for an exception to exceed the maximum 30 foot height limit that applies to the arca, which may be permitted for wireless facilities through design review approval. C. As conditioned, the project design minimizes environmental impacts and given that it invokes a minor Litilit-, infrastructure prcje;--t located within public rights-of-wav, x;hich qualifies for a Categorical exemption from the proN isioiis of the California Em, ironinuntal 011ality Act (CEQA); pursuant to Sections 15301 b and 15303d. D. The de's; 1-1,01 be deter i Inenta1 to the 1-Jublic The- ltll.Y or "-' el farc. nor Iv injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinit}' given that the project has bc'cn re6ewed b\ the and co-n'lilion'--d - -P�;' I disc—c-Q,--d und--r Us,-� R�r! 0. 1 1 -020 Findina B above, A. There are special circumstances applicable to the project that warrant an exception to the 30 -foot height limit, given that the project involves a wireless telephone infrastructure improvement that would require a location on utility poles which typically are not subject to the zoning height limit provisions, and which is considered appropriate to achieve coverage and minimize design impacts of the project. B. Chanting of the exception would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the health, safety or welfare of thegeneral public, as discussed in Use Permit Finding B and Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding D above. BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael approves the requests for a Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to height subject to the following conditions: Use Permit (UP11-020) Conditions of Approval Cornrnxnity Development Department, Planning Division 1. This approval grants a Master Use Permit for installation of distributed antenna system (DAS) wireless antenna infrastructure within public rights-of-way by the ExteNet Systems telephone corporation, and its successor(s), as indicated on approved plans and subject to compliance with all Environmental and Design Review Permit(ED 11-024) conditions of approval. 2. Any changes, modifications, expansions, alterations, etc, proposed to the distributed antenna system "DAS" network infrastructure shall be subject to prior review and approval by the Planning Division to assure it remains in compliance with this approval. The Community Development Director shall determine whether such change, modification, expansion, alteration, etc. shall require a major or minor amendment to this use permit approval. 3. An expansion of the DAS system network shall be permitted under the terms of this use permit without requiring an amendment, provided that it consists of an expansion of the original system approved under this permit with antenna nodes similarly spaced and designed consistent with the related design approval EDI 1-024 and a minor design permit is obtained. 4. The DAS system equipment shall not preclude any efforts in the future to underground utility wires and utility ir:frastructure in the area. In the event that other utility equipment is proposed to be placed underground, the telephone corporation responsible for the DAS equipment shall agree to obtain revised zoning approvals to relocate its infrastructure or retain the equipment on stand alone utility poles. 5. The applicant shall comply with all post approval requirements for wireless facilities as required by Section 14.16.360.'\ of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance, as they may be updated front time to time. including the following: Within forty -civ{, (45) days of commencement of operations, the applicant for the N� ireless conimuni_atin n fat_.ilitt- cin.di nroN.-ich- ilne .-onin-111tli1 rite. Aonnicnr �3-pa,t; ,.rnt t;;iti a repo t r r ...-.., r rd. prepared by a qualified expert. indicating that the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest noint of rubji(' access tad in iltp direeticin of maximum radiation from each antenna. is in compliance N� ith the standards established b;: i FC - UR, b. The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall participate in and pay proportionate cost for periodic review of measurement by the City of the RFR of the facility, to be scheduled and conducted on a routine basis by the City. The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall remove any abandoned facilities or restore the existing approved use of a facility within ninety (90) days of termination of use. d. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within forty-five (45) days of notification. e. Owner or operators of all approved wireless communication facilities shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR.. Upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the owner or operator shall notiB/ the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed. The City will contract with a qualified expert to perform the testing and the owners or operators shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for its facility. ExteNet and or its client(s) shall place and maintain an 8" wide by 12" high permanent RFR caution sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6' tall utility pole extension just above the cross arm. The sign shall be compliant with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol and content conventions. The sign shall provide at all times a working local or toll free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall reach a live person who can exert transmitter power -down control over this site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to climbing above the base of the utility pole extension. 7. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for the work within public -rights-of-way. 8. This Use Permit approval shall oc valid for two years from date of approval, and shall expire unless an encroachment permit has been submitted and work is pursued diligently to completion. Environmental and Design Review Permit (i DII-024) Conditions of Approval Cott munitj= Derelolmient Department, Plaa777ing Division 1. This Design Review Permit (EDI 1-024) shall be valid for t No years from approval, or until September 25, `;014, and shall be n and void if an encroachment permit is not issued or a time extension granted prior to the expiration; date. Once the encroachment permit is issued and tiie facilities are installed, the Design Review Permit shall remain valid and run N\ ith the land subjcci io all conditions of approval. 2. The building" techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of this project, as presented for a>pri le'). i" Cnf,�rovnbthF,Pinnnincy t�.�qh"111 issuance of .an encroachment perniit, except as further conditioned hs rein. :any future additions. exriansictis, remodeling. eic.. :lull be S?_i'bject to the rel"iev,- ;and approi ai of the Con;ILMits i evelo (menu Director, -4- The distributed antenna system net -work infrastructure shall be designed as indicated on approved plans, consisting of initial installation of five antenna nodes comprised of the following details or components: a. A small 2'2" by 16" diameter on -mi -antenna attached to the top of a utility pole replacement, without need for any extension arm, b. New poles shall be placed in the same location as existing utility Poles. c. Conduit runs shall be concealed with U -Guard painted to match the pole. d. Equipment cabinets shall be placed in underground vaults, in order to minimize visual blight and potential for graffiti. c. Existing utility poles may be replaced with taller poles (e.g., allowing placement of wireless antenna on poles exceeding the height limit established for the area) if necessary to provide the minimum 6 -feet of separation required for safety between the proposed antenna facility equipment and PG&E electrical transmission lines. 4. Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit, the following changes shall be made to the plan and installed accordingly: a. The "skirting" proposed on the project plans to conceal the bracket and wire connections below the omni -antennas shall not be utilized (consistent with the recommendation of the Design Review Board to reduce the visual impact of the facility). b. The location LUC-004B is approved at the Manual T Freitas/Munson Park location instead of the previously proposed Hibiscus Way site. c. All utility cabinets for all locations shall be placed underground. 5. Additional nodes may be added to 11-c network, as deemed permitted under the tecins of maste- Usp, Permit (UPI 1-020), through grant of an administrative environmental and design review permit and subject to compliance with stealth design approaches approved herein and shown on project plans. 6. Construction activities shall comply with City's Noise Ordinance. Depal-1777MF 01'Public TVorks The applicant shall apply for and receive an encroachment permit for this work prior to any construction or operation occurring. It is recommended and in the interest of the City to have a single contractor peribrin Nvork in one neighborhood to avoid conflicts. 9� The applicant shall pursue utilization t -)f the smallest equipment cabinet enclosure possiblN. 10. ExteNet shall enter into an agreement with PG&E or AT&T to remove the facilities from the joint —11 pole an— I �bli igl 1 1 - , -- - +� A Pro%:-,M� c;nn,,ri AT��,� T , — f, or I I !0---� I Sri Z- ,_,L U infraSti-LICU11-C. Provide \,erilfication that ExteN,,el leas rights to Nvork on these facilities and is covered Phldej- siate 11 ancli-isc agrectijeot. Z:11 -5- 12. Provide evidence of easements for any infrastructure occurring outside of public rights of way. Exception (EX12-002) Cott nntniy Development Department, Planning Division 1. This Exception EX121-002 permits new omni -antenna to be placed on utility poles in excess of the 30 - foot height limit established in the subject residential areas, as part of a wireless antenna infrastructure project, consistent with and subject to related zoning entitlements UPI 1-020 and ED 11-024 granted for the ExteNct Lucas Valley IFAS Infrastructure Project. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 25"' day of September, 2012. Moved by Commissioner Pick and seconded by Commissioner Robertson. AYES: COMMISSIONERS Colin, Pick, Robertson, Schaefer and Chair Wise NOES: COMMISSIONERS None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Paul SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION A-FTEST: BY: Paul A. Jensen, Secretary ViktoriyaV�risc, Chair CITY OF Meeting Date: September 25.2012 � ".~�� n* Agendabenm: CommuoityDevo|opmentDepartment-PlanninQDhvimion Case Numbers: UP11'20.ED11'24.EX12-002 R0. Box 1515O0.San Rafael, C4 84915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Kraig Tambonnini-(415)485- 3D92 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Lucas Valley Area (ExteNet Systems DAS Network) - Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception for installation Cf8wireless @DtSDn8 network within City public rights-of-way, as part Of 8 distributed anhBDD8 SySt8D1 ("D/\G^) public telephone infrastructure project proposed to be implemented by ExteNet Systems, a telephone COrpO[3ti0D. The network vvOU|d be Q}Dlphs8d of five /5> DOd8S. consisting Of 2'2" tall by 18" diameter O[DDi-@DteDn8 placed OD top Of joint Uh|ih/ pO|8S and ground mounted equipment placed at VF below grade near each antenna node. The project 8pODSO[ is |iCeDG8d by the State of California PUC as a telephone corporation that provides iDfraS\[UCtUne for wireless telephone service providers. The equipment within G@O Rafael is part of larger network that would extend to the City Of Novato. Address: EXiSUDQ public rights-of-way in the median strip of Las G8||iDa3 Ave (1900 b|OCk). Del (3aO8dO Rd (800 block), Las G@||iO@SAve at Montevideo Way, adjacent to property at 714 Penny Royal Lane and 8|VOg Manuel T. Freitas parkway near Las P8V@d8G; T8[[8 Linda, Santa Margarita and Mont Marin -San R8f88| Park neighborhood areas. ExteNet Systems, ULC is 8teleph0Oe corporation that installs enhanced wireless antenna telephone infrastructure (8h8' distributed @OLeOO8 avoteOlS. "D/\S") within public rights-of-way, under the prOViSiOOS of Ca Codes CPUC 7901-7912. Ex[eNethas received its required authorizations from the State Public Utilities CDDlrDiSSi0D to iDSt8|| infrastructure within rights-of-way as 2 public utility, and is @ DlBDlbe[ of the Joint Poles Authority (which is an 8[[8Og8OUeDt between utility providers for use and nl8iOteDaOC8 Of shared above ground utility poles). Staff has determined that the project, although G public utility improvement, [8Dl8iOS SUbi8Ct to the Wireless CODl[DUDiC8UODS facilities p[OViSi0OS of the San Rafael yWUDiCip8| Code Section 14.18.380; particularly to 38SU[8 C000p|i3Oc8 with S[08|th design and Radio Frequency (RF) e[DioSi0D Si3Od8PdS. As such, the project requires a Use Permit, Envi[UO[DSDt@| and Design Review Permit and Exception to exceed the height limit of 30 feet for the subject 8[e@8. The project is being processed as W18Gt8[ Use Permit and Design Review Permit entitlements, aGthe facility is a single iDh'8S[[UCtUFe network and may be expanded from time to time. The facility will also require iSSU8DCe Of an encroachment permit from Public \8/O[hS for work in the City rights-of-way. The "D/\G^ infnlstnuCLUn3 is proposed to be installed in the existing pUb1k: hA nJOOiOg from north San Rafael through K8ahO County and into the City Of Novato, to provide inh@StnUCtU[G for vire|8SS service providers that would serve residential properties in the Lucas Valley area, west of Highway 101. Wireless telephone service providers (e.g.. C3[/i8rS such as Gp[iOL AT&T, T -mobile, etc.) COU|d utilize the "DA8"te|8CO[DDlUDiC6diOOS infrastructure t0extend orenhance their services in these 3F88S. CUrneOUy, the infrastructure is p[OpO38d to Serve T -Mobile, as 8 client OfExteNBt. The oO0p8Dy. EXteNet, does not provide wireless services it5e|f', theiehjne, does not require aD FCC or PUC license to operate. Tvvo of the five antenna nodes are located vvithin the nlediaO Of Las G3UiOaS Avenue. |n the Mont Marin/San Rafael P8d< neighborhood. The remaining three sites, located within the Terra Linda/Santa M@[g8ht8 neighborhood area, include two nodes adjacent to FBS{deOba| |Cd Hibiscus Way and one node within the Del G8Dado Road median strip. TheE CC Meeting Nov. 10' 20/2 FXeNo. APY2-00O Exhibit 5-PCStaff Report REPORT TO PLANNING COMMIbslON - Case No: UPI 1-20, EDI 1-24, EXI 2-02 Page 2 residentially designated neighborhoods. The zoning classifications of adjacent properties include R5, R7.5, R10, R-20, PD and R5 -EA. Zoning district development standards(i.e., lot coverage, setbacks, etc.) would not apply to utility equipment placed in public rights-of-way. However, the standards in Chapter 14.16.360 (Site & Use regulations) would apply to installation of the wireless antenna facilities. Therefore, the 30 -foot height limit established for the area pursuant to the General Plan 2020 Exhibit 8 would also be applicable to the project. The project has been reviewed and recommended by the Design Review Board, with changes. As a result of DRB's review, facility LUC004A has been moved from a front yard location on Hibiscus Way to the Manuel T. Freitas location (aka, LUC 004B). The Board supported the five locations, subject to elimination of a proposed skirt screening below the antenna and with undergrounding of all equipment cabinets (as recommended by staff). Staff supports the project, with incorporation of the additional revisions recommended by the DRB, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a Master Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review permit and height Exception for the ExteNet Systems DAS project, with conditions. History On December 22, 2010 the City completed pre -application review (PA10-004) for the project, which included review by the Department of Public Works and City Attorney's office. Applicable City permit requirements and preliminary project issues were identified as a result of this preliminary review. A formal application was filed on March 25, 2011, and referred internally for review. As a result of the pre - application review, ExteNet eliminated a proposed new utility pole installation that was proposed at the end of Cedar Hill Drive off Lucas Valley Road, and a proposed side mount antenna on the Las Gallinas Ave location. Pole -top installations were viewed as a less obtrusive design solution. Formal review of the project submittal was suspended in order for ExteNet to conduct a public informational meeting, which was conducted October 12, 2011. Peer review of the proposed antenna equipment was completed by a third party, Kramer Firm, the City RFR consultant. Finally, the Design Review Board reviewed the project at two meetings (June 19 and August 7, 2012), and recommended approval with some further revisions to the proposed facility design and installation. Staff also notes that similar applications have been filed and are being processed within Marin County and the City of Novato, Utility Transmission Infrastructure Overviev., The utility poles within the City rights-of-way are generally used for electrical transmission, telephone communications and cable television infrastructure. PG&E and AT&T are the primary owners of the poles and transmission systems for electrical and telephone, and have rights under franchise agreements to use the rights-of-way. Cable television providers require a local franchise agreement. Ownership and maintenance of the poles are primarily controlled by PG&E and AT&T, and shared use by other providers is managed through agreement by a Joint Poles Authority collaborative group. AT&T maintained ownership of its 'telephone distribution line infrastructure following deregulation, and must make its infrastructure available to other telephone service providers (as is also the case with the PG&E n[­-iA­,n r lines, whi.k —uSt nroVi—rbm d—istri—butin—n for Marin Energy Authority and other energy Z:1 Y providers). Thus, for decades cities have had long-term working relationships with the utility transmission cornnanies that maintain the nrimary diStribution infrastructure. The advent of new te!er)hone technologies has opened the doors for new corporations to install infrastructure in the rights-of-way, under thie CA Public Utility Col-tir-nission (PUC) regulations. Local authority is discussed furtr-ler below, but generally is limited to issuance of an encroachment permit for installation of utility infrastructure in public i Additional local, state and federal permit requirements apply to telephone service providers (e.g.. C8Diers), including wireless telephone providers. T«pic8||y, the initial iDS13||81iOD of utility infrastructure is addressed at time of subdivision approval, and the cost for things such as UOdergR}UOdiDA can be placed On the deV8|0p8[ PG&E and AT&T routinely underground their transmission |iDGS and equipment in new developments. UDde[gn]UOding of existing lines can be 8CCODlp|iSh8d in older neighborhoods when funded through local programs. In order to maintain the character of its neighborhoods and implement its design objectives, the City must diligently promote its policies for UOde[O[OUDdiDg Of iDf[8St[UCtUFe where practical, particularly as smaller utility corporations propose use of existing public rights-of-way for new technologies. State Regulatory Authority The State Public Utilities C0OlDliSSi0D has CODC{Uded that iDsta||@dOO of advanced te|eCOD101UOiC8ti0OS infrastructure is of statewide CODCe[O. Pursuant to CPUC 1001-1013 the State maintains the authority for iSSU8OCe of certificate of convenience and necessity /CPNC\ and franchise 8gneSnleOt authorizing telephone corporations to construct iDf[8StrUCtUne in rights-of-way. CPUC 7901-7912 establish that telephone corporations "Day CODGbDC/ telephone lines 8/0Og and upon any public road, highway, waters or lanes NVfh/0 the state, may erect poles, posts, p/8cG or abutments for supporting insulators, wires and other necessary fixtures Oftheir lines, /0such manner aSnot /Oincommode the public use 0fthe road Or highway 0rinterrupt the navigation Ofw@h9y8."CPUC Section 234(8)defines "telephone line" tOinclude all equipment in connection with or facilitating CODlDlUOiC3tiOO by telephone, with Or without use Of t[8DSDliSSiOO wires. Local Review Authority The City may exercise reasonable control 8sb]time, QA9Ce, and manner iOwhich PO@ds, highways and waterways are accessed. TObereasonable, "local controls shall b0applied tOall entities /OaDequivalent manner." Typically, 3 t8|8ph0O8 CO[pO[8tiDO nlUSt only obtain ministerial |eVS| 8XCGV8tioO. encroachment and/or building permits for infrastructure coOSt[uCbOO. /\ City's Public VVo[k8 Department D1@iDt8iOS primary FeSpODSibi|ih/ for authorizing work in rights-Of-Vv@y.1 The City reserves its |OC8| @Uth0htv to regulate cable or telecommunications SerViC8S provided by telephone cVrpOr8U0DS and Ce||U|8r Service Car[ie[Sc' 3 and maintains CODt[0| over @CCe8S to and p|8cCOleDt Of new utility equipment in its public rights-of-way. The G8Oe[@} Plan 2020 Infrastructure Element COOtaiOS |oC@| policy guidance regarding iDSt8||8tiOO and O}GiDteDaDCe of public infrastructure. Based OD its review Ofall of applicable |OC3| and state codes and City General P|@D 2020. staff has determined that iDSt8U8dOO Of°D/\G"wireless facility iDfraGtRJCtUnS in {|hv hg neDl8iD subject to the discretionary zoning pR}viSiODS OfSRK8C 14.18.360; in addition to obtaining eDCnO@Ch0eOt permits for telephone iDfraSiTUCtUFe VVO[h. This vvOu!d include naVievv of RFR emission thresholds and stealth design n3qUiPen08Ots. to the Ol8XiDlU[D extent practicable. ThSF8fOFe' staff has required a Master Use Permit and EOVirODDl8Dt8| and Design Review Permit for the ExteN8t D/\8 xvine|SSS antenna system network; in -lieu of requiring separate zoning permits for each 8Dt9DDa node location. The fO||0VViOg minimum info[DlatiDn ha3boCn [8quinadfor the ''[}AG" network application: �+ RFRreport for each node �~ Plans for each node (Sit8.elevation and details) Photographs for each node Coverage Map showing areas that could be served bysystem inf[astruoturS Photo -simulation for each node ^ Responsibilities for underlying property ovinee and City for the use, maintenance and improve menta in public rights-of-way -re ea��inha��nthaCoSUae�ondH�hnmyaC,�e (Ca Codes ����t�18&CaCcdnu3JUU�3ON� - The PUC defers to the local government lor review Of cellular telecommunication service providers. � Cable/video providers remain subject local franchise ugeements, managed by K8arinTelecommunications Agency (0TA) joint powers authority. Peer review of the project design requirements and RFR emissions Structural calculations for the subject utility poles Joint Poles Authority agreement > State CPNC granted for the subject telephone company If a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination was made by the CPUC for the project a copy of this would also need to be submitted. Additional information could be requested, as necessary, to confirm work is within a dedicated public right-of-way; such as a survey of the properties and respective rights-of-way, title report confirming dedication of right-of-way in fee for public use, as well as map(s) showing location of AT&T and PG&E transformer and related equipment that were installed to serve the subdivision. This additional information was not needed as the facilities have been clearly established to fall within dedicated public rights-of-way. Further, the environmental determination will be made by the City. The application materials provided have confirmed that ExteNet is a telephone corporation, has received a State franchise agreement pursuant to the Ca PUC requirements, and has obtained membership in the public utility pole infrastructure providers' Joint Pole Authority. Therefore, staff has determined that the following general criteria should apply to this project in order to determine whether the facility design and placement would maximize stealth opportunities in compliance with local standards and policies: Existing pole dimensions should not be materially altered for placement of new antenna (e.g., maintaining existing pole heights andlor respecting the height limit of the zoning district) Existing utility pole infrastructure should be utilized to the maximum extent possible > Undergrounding of related ancillary equipment should be proposed to the maximum extent possible (consistent with GP 2020 Policy 1-4 and existing subdivision characteristics) andlor new equipment should be collocated near the existing utility cabinets in the subdivision RFR emission standards should not cause General Public exposure thresholds to be exceeded Any infrastructure proposed on private property would be subject to all discretionary provisions of SRMC 14.16.360 "t- The use of existing public utility poles should not preclude future undergrounding of the shared facility ,infrastructure, including overhead utility lines and any related equipment The joint pole authority owners should provide assurance for removal should equipment become obsolete or abandoned ExteNet Systems (California) LLC proposes to install a Distributed Antenna System ("DAS") telecommunications network within the County of Marin (aka, Lucas Valley Network). "DAS" networks provide telecommunications transmission services to wireless service providers (aka, carriers). "DAS" infrastructure services allow wireless service providers to establish or expand their network coverage and capacity. A "DAS" network consists of a series of telecommunications antennas and associated equipment boxes, typically mounted on existing wooden utility poles within the public rights-of-way. The antennas and equipment boxes are mounted on the same pole. These pole -mounted antennas and equipment boxes are referred to as "nodes". Five such nodes within the Lucas Valley system are proposed to be located within the City of San Rafael. (The other nodes within the system are proposed to be located in the unincorporated County and City of Novato; which are also processing zoning entitlements for system segments within their jurisdictions.) The nodes are linked by fiber-optic cable that iS typically routed aerially from pole-to-pole, in some cases, "micro -trenching' is needed to COLItefibe'r.- optic cable where there is no overhead infrastructure available. The fiber-optic cable is typically connected to the intended wireless service clients equipment hub. The proposed te|eC0[DDlUDic@tODS facility 8qUipOle[d VV0U|d be placed OD existing Uti|dv DO|e8 vvhhiD existing hg throughout north G8O Rafael. Starting from the north and rOOviOQ south and east, the five antenna "DOdeS"proposed iOSan Rafael are @Sfollows: m LUC-014Alocated Vn8new 43 tall pole (replacing existing 3O'utility pole) iDthe center median of Las CSaVlinas Ave at Twelve Oak Hill Dr, with at grade equipment cabinet. ° LUC-008A |OC8[ed OD 8 new 52' tall pO|8 (replacing existing 43' utility pole) in the center median of Las GaHimasAve atMontevideo Dr, with Etgrade equipment cabinet. m LUC-004B located on 8 new 47'6" pole (replacing 39` pole) @|0Dg Manual l[ Freitas at Munson Park. with 8tgrade equipment cabinet. » LUC-003A located OD @ new 43' 18U pole /[ep|8CiOg 37' pole) OD Penny Royal Lne' adjacent to 8 residential side yard, with below grade equipment vault in sidewalk. w LUC-017A located on 8 new 43' [3U pole (n2p|8dOg 36' pD|8) in the center median of Dei Ganado Rd at Duran Dr, and at grade equipment cabinet. The sites would provide the potential for wireless telephone coverage and services to the surrounding neighborhoods @|0Og Las G8UinoSAVe and Del G8nadO Rd. These @[e8S are SUrrOUOd8d by hills and valleys that limit wireless service coverage provided by CODveOtiOD@| 8nte003S (see Project P|@DS - COVengg8 W18p, Exhibit 5). All the UU|itv infrastructure i0pPDV8DleDtG are identified within the dedicated public rights-of-way of Terra Linda Subdivision's N0.2 and No.5' recorded 1954. The five "OA8" nodes proposed within the City UfSan R8fe8| include the following equipment components: a. Omni -antennas measuring 2'-2"tall bv1O"diameter mounted OO4"bv4"bv0'post extensions b]the existing utility poles capable of supporting 1900 — 2100 MHz bands of service. Equipment cabinets at four locations measuring 6-2" tall bvZ-1"wide by2'-1"deep and electric Dl8te[ placed at ground level, @pp[OXiDl@te|y 5 -feet from poles, to house battery backups and @ deka node. c. Cable runs underground from the cabinet through U -guard conduit along the pole to the antenna. d. (]vedl83d fiber-optic line [UDS 8|OOg existing poles OD the Las G@UinaS Ave and Del GaO8dO S8gDlSD[S' with short underground "n0iCn3-tFeDChing" runs on L@SP8v8d8S. DU[@O Road and Penny Royal/Pine Lane .4 (See Project P|@D3 - Lucas Valley CODSt[u{tiOD Map) (Note: this CD[Dp0DeOt is not subject to City discretionary review.) The nodes would provide service coverage t0the residential neighborhoods in the Terra Linda. GaDL8 K8@rg8[it8 and Mont Marin/San Rafael Park OBighbndlOOdS. The pole |DC2bODS presented for consideration are stated as maximizing the coverage Vbi8(tiV8s for the wireless service provider clients, without" holes" 0run-served areas ofwireless coverage (see Project P|aOS-00ve[8ge08p). RFR Emissions: An RFR study has been required for the antenna OOd5S and CO[fimD8d to comply with FCC rules, as required by the City regulations. The FCC establishes signage and RFR intensity requirements for both service workers and general public exposure from t8|8Co[nrDUDiC8boDS antenna. Emissions that dO not GXC88d 5% of the 08rirDUnl [8cOnlDleDded general HXpoGu[8 limit are considered to be a8f8 without requiring any special miUQadoD (a.a. safety barriers: eiOnnge). Pepr ,evievv ofthe app|ioRnt's, ;lDFf nt/|dy has been completed by Kramer'Firm, the City's RFR consultant for all 5 original nodes. Peer review Of � Chyzoning �veadoes not opp�iothe ove�eadKdaoommuniuodonslines ex�ndedbetween ex�UnguU|hy�o�s� the RA0Cat8d node LUC004B has not been deemed necessary 8Sthe chGc@ctehSiiCS are substantially similar to the related facilities, including previous LUC004A which was closer to residential properties. General Plan 2B28Consistency: The pertinent San Rafael General P|8O 2020 |DfraStnJCtU[8 Element policies include Policy 1-2 (Adequacy of infrastructure), 1-4 (Utility m7dergmm7ding). and 1-15 (access to reliable, modern and cost- effective teA;CVD7/nUn/C8bpnS). FzO|iCy 1-4 encourages UDdergPDuOdiDg of existing traOSDliSSiOD |iOHS. No Specific policy has been developed neC0O0DleDdiDg UDd8rgrOundiOg Of new iOf[8St[UCtUne' as this is already the standard for new development and implicit Of Policy 1-4. The City typically eXe[CiSGS its CnDbo| over the design and placement of new utility iDfr8St[uCiU[8 during review and 8ppnOV8| of subdivision i0p[OV8DlentS (State Subdivision Map Act 8eC1iOD 66410-65852.2). This USU8||y is 3CCO[Dp|iSh8d at the expense of the developer, pursuant to @RPWC Sections 15.08.130 (UDdengnOUDdiOg Utilities) and Section 15.11.050 (Subdivision Improvement Agreements). This C8Se is unique in that it iDv0|VeS new technologies that were not considered when the utility infrastructure was designed and installed in the rights-of-way for the subject 8F8GS. The project would b8 in 5UbS18Dti8| CU0p|i8DC8 with City pO|iCies, provided that 8SSUr3DC8S are nnod9 to require Fe!VCghOO of the 0OODi-@Ot8DD8 at such time as the Other electric, C@b|8 and telephone utility iOhBSt[UCtUre is [8|UC8fed underground [BDde[iDQ the utility pU|8 obsolete, and to 3SSUFe that the joint pole authority vvOU|d r8iDOVe any equipment associated with the "OAS" project ShOU|d it become obsolete. Furthermore, the 8DteDDG. its supports and equipment cabinets Sh0U|d be designed to [DiDiDliZe ViSUG| iOlp8CtS' including SCFBeOiDg 8Od/V[ UDdergnOUOdiOg Of C8biDetS, to be CO[Dpadb|e with the existing neighborhood and other utility infrastructure i[OpP0VeDleOtS in the neighborhoods. Note: draft conditions of approval are recommended to 8ddn3SG these CUOCe[ns (Condition # Of UP11-020 and Condition #2OfED11-O24). Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The proposed omni -antenna and equipment cabinets have been deemed tObe subject tDDesign Review pursuant to Chapter 14.25 and 8RK0C 14.16.380, and require 3 major Exception pursuant to 8RN1{} Chapter 14.24 to exceed the 30-fO0t height limit that applies to 'the area; in addition to obtaining an encroachment permit for work. The project DOdeS8Ra8||pnDp0sedinke8stprefe[[edFeSid8Obe||Ooationm' which are discouraged |0C8tiODS due to concerns with 88Gth8tiCS and perceived health risks. Further, OiV8D the technology @sSOCi8t8d with this utility iDfrast/UCtU[S. which requires supporting gnDUOd Or pole - mounted equipment at each node /OCatiOD in order to provide enhanced SerViC8S. and given that utility companies typically do not provide routine |8Od5C8pe Dl8iDt8OenCe for their equipment, it is deemed important that the City fully implement policies pnDDlodOg screening and UOde[g[OUDding Of utility equipment in City rights-of-way in 0nd8[ to pFeSBn/e the character and aesthetic of its neighborhoods-, consistent with the General Plan 2020 Neighborhood and Community Design Elements. Based on this diScoS8i0n, it is important that the need for each node location be d80ons1rated, that the number of nodes be minimized, that stealth design be maximized, and that FCC limits on RFR emissions be maintained at the |Ovv88t recommended levels for general p0pU|@tiOO (e.g., public) exposure. Peer review of the designs and RFFl eDliaSiOD3 has been required to CODfi[Ul that each node vvoU|d be designed to COnlp|y with Dlini3luDl technical St8Odanjs. and CQ[Dp|y with [DiDi0uOl RFR 8DliSSi0nG ihFeGh0|dS (Exhibit 4). Staff has COOC(Uded that the project may be supported with o few design ChaDA8S. as recommended bythe Design Review Board: inc|udinO vnderOr0UOding 0f�|| �qUiprnent �abinpf� Analysis of pertinent reqUirements and recornmended design changes are provided below. 71111''1 "1 IR", 11� 11111111111 l�11111 illiI, 1111 ill �M Chanter 16 — Site and Use Reaulations Section 14.16.360 requires an RFR study, photo -simulations, coverage maps, landscape plans for ground mounted equipment, and alternative site analysis be provided for wireless communications facilities that are subject to major review, including those proposed within residential areas. Local review of this equipment is required to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community, preserve the visual character of the city and to ensure public health and safety, consistent with federal law and Federal Communication Commissions (FCC) regulations, acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communication services within the city, and encourage the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option rather than construction of additional single -use towers. The pertinent design requirements to achieve these objectives are discussed as follows: Co -Location. Service providers are encouraged to co -locate with other existing facilities to minimize the overall visual impact of the new facility. Co -location is preferred over new monopoles or other towers erected. Sited to be screened by existing development, topography or vegetation to the extent consistent with proper operation of the wireless communication facility. Additional new, irrigated vegetation, or other screening, may be required as a condition of approval Stealth Design. All wireless communication facilities shall have a stealth design to screen or reduce visual impacts and blend the facility into the existing environment. Examples of stealth design are facade -mounted antennas located within architectural features so they are screened from view, or an antenna design that mimics architectural features so they appear to be a part of the building design, or facilities with colors and materials to minimize visibility such as a non -reflective finish it) a color compatible with the surrounding area. Locations. New monopoles or towers shall not be located within residential, designated open space or conservation areas unless sufficient technical and other information is provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning commission or zoning administrator that location in such areas is appropriate, subject to the findings that the location of the proposed facility site is essential to meet the service demands of the carrier and no other alternative co -location, existing development or utility facility site, or type of antenna support structure is feasible. This shall be documented by the applicant providing a list of the locations of preferred technically feasible sites, the good faith efforts and measures taken by the applicant to secure these preferred sites, and the specific reasons why these efforts and measures were unsuccessful. and that the use of a monopole for the proposed facility by itself or in combination with other existing, approved, and proposed facilities will avoid or minimize adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources and public safety. Height. The maximum height of building -mounted antennas shall be in compliance with the height limitations for the zoning district in which they are located. An exception to antenna height may be granted by the planning commission or zoning administrator if the RFR exposures and aesthetic quality of the proposed facility are found to be acceptable. Setbacks. Towers. guy u,,ires, and accessory structures, including equipment cabinets, shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district Towers and support structures shall be located a minimum of two hundred feet (200') or at least three (3) times the height of the tower, whichever is greater, from existing residential units or vacant residentially Zoned property, Landscaping. Wireless communication facilities shall be installed in a manner that maintains and enhances existing vegetation and provides new landscape material to screen proposed facilities. The emphasis cf the landscape d sigi i shall be to tvisuaily screen the proposed facility and stabilize soils 017 sloping sites. Introduced vegetation shall be native, drought tolerant species screening necies compatible ivith tha predominant natural setting of the adjacent area. Existing trees and other screeni . ng vegetation in the REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISbION - Case No: UPI 1 -20, EDI 1-24, EXI 2-02 Page 8 vicinity of the proposed facility shall be protected from damage both during and after construction. Submission of a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist may be required. All vegetation disturbed during project construction shall be replanted with compatible vegetation and soils disturbed by development shall be reseeded to control erosion. Appropriate provisions for irrigation and maintenance shall be identified in the landscape plan. The city may impose a requirement for a landscape maintenance agreement as a condition of approval. Noise. Wireless communication facilities shall be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Wireless communication facilities shall operate in compliance with the noise exposure standards in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13, Noise. Normal testing and maintenance activities shall occur between eight a. m. (8:00 a. m.) and six p.m. (6:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, excluding emergency repairs. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). Wireless communication facilities operating alone and in conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC. Applications for wireless communication facilities shall include a RFR report, prepared by a qualified expert, which identifies the predicted and actual (if available) levels of RFR emitted by the proposed facility operating by itself and in combination with other existing or approved facilities which can be measured at the proposed facility site. Measurements for RFR shall be based on all proposed, approved, and existing facilities operating at maximum power densities and frequencies, > Post -Approval Requirements. The following requirements apply to wireless antenna facilities: * Within forty-five (45) days of commencement of operations, the applicant for the wireless communication facility shall provide the community development department with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating that the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest point of public access and in the direction of maximum radiation from each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR. The city will contract to perform the testing with a qualified expert and the owners or operators shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for its facility. * The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall remove any abandoned facilities or restore the existing approved use of a facility within ninety (90) days of termination of use. * Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within forty-five (45) days of notification. * Owner or operators of all approved wireless communication facilities shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR, Upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the Owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed, RFR Emissions Review A confirmation that the facility would comply with the FCC's RFR safety standards is sufficient for purposes of Design Review. This discussion is provided for the benefit of the Board and public to confirm that the applicable requirements have been met. Pursuant to the FCC Bulletin 65 Supplemental C, harmful biological effects can occur from an exposure level from wireless antenna facilities of 4,0 W/kg; i.e., specific absorption rate (SAR ' ) as averaged over the whole-body. After applying additional safety factors, the FCC established its limits for whole-body exposure at 0.4 W/kg for "control I ed/occu pation al " exposure and 0.08 VV/kg for "uncontrolled/general population" exposure, respectively. The FCC further establishes special mitigation requirements for any -180iii-Ly that would generate an exposure level at or above 5% (.0041A//kg) of the general population exposure limit, The following QoOC|U8iOOS have been provided based UpOD a peer review by the City's independent consultant, Kramer Firm, of the RFR studies prepared for the antenna nodes: Node LUC-014A-ROW iDmedian 0fLas G8UiD88Ave 8tTwelve Oak Hill Dr, - This node would result in an Ov8[8U height Of 46'3" with aD[eDD8 [DOUO[8d at 44' above grade, 8qUiprD8Ot cabinet 5 -feet south Of the pole toward Twelve Oak Hill D[ intersection, at 5 -feet above grade. The Oe8[8St residence is approximately 63 feet from the facility. The general eXpVSUr8 limit threshold falls b8|oVv 596 of the General Public Exposure limit at G distance of21-feetfrom the 8OteOD8, which is worst case. Noaccessible area iSpredicted tOexceed the FCC 596general public exposure limit. Node LUC-009A - ROW in the median of Las Gallinas Ave at Montevideo Dr, - This node would result iOGDoverall height Of54'3"with antenna mounted Gt52`above grade, equipment cabinet 5-feetwest Of the pole tDVV8Pd P8[hridge Rd intersection, at 5 -feet above grade. The nearest residence is approximately 107 feet from the facility. The general 8xp0SUrB limit threshold f2\|S be|OVV 5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance Of 21 -feet from the ant8DDe' at the height of the antenna which iSworst case. No accessible area is predicted t0exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure limit. Node LUC-004A - ROW adiacent to 459 Hibiscus Wav residential front vard - This node would result in an OVe[@|| height of 47'4" with gDt8Dn8 DlOUOt8d at 45' above grade, equipment cabinet 5 -feet east of the pole along the residential properties street frontage, at 5 -feet above grade and 8' from the curb. The nearest residence is 25 feet from the 3D[eOOa and exposure |8V8\ f8|iS be|OVv 5% of the GSn8[8| PUh|iC Exposure limit at 8 distance of21-f9Etfrom the antenna, which is worst case. No 8CC8sSib|e area is predicted to 8XC88d the FCC 596 general public 8XpOSUFe |iDliL /Note: this facility has been relocated to LUC 004B. and would result in materially similar effects). Node LU[| -003A - ROW 0OP8OOYROVa|LOand 8di8CenttO8residential side Y8Pd-This node would ReSU|t in an UV8[a|} height Of45' with the 8DteDDG mounted at 43' above grade, 8qUipDl8Ot cabinet 5 - feet north of the pole along the [8SideOd3| property frontage, at 5 -feet above grade and 5 feet from the curb. The nearest residence is approximately 50 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold f@||S be|UvV 5% Of the G8DB[8| Public EXpOSUne limit at a distance of 21 -feet from the 3D1eOD8, which iSworst case. No accessible area is predicted toexceed the FCC 596 geD8[8| public exposure limit. Node [UC -017A - ROW iDmedian UfDel B8O8dORd3tDuran D�-The subject node VVOU|dresult iO an 0Ve[a|| height of 44' with the 8Ot8DD8 mounted 42' above g[8de. equipment cabinet 5 -feet east toward the intersection at [}Ur@U Drive, at 5 -feet above grade. The nearest residence is app[OXi[ngt8|y 48 feet from the facility. The geDS[8| exposure limit threshold f@||S be|Om/ 5% Of the General Public EXp0SUnG |i[Di[ at 3 distance of 21 -feet from the GDteDn@. which is vvOrSt case. NO accessible area is predicted to exceed 5% of the FCC general public exposure limit. Based Onthe RFRreports arid reviews completed by Krarfle!Firm, staff has deter -mined that each node would OOnOp|y with FCC [>ET Bulletin 85 rules regarding safety, with the fVUOVVD0 r8CO0nleDd9d RFRCondhioD ^EXteN8t8Od O[its C|iSOt(s) Sh8U place and Dl8iDt8iD an 8' mjd8 by 12" high permanent RFR caution sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6' tall utility pole extension just above the cross arm. The sign shall becomplaint with FCC {}ETBulletin 85D[ANSI C85.2 fOrCO|Q[. SyOBbO| and content conventions. The sign shall provide at all 1iDles 8vVQrking |oCG| or 'Coll freeie|epnOn8 nUOlbertC its network operations center, and Suoh telephone 5117471r�llllliii I'll 1 1111311 1,117,111 site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to climbing above the base of the utility pole extension." K[@0e[ Firm notes that if the Ud|ity, or carrier(s), agree to this coDdUUOO there will be no basis to deny or further CODdbiOO the project based On its RFFl emissions. This is based VO the f3Cƒ that the FCC pneC|UdBS |DC8| government from denying wireless service facilities based on health impacts if8facility operates within the RIF thresholds for public exposure limits established by the FCC for wireless facilities. lFhe[8fOne' this n8C0nnDl8nd8d CODdibOD has been included in [}[aft Resolution as {}OOdibOn # 8 of the Use PB[n0iL For informational pu[pOSeS, staff further notes that concerns with eDvPODOleDt8| health hSkS associated with both low fne�ueDCieS(povVe[lines) and high f�qUGOd8S(radio vvuve)�3DsrDiSsiODSxvhichgenerate non -ionizing radiation have been identified to be primarily related to the potential th8[[n8| effects OD tissue. Radiation from |OVv frequency e|8Cthog| t[8nS[DiSsiOO is typically C@\CU|8t8d using Dli||igGUS (D1G)' which [n8@SUrBS electro -magnetic field intensity. High frequency transmissions use more power and have a shorter wave length and are calculated based on power density. The RFR exposure levels are reported in published literature to drop off exponentially as distance from the source iDCre8s8e. and health effects are dependent on both the amount of time and intensity of exposure to the source. Stealth Design The pole extension design details with the unconcealed SqU3ne post bolted to pole -tops are not considered to be h8rD0DiOUS|y integrated with the existing UU|ih/ pole. In order to C0Dlp|y with the City zoning StGDd8ndS and policies related to VViF8|eSS antenna as well as for new Ud|itv equipment iDfr8Gt[UCtUP3 placed in its rights-of-way, staff recommends that the antenna and equipment Sh0U|d be further modified to minimize its visual impacts; particularly Yvh8[e pPDpOS8d in rights-of-way that abut residential yards. AddiUOO@\iy. staff OO[e3 that the phntV-SirDU|@dODS appear to ShOVv equipment cabinets that are wider than indicated on plans, and that the plans shall take precedence. The following 0iOi0Sd and relatively simple modifications are recommended by the DRB and staff in order t8minimize the aesthetic impacts Ofthe proposed antenna and equipment, with high-quality stealth design solutions that would integrate into the context of the SUrPDUDdiDQ neighborhood and structures: Underground all equipment cabinets. If not underground, 8 graffiti abatement program needs to be executed. Landscaping is not considered 8 suitable long-term eO|UtioD to SCRaoO above gnDUDd cabinets in the public rights Of vV@y dU8' GS neither the City DU[ utility could agree to @ |0Dg-tB[rD Dl3|DteO8nCe program. Eliminate the "skirting" proposed below the [8dODle 8OteDn@3' intended to QDOC88} cabling. Rep|Go8VAeD[ of each UtUKv pole and installation of U -conduit painted out to r03tnh the pole is sufficient. These recommend ations have been incorporated into conditions of approval #3 and #4 of ED1 1-24 and Noise CoOCS[O has been raised with the pOteUbB| for electronic noise to result from the cabinets. The facility does not require 2 transformer Orgenerator 'thus is not anticipated to generate significant audible noise that vvOU|d violate residential noise thn8GhO|dG of 40dBA at the property line. The @ppUC8Ot has stated that G fan VVOU|d trigger when the battery backups are in use. If p|3o8d be|OVv Q[8de. A/C and sump pump oqUipmentCOU|d generate eoo\e /eSid8nii8l UuiSe� The UU|iiye4uipmenLvvou!d b� cVrnpa[ab!eiu eXi�UnQ W0ih/ cabinets located in 'the area and vvOU{d not generate noise exceeding the residential O0|Se flhFeshn|dEtandard9. PNEPORT TO PLANNING COMMI,%,,,ON - Case No: UPI 1-20, EDII-24, EX12-%,,j2 Page 111 Post approval requirements The post approval requirements identified above would be required as a condition of issuance of encroachment permits for the project. Public Works (DPW) is supportive of assuring that the project would be designed to minimize its visual impacts and maintained in perpetuity. DPW further recommends that a single contractor should be selected to perform the work to help assure it is completed in compliance with all City requirements and as efficiently as possible. Post approval requirements have been incorporated in the draft Use Permit conditions. Chapter 24 — Exception As previously discussed, the extension of the utility poles would exceed the City's 30 foot height limit for residential areas. Pursuant to SRMC Section's 14.24.020.E, 14.24.060, and 14.16.360 the Planning Commission may approve height exceptions of more than five -feet above the base height limit (30 feet) for antenna facilities; where special circumstances warrant the increase and would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare. Both staff and the DRB have considered this request and recommend that increased pole height appears justified in order to provide the desired service coverage, and reduce the number of antenna nodes that would be required for the project. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Desian Review Permit Design review criteria encourage equipment to be placed underground or concealed within stealth enclosures, with colors and materials that would harmoniously integrate with the surroundings. Staff has recommended screening and alternative design solutions in its discussion of Chapter 16 above (including undergrounding and removal of proposed skirting of antenna cables); which, if implemented would satisfy the pertinent design criteria of Chapter 25. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION On June 19, 2012 the Board reviewed the project. Commissioner Lang served as the PC liason for the meeting. After their review, the DRB continued the matter and recommended the following: Conceal the support posts, cabling and conduit with stealth enclosures that would more seamlessly blend in with the existing utility pole; in order for the Board to support the co -location design solution. Place the cabinets proposed at Hibiscus Way and Penny Royal Lane underground, in order- for the Board to support these locations. Move the cabinets proposed in Las Gallinas and Del Ganado median strip locations to the center of the median, in less visible locations and conceal these with landscaping,- in -lieu of undergrounding equipment. Provide a proposal for long term maintenance of facilities including landscaping and graffiti removal; in -lieu of undergrounding equipment. At its August 7, 2012 meeting the Board reviewed the revised plans. There was no Planning Commissioner was present at this meeting to serve as PC liason. The Board recommended that the revised designs and relocation of LUC 004A had substantially addressed its concerns (per the ExteNet response memo dated 7/6/12, Exhibit 3). The Board recommended that the addition of U Guard conduit and replacement of utility poles addressed its concerns with design and concluded a "skirt" under the antenna would not be necessary. By a vote of 4 -0-2 (Chair Kent and Member Lentini absent) the Board voted to recommend approval of the project with the following recommended changes. 1) Support of project without extended skirt at the base of the antenna. 2) Alternate placement/location of underground antennae on Manuel Freitas instead of Hibiscus Way 3) Underground placement of all cabinets. I Tne audio and video of the Design Review Board (DRB) meetings can be accessed (;aline at: ;Ittf)://wvwv.citvof,,,ani-afael.oro/'meetinns/ and selecting the link for the June 19 or August 7 meeting dates. The prior staff reports are also available at this webpage. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMIStilON - Case No: UP11-20, ED11-24, EX12-uO2 Page 12 Revisions tOPlans/Conditions OfApproval Since DRB Recommendation Staff d0SS OOt8 that the plans that are beh)n8 the COrnDliSSioD this evening do not incorporate all the recommendations of the DRB. In summary * The plans cUrreOtk/ show that the extended Skirt on all the site. A condition of approval has been added Environmental and Design Review Permit #43' that require that the SNAiDg below the antennas be removed and this will be required to be shown on the plans submitted for building permit w The plans for LUC-OO4Bd0 illustrate the alternate \OC@tiDD recommended by the DRB The median at Las P8vad8S Ave at K8@DU8l T Freitas instead of the previously pn3pOSBd Site of Hibiscus Way. To support this change, a condition of approval has been added Environmental and Design Review Permit # 415 that confirms that this site is to be placed at Las Pavadas and Manual TFreitas rather than Hibiscus Way. oThe plans before the Commission cu[[8Ddy only show the underground p|@oeDl8Ot of Site LUC-003A (Penny Royal). The plans for the other 4 sites currently show above gn]UOd cabinets. Therefore, a condition Of approval has been added Environmental and Design Review Permit #4C. that require that the underground p}@C8Ol8Ot of all utility cabinet at all 5 |OCadVDS. The State PUC may act 8Sthe lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)for issuance of a state franchise and all related work for construction of telephone corporation infrastructure. GeD8[8||y. iDSt8||@tiOD of utility infrastructure may qualify as eW8DlDt from the pn0viSiUOS Of CEQA pU[GU@Dt to CEC>A Guidelines Section 15280 (Ministerial Projects), 15301/b\ (Existing public utility facilities, and/or 15303(d) (New utility eXteDSiOOS\; vxhSPe work is not within an 8Dvi[OODlenta||y sensitive area, 88 defined under CE{}A. The PUC has not Dl8d8 its determination for this facility. Thus, the City must make its own eOvir0D08Dt8| determination for the project. City staff concludes that the Categorical Exemptions 153O1(b) and 153O3(d) would apply t0the scope Qfwork proposed. 0GHBORHOOD MEETING 1 CORRESPONDENCE Notice of h8@[Dg for the project for this P|@OOiDg CUnDDlisSiOD meeting and the two prior DRB meetings VVGS COOdU[t8d in aCCoFd8DQe with noticing r8qUiFenn8OtS contained in Chapter 29 Of the Zoning {}Fdin@DD8. At |88Gt 15 days prior to RU meetings, including this hearing, 8 Notice of Public Hearing was posted and mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 400 -foot radius of the subject sites and the Santa K8@rgarit8, Terra Linda and M0Nt-KX@hO/S2O R@f88| Pad{ Neighborhood Associations, and all other interested parties. Public comments have been received in support and opposed to the project. Proponents in favor Ofthe project support need for enhanced wireless technology and to address |@Ck of coverage in the area. Opponents are concerned with visual blight, health and safety potential oFe@fSd by this project. Copies of all written public correspondence on the pnnpOS8d project received to d@te are attached to'this report as Exhibit 6. Any new correspondence received after publication of this report will be pFVvided to the Planning Commission 8ƒthe hearing. /. Approve the applicants as presented, Nlithconditions hvthe DRB and staff Z Approve the applicationwith certain modifications, changes u(additional conditions Dfapproval. REPORTTO PLANNING COMMISzmON - Case No: UPI 1-20, EDI 1-24, EX12-uu2 Page 13 3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns 4. Deny the project 1. Vicinity/Location Maps ,...,.-Draft R�, u-'tuborn-of Approval - 3. ExteNet Systems 7/6/12 Memo to the DRB 4. Peer Review of RFR Reports (color copies distributed to Commission) 5. Lucas Valley "DAS" project construction and coverage maps (color copies distributed to Commission) 6. Public Correspondence (Plans have been distributed to the Planning Commission only) This Page is Intentionally Left Blank NO', 0 Cc Me 12-()06 [!e! No, \\ Locatiojj'�Aap EEX \§!5 Exhibit 3 RECEIVED ]U/ 0O��0 vu� vv"// =. SM PLANNING —''^~SYSTEMS TO: KraigTannbmmnini, Case Planner RE: Design Review Board summary letter ofG/2D/12—RESPONSE MEMO DATE: 7/6/12 Dear Kraig, Please accept this rnenno as our formal reply tnyour letter dated June ZO 2822. We have addressed each request individually herein below: 1. Conceal the support posts, cabling and conduit with stealth enclosures that would more searnlessly blend in with the existing utility pole; in order for the Board to support th" collocation design solution. As there were no immediate options that would adequately answer the requestto conceal the pole top extension in the timeframe allotted,L ExteNet Systems has chosen pole replacements as opposed to pole top extensions for the San Rafael node locations. This will alleviate the entire problem for these locations. We have also added a cable/connector concealing "skirt" at the bottom of the antenna. Please note that because utility poles taper from bottom to top and the antenna is larger around than the pole top, there will be a gap at the bottom of the skirt. The photo simulations provided will show o depiction but it is highly likely that it will look a significantly cleaner in the actual installation. As you can see in the CDs, U-3uandswill beused inplace ofthe conduit onthe side ofthe pole. As the U -Guard didn't really show any differently on the photo sim, we feel it needs to be called Out atthe DRB. The U -Guard vviU be a |h1|e less obtrusive than the conduit, but vvedid not want toleave itoff nfthe photo sirninthe event itwas misconstrued that the U' Guardvvou|d bevirtually invisible inthe actual installation, 2. Place the cabinets proposed otHibiscus Way and Penny Royal Lane in order for the Board tosupport these locations. VVeare inagreement with the suggestion toundergroundthecabinet associated with the Penny Royal Lane location and will duso. As regards Hibiscus Way, upon extensive discussion and research, suitable pole along Freitas Parkway, approximately 3OUfeet south of location, which will satisfy « ExteNe�s coverage requirements. Th( {�(�8��e�»gNb« 18.20Y2 - File No. AP 12-006 location would have to be extended approximately 10-20 feet in height in order to achieve the optimal coverage that would have been achieved had we located this node on Hibiscus. In addition, we would request to ground -mount the equipment cabinets at this proposed location rather than underground them, due to the classification of Freitas Parkway as a major regional arterial street rather than a local residential or collector street. Nonetheless, we have included the underground option for Hibiscus Way in the package. Prior to the DRB meeting coming up shortly, we would like the opportunity to discuss both options with you and determine what you feel is the best way to present this to the URB. Please call me upon receipt of the package so we can decide upon a course ofaction for this node. 3. Move the cabinets proposed in Las Gallinas and Del Ganado median strip locations to the center of the median, in less visible locations and conceal these with landscaping, in lieu of undergrounding equipment. We are in agreement with the suggestion to shift the associated equipment cabinets for these two nodes to the center of their respective median strips. However, please note that the Las 8aUinas median strip is only approximately 12 feet inwidth, thus the equipment cabinet pad will shift only o few feet inward. Also, please note that the Del Ganado median strip is approximately 25 feet in width. The equipment is already shown placed six feet away from the edge, thus the equipment cabinet will shift only approximately five additional feet inward. We are in agreement with the suggestion hzconceal the cabinets with landscaping to soften their visual impact. We propose to install native drought -resistant species in order to ensure the success of the plantings, and then to dedicate the plantings to the City of San Rafael for continued maintenance and irrigation, as is typical with such circumstances. In order to provide a temporary source of irrigation while the plants are becoming established, we propose to use RainNnd irrigation get packs. These packs provide constant, reliable moisture for three months per each application. 4. Provide a proposal for long term maintenance of facilities including landscaping and graffiti removal; in lieu of undergrounding equipment. We are in agreement with the stated directives to facility the growth and success of the landscaping aswell asthe graffiti removal program. Asstated above, we propose toinstall native, drought -resistant species, which will be dedicated to the City of San Rafael for continued maintenance and i/hDation, as is typical in such circumstances. In order to provide temporary sou/ce of irrigation while the plants are becoming established, we propose to use Rainbird irrigation gel packs which provide constant, reliable moisture for three months per application, As for the graffiti removal request, we agree to abide by the graffiti removal program and its intent. Hoo/ever, we understand that pet- the pnognarn, graffiti must be removed within 24 hours ofdefacennent. 'Ale would request to be given an exception and be provided 48 hours [mrepair and clean any defacement, There is another itern in the June 20, 2012 letter that you request, vjhich was not part of the DRB requests. You have asked ifthe CPUC requires that our equipment beopen toany and all carriers. There isnospecific language inthe CP[Ntothis point that | can send tnyou, but there is no need for the City of San Rafael to be concerned about this. ExLeNet's business model is an open network with multiple carriers on each network. There are few circumstances under which vveagree to build proprietary networks and the one going into the Marin County area isnot one ofthe exceptions. VVedofeel compelled tnclarify one point you had in the letter. You make statement about us being able to accommodate I carriers. There are various configurations and parameters that determine how many carriers one pole can handle. Technically, the antennas can accommodate at least carriers apiece. The boxes are more restrictive and only house 4 slots. With the demand for data now outstripping the existing infrastructure by leaps and bounds, it is completely conceivable that one carrier could take up all four slots in one box, necessitating the need to "clam -shell" a second box on the pole next to the first. As slots get taken in the boxes, we would need to install a second set of two boxes above the first set to accommodate more and more carriers. Conversely, we may have a carrier that only wants one or two slots in a box; then we are multi -carrier with one box. This network was designed to operate with at least two carriers and hopefully four. At this time, it is impossible to say what the future holds for this network, but all indicators to ExLeNetare that vvewill bemulti-carrier sooner rather than later. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Regards, Patti Ringo JvLermavandumm To Kraig Tambornini, City of San Rafael From: `_nnscyc/merry Reviewed by: Jonathan L / Date:June |3,Z0|2 RE: UPI 1-20 7|4Penny Royal Lane(Extenat Systems, U-[) A1chedirecdonoftheCky,|hsmeravem/edtheExtenetSvsterno,LLCy'Exte- net'\appUcadontoinstu|unevvdisUibutedantennaaysternonaud|itvpo|ein the right-of-way near 714 Penny Royal Lane. Extenet is a California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") authorized wired telephone corporation. It does not hold any FCC -issued wireless licenses -to provide cellular telephone service. Rather, Extenet installs wireless equipment forits customer's use. For this planning case, Extenet`scustom eris T-y1obi|e. | have reviewed the proposed project in light ofthe recently passed Middle Class Tax Relief and job Creation Act of 20|Z(the "Act"). Section 6409(a) of the Act addresses mandatory approvals ofcollocations a1existing wireless tow- ers, facially eliminating local discretion in connection with collocations. t he instant project is proposed to be constructed on an exstng utility pole dhat was not constructed for, or has a primary use as a wireless tower. Given that the project iswotonanexistingwireless tower,the instant project does not, in my opinion, fall within the provisions of Section 6409(a)' and is not � cm�e��othemonda��opp��/�qui�dbvth�|o�. /�cu�in��che�ia/� / � . ' ' d/screLiunaryrevevvofzh�prnk�ctpumuanttoko Municipal '-ode isnpprupri- ate. m!nc. Excenecpropoaescoinstall anev/2'coUcmniainoennauna6excensionpc!aco be attached to she cop of an existing 37 tall uziKcy pole in the right- near 7|4 Penny Royal Lane. The CPUC requires aminirnurn of 6' separfTcion be- tween the e|ecthcdservice and any secondary service onthe utility pole. The on ��nna�] b� moon�d � 43'���aound }e� CAG­_")aod �U bec-�pab!eofmup��r'�7'�1obi{��ser�c��nkse��ir q|.Y80MHzcnd2./OO Mnzband's ofservice. CC P o� na Nov. 19, 2012 Fde No. APY2-0OG _F:Xh/bit 5-4 Peer Reviem RF Reports Kraig Tambornini 714 Penny Royal Lane UP||'20/LUC3/\ U-[\ June |3.Z0|2 Page 2 of 5 Extenet proposes to install an equipment cabinet and an electrical meter at ground level approximately 8' to the north east of the base of the utility pole. The proposed equipment cabinet will extend 5' AGL. It appears,from the project documentation that the equipment cabinet will house battery backups and ade|tu node. /\ meter cabinet will also be mounted to the side of the equipment cabinet. According to the project plans, Exteetproposes to connect the antenna to the equipment cabinet via conduit that will run underground from the cabinet to the utility pole and along the utility pole to the antenna. A portion of the cabling will bevisible o1the base o7the antenna. Extent does not disclose the dominant purpose of this project however the project documentation suggests that the primary purpose of this project is to provide coverage for T-y1mbi/einits |'9O0MHz and Z'|00MHz bands o[oep Extenetprovided acoverage map that appears tuindicate the proposed signal level coverage for the area surrounding the site, Figure | below. <Balonceo{page intentionally leftbhmk> � Figure U, Proposed signal coverage mop for the proposed site as asserted ' bvExtenet . (Source: The proposed coverage map, however, does not provide objective signal level data for the proposed site. Extenet did not provide an exodn� s' cd cover - 0 map. Without adequate coverage maps ( am unable to offer an opinion as to whether T -Mobile is attempting to close a gap in service or is attempting to add signal capacity tothe area surrounding this site. Eauioment Cabinet �ccmrdi��nmthe photo simulations, the equipnoenccobinetwiU be visible toneighboring residences. |n orderto reduce�he�esth*tic inopactzhe site will have, I recommend -hat ck� Cizy quir� E��enaz cu uith�r �croen zhe c�bine� *Ith —iry z�proved |andscuping or place i�� e|eccricd povver meter on the utilitypo|e such that Kraig Tambonnini 7|4Penny Royal Lane UP||'2U/LUC3/\(Extenet Systems,LLC) June |3'2O|2 Page 3 of 5 � Figure U, Proposed signal coverage mop for the proposed site as asserted ' bvExtenet . (Source: The proposed coverage map, however, does not provide objective signal level data for the proposed site. Extenet did not provide an exodn� s' cd cover - 0 map. Without adequate coverage maps ( am unable to offer an opinion as to whether T -Mobile is attempting to close a gap in service or is attempting to add signal capacity tothe area surrounding this site. Eauioment Cabinet �ccmrdi��nmthe photo simulations, the equipnoenccobinetwiU be visible toneighboring residences. |n orderto reduce�he�esth*tic inopactzhe site will have, I recommend -hat ck� Cizy quir� E��enaz cu uith�r �croen zhe c�bine� *Ith —iry z�proved |andscuping or place i�� e|eccricd povver meter on the utilitypo|e such that Kraig Tambornini 7/4Penny Royal Lune UP11-20/ LUC 3A(ExtenetSystems, Lk] June |3,2D|2 Page 4 of 5 the lowest cfthe meter isnot less than 8'AGLand place the remain- ing Site Aesthetics / also recommend that the City require Extenet to paint all equipment, inClUd- ing without limitation, the extension, conduits, cabling, and antenna color ap- proved by the City so that all elements at this site have the same or oinni/ur visual appearance. Site Drawinqs Sheet E/detail |of the site plans indicates that Extenetpropcses to attach node to the wd|bv pole. However, the node is not shown on the elevation view of the site plans nor is it shown in the photo simulations. / recommend that the City require Extenet to correct the site plans and pho- to simulations to accurately reflect the proposed design ondtorefecttheunderground vault and node if this design change is required by the City. - Thm FCC completely occupies the field as to setting RF safety standards in the United States. The City isnot permitted to set its own standards regardless of whether higher, |ovver, or even the same. as the FCC's standards. The Commission doeo, however, permit the City to determine vvhether a pro- posed wireless project meets the required FCC 47 CFR § 1. 1307 et seq. (the "FCC rules") and FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 (''{}ET65'`) RFsafety directives. Under the FCC rules, certain typos of wireless projects are deemed to be "categorically excluded, ,' thus not subject to further KF evaluation under dhe rules due to idend8�d factors indudin�� �hhethe aenn� oupporn� structureisnotubui/dingorsharadtoperfurnnsorneother6unction,undthe lowest portion ofthe trunsrni`tingantenna iso1least 10rneto'sabove91-ound. The proposed proicct does n2:L ouz�vfor | exclusion under the FCC ru!es because the antenna is mounced on ascructure that is shared to perform sorn,:� oth��rf/nction. An of the Rf ernissions is necessarynz determine vvhedherapnOJ�_Xtdesignv/i(icon/plyvvirhthe FCCru|es. Extene1 has submitted athind party RF en�is�/ons repor��crn S�e3afe do -ed KroigTombornini 7|4Penny Royal Lane UP||`20/UUC3A(Exteet Systems, LLC) June |3'20|2 Page 5 of 5 dent emissions data to perform an independent analysis of the proposed emissions from the omni antenna. Based on the frequency and power to be emitted from T-MobUe's unoni antenna, ucuntnoUed access zone of 3.3 feet will extend outward from each transmitting panel antenna o1the sanne level as the panel antennas. The existence ufacontrolled zone does not mean that the project violates the FCC rules; rather, itmerely requires that the wireless carrier take affir- mative steps turestrict access tothe controlled zones. In this case, the con- trolled zones will be in inaccessible airspace utthe same level as the ontennzm. To comply with the existing FCC rules and FCC (}ET Bulletin 65 rules re' garding RF safety, I recornmend the City condition the project as follows: |. EXtenet and/mT-Mobile shall place and maintain a permanent RF Caution sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6` tall utility pole extension just above the cross arm. The signage nnustbea rnininnunn of 8" wide by 12" high, compliant with FCC {}ET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color' synnbo|, and content conventions. All such signage shall a1all times provide aworking local ortoll-free tel- ephone number to its network operations center, and such tele- phone number shall beable to reach alive person who can exert transmitter power -down control over this site as required by the 'FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to dinnbingabove the base ofthe utility pole extension. {fExtenetand T-Mobikyz�iU�`wbe M emmo�rpamd umm To Kraig Tambornini, City ofSan Rafael From: ^_nnmYOoe//y Reviewed by: Jonathan L Krarn Date: June 7, 2012 RE: UPI |-lU(LUL-Y�� 7Montevideo Way , LLC) Atthe direction ofthe City, | have reviewed the Extenet Systems, LLC ("Exte- net") application to install a new distributed antenna systern on a utility pole in the median at the intersection of Montevideo Way and Las Gallinas Avenue. Extenet is a California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") authorized wired telephone corporation. It does not hold any FCC -issued wireless licenses to provide cellular telephone service. Rather, Extenet inyto||o wireless equipment Tor its customer's use. For this project, Exieoet'ocustomer iaT-Mobi/e. | have reviewed the proposed project in light of the recently passed Middle Class Tax Relief and job Creation Act of20|2(the '\4ct'). Section 64Q966mf the Act addresses mandatory approvals ofcollocations atexisting wire|esotow` ers, facially eliminating local discretion in connection with collocations. The instant project icpmposed tobeconstructed onan existing uti|itycolethat was not constructed for, or has a primary use as a wh-J-ess tower. Given that the project is not on on existing wireless tower, the instant project does not, in my opinion, fall within the provisions of Section 6409(a), and is not ' su�e�tochemand�oryapp��nequi�d|mth�|m�A�o�� Accordingly, the � - c'' discretionary review ofthe project pursuantiokoMunidpalCodoisappropri- ate. ppropri- U\ o1e ' uninc, ' Exten'ec propo�eszo install onuvv Z' ruU omni antenna on a6, extension po|e to be attached no the top of an existing 43` tall utility pole in the nnedian at the in- 0terseccion ofy1onrsvidooYVe«and Las ���|inosAvenue. The CPUC requires a n�inionum of6` separation bet' eenrhea|eccrica| serviceand any secunda/yset - x^'"»f-"°' viceonrhputi|itypn|e /3:­'1/1=�� ao�eon�vi;s�av�6�und s�,zx be capable of supporting T-t",,obi!e'u scnice in its existing |'900 MHzand 2. 100 11Hz b�nds o[service. �,���. c�` rr'--, KroigTamburnini 7Montevideo Way UPi|-2O/LUC9/\/Extenet Systems,U-C\ June !3.20|I Pag Extenet proposes to install an equipment cabinet and an electrical meter at ground level approximately S' to the south west of the base of the utility pole. The proposed equipment cabinet will extend 5' /\GL It appears from the project documentation that the equipment cabinet will house battery backups and udelta node. A meter cabinet will also be mounted to the side of the equipment cabinet. According tuthe project plann Extenetproposes toconnect the antenna 1othe equipment cabinet via conduit that will run underground from the cabinet to the utility pole and along the utility pole to the antenna. Aportion of the cabling will be visible at the base of the antenna. Project Purpose Extent does not disclose the dominant purpose of this project, however the project documentation suggests that the primary purpose of this pjectisto provide coverage for T-Mobi/einits 1,900 MHz and 2, 100 MHz bands of ser- vice. Extenet provided a coverage map that appeprs to indicate the proposed signal level coverage for the area surrounding the site, Figure | be|nvv Krok'Tombonnini 7Montevideo Way UP| 1-20/LUC9/\/ExtenetSvstenos' LLC) June |]'2O|2 Page 3 of 6 TT X�I Figure K; Proposed signal coverage map for the proposed site osasserted bvExtanet. /Source The proposed coverage map, however, does not provide objective signal leve data for the proposed site. Extenet did not provide an existing signal covep age map. Without adequate coverage maps I am unable to offer an opinion as tnwhether 7-Mobi|eisattempting toclose a gap inservice orisattempting to add signal capacity tothe area surrounding this site. Alternative Site The extension and antenna proposed on this utility pole will increase the height of the pole to 52' /4GL in this location, the extension and equipment cabinet vvi/| bevisual/yintruoir�ro 1hesurnound/n,- res!dences and rnsyirnp�cc;-he safo- ryofdheinze/socdonforpassingvehic/es. vp TT X�I Figure K; Proposed signal coverage map for the proposed site osasserted bvExtanet. /Source The proposed coverage map, however, does not provide objective signal leve data for the proposed site. Extenet did not provide an existing signal covep age map. Without adequate coverage maps I am unable to offer an opinion as tnwhether 7-Mobi|eisattempting toclose a gap inservice orisattempting to add signal capacity tothe area surrounding this site. Alternative Site The extension and antenna proposed on this utility pole will increase the height of the pole to 52' /4GL in this location, the extension and equipment cabinet vvi/| bevisual/yintruoir�ro 1hesurnound/n,- res!dences and rnsyirnp�cc;-he safo- ryofdheinze/socdonforpassingvehic/es. KroigTambornini 7 Montevideo Way UP| 1-20/ LUC g/\ (Exianet3votema, LLC) June !3`20|2 Page 4 of 6 | recommend that the City require Extenet to relocate this site to autility pole at the end of Corte San Benito as shown in Figure 2, below. Figure 2: The location of the proposed site and the location of Suggested alternative site. Kra- Locating the site it the end �Corte San Benito V,/OL!|dbeless visible mthe surroundingrenidencesandvvou|dreducodheinnpacttheskewiUhaveonthe right'of-v/oy in the median at the intersection of Los G-al|inas /4/enue and Mon1eviden\��v. The suggested alternative site would benefit Exzenetau it provides approximately 20 fact cfaddidond height as u result of tile topuor2phy- - EauiiDmenE Cabinet -i16 co ciie photu dn:u|odono, zhe equ/"nnent cabnez %.di| Ce ulac-c �o rho, median az r.ho inzersec1ion cf 1 a GalUnas Avenue and i1ontevdeoVVus. In this location the cabinet will be visible to the curnoundin� residences and Kraig Tambornini 7 Montevideo Way UPI 1-20/LUC9A/Ex1enet Systems, LLC) June |3.ZU|2 Page 5 of 6 may impede visibility for vehicles travelling along Las GoUnam Avenue and Montevideo Way. If the City prefers the site to remain in the location proposed by Extenet | recommend that the City require E¢enettoplace its electrical power meter on the utility pole such that the lowest portion of the meter is not less than 8' /\GLond place the remaining equipment in an underground flush to grade Site Aesthetics | also recommend that the City require ExtenetLopaint all equipment, indud- in�without limitation, the extension, conduits, cabling, and antenna color up- pruved by the City so that all elements at this site have the same or similar visual appearance. SiteDravimzs Sheet E I detail I of the site plans indicates that Extenet proposes to attach a node bzthe utility pole. However, the node is not shown on the elevation view of the site plans nor is it shown in the photo simulations. /recommend that the City require Extenet to correct the site plans and pho- to simulations to accurately reflect the proposed design or the alternative site. is selected by the 'City. 'The FCC completely occupies the field astosetting KFsafety standards inthe United States. The City bnot permitted toset its own standards regardless of whether higher, lower, or even the same as the FCC's standards. The Commission does, however, permit the City to determine whether -1 pro- posed vv/re|eae project meets the required FCC 47 CFR§ |.13O7 lcc meq. (the "FCC rules") and FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 85 \ RF safu2ty directives. Under the FCC rules, certain types �,vilrelessprojects are deemed to be "categohcd|v excluded," thus not subject to further RF evaluation under the ru/e� d:� t� ide:dSed tacto/� includin�� p/he�her rhe o�tenna suppurdn'g otruccure is not obuilding orsharod co per6ornn sorne otherfun'tion. and the low �-stpordcncf tha n'7zn7enn�i���!oas�|Urno�e/�x�Vvr�;o::H. Kraig Tambor ini 7Montevideo Way UP||-ZO/LUC9/\(ExtenetSystems, LLC) June 13, 2012 Page 6 of 6 The proposed project does not qualify for categorical exclusion under the FCC rules because the antenna is mounted on aatructure that is shared to perform some other function. Amanalysis ofthe RFemissions isnecessary to determine whether aproject design will comply with the FCC rules. Extenet has submitted uthird party RFemissions report from SiteSafe dated March 12, 3012 (the"3iteSafe Report"). The3ite3sfla Report contains suffi- cient emissions data to perform an independent analysis of the proposed emissions from the omni antenna. Based on the frequency and power to be emitted from l -Mobile's omni antenna, ocontroUed access zone of 3.3 feet will extend outward from each transmitting panel antenna ytthe same level an the panel antennas. The existence of a controlled zone does not mean that the project vic|uteo the FCC rules; rather, it merely requires that the wireless carrier take affir- mative steps to ffipnoativeotepsto restrict access tothe controlled zones. In this case, the con- trolled To comply with the existing FCC m|ea and FCC CET Bulletin 65 rules ne- Igarding RF safety, I recommend the City condition the project as follows: Extenetand/or T-Mobileshall place and maintain apermanencRF Caudon sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6' tall ud!kv pole extension just above the cross arm. The signage must be a minimum of8"wide 6v |2" high' compliant with FCC {}ET 8uUetin 65 or ANSI C95.2for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall a1all times provide uworking local ortoll-free tel- ephone number to its network operations center' and such tele- phone number shall beable to reach a|ive person who can exert transmitter power -down control over this site as required by the FCC. The location of the si�n must be visible immediately prior to climbing above the base of1heutility pole extension. If Extenetcnd T -Mobile agree to the��itions jus -c stated, there wiUbe cob &0emncranAumm To Kraig Tam From: �nnnry��u Reviewed bv Jonathan ' -- '- [}ata June 5`20|2 RE: UPI 1-20 1959 Las Gallinas Avenue (Extenet Systems, LLC) At the direction of the City, |have reviewed the Extenet Systerns, LLC ('Exte- net") application to install u new distributed antennauystenn on a utility pole at /959Las Gal|inamAvenue. Exteoet is oCalifornia Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") authorized wired telephone corporation. Itdoes not hold any FCC -issued wireless licenses to provide cellular telephone service. Rather, Extenetinstalls wireless equipment for its customer's use, In this planning case, Extenet's customer is T -Mobile. | have reviewed the proposed project in light of the recently passed Middle Class Tax Relief and job Creation Act of 2012 (the "Act"). Section 6409@ of the Act addresses mandatory approvals of collocations atexisting wireless tow- ers, facially eliminating local discretion in connection with collocations. The instant project is proposed to be constructed on an ex1istingutility pole that was not constructed -for, or has a primary use as a wireless 'Lowor. Given that the project is not on an existing wireless tower, the instant project does not, in my opinion, fall within the provisions of Section 6409(a), and is not subject tothe mandatory npprova required6vchac/om'. Accordingly, the City's discretionary review of the project pursuant to its Municipal Code is appropri- ate, m�oerGnn|nc Excener proposes to install a new td/ onnni antenna on a6' extension pu|-2 to be attached to the -cop ofanexisting ]fY od| utility pole in the median of Las GalUnss Avenue.Tho 1-11FUC requires a nnininnuro of 6` separation between chic electrical service and any secondary sen,,iceonthe utility pole. 7,11-/f3; TheonnnianTennawiUbennountedaz-1 �roundlevel (^L� \�L')andv/i{/ ' �� ~ ����beu[�ppo�n�Thcbi�Y.Sse-C9D1JM|�s�2,|OO 3c" -Hrizbandsof' service. KroigTambornini |959Las GoUnssAvenue UP||-20/LUC|4A(Ex1enetSystems, LLC) June 5,20|2 Page 2 of 4 Extenet proposes to install an equipment cabinet with an electrical meter mounted toitu1ground level approximately 6`from the base ofthe utility pole. The proposed equipment cabinet will extend S' /\GL. It appears from the project documentation that the equipment cabinet will house battery backups and a delta node. A meter cabinet will also be mounted to the equipment cabi- net. According tothe project p|ana`Extenetpruposestuconnectthezntennxto1he equipment cabinet via conduit that will run underground from the cabinet to the utility pole and along the utility pole to the antenna. A portion of the cabling will be visible at the base of the antenna. Project Purpose Extent does not disclose the dominant purpose of this project, however the project documentation suggests that the primary purpose ofthis project isto provide coverage for T-Mubileinits |'qOOMHz and 2'|OOMHz bands ufoer- Neither Extenet nor T -Mobile has submitted proposed or existing coverage maps for this project. Therefore, | am unable to offer an opinion as to wheth- er T -Mobile is attempting vheth'erT-Mubi|eimatternpting toclose a gap inservice oriaattempting tuadd sig- nal capadtyto1heoreusurrounding this site. Equipment Cabinet /\ocordin�tothe photo ainnuk�kons the equipnnentcabinet wiUbephcednear the curb on the northeast side of the median at Los GalUnasAvenue In this location the cabinet will bevisible tothe surrounding residences and nnayinopecle visibility for vehicles travelling alon, Las Gallinas Avenue. - |norde to reduce the aesthetic impact the site wU|have, | recommend that the City require Extenecto place its -electrical power meter on the utility pole such that the lowest portion of 'die nnaber is nor- less than 8' AASL and place the rernaWng equipment, including the DAS node, in an underground flush to Grade vault. She;�sdhesico Accurd\��tothephoio �onu|adono' Fxtener proposes -to p�nzcheexcensicn. KruigTambornini |959Las (SoUnasAvenue UP||-20/LUC |4/\/ErtenetSystems, LLC) June 5,ZO|2 Page 3 of 4 the City require Extenetto paint all equipment, including without limitation, the extension, conduits, cabling, and antenna to match the utility pole. Site Drawino Sheet E| detail | of the site plans indicates that Extenet proposes to attach u node tothe utility pole. However, the node is not shown on the elevation view of the site plans nor is it shown in the photo simulations. | recommend that the City require Extenet to correct the site planoandpho- ThaFCCconop|etelyoccupieadhefieldostuuetdng RFsafety standards inthe United States. The City isnot permitted toset its own standards regardless ofwhether higher, lower, or even the same as the FCC's standards. The Commission does, however, permit the City to determine whether a pro- posed wireless project meets the required FCC 47 CFR §|.|]O7etseq. (the "FCC rules") and FC[ Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 rC]ET 65"\ RF safety directives. Under the FCC m|es, certain types of wireless pmjects are cleemed to be "categohodly excluded," thus not subject to furher RF evaluation under the rules due to identified tactors including: whether the antenna supporting structure is not abuilding orshared to perform some other function, and the lowest portion ofthe transmitting antenna iao1least |Ometers above �round. The proposed project does not qmdK, for categorical exclusion under the FCC rules because the antenna is mounted on astructure that is shared to perform some other function. An analysis of the RF ernisaiono is necessary to determine whether aproject design will cornp|yvviththe FCC rules. Eztenet hos submitted uthind party RF emissions report from 3itesafe dated March 9'20|2(the ^5itesafeHeoon`lThe SitesafeXeporzcontainssufficient emissions data to perform an independent analysis of the proposed emissions from the omni antenna. Based on the frequency and power T -Mobile propos- es to emit from die omni antenna' aconU`o||ed access zone of3.] feet will ex' cenJ uuivvar6 frum U'u/'y/niuiou p�aoe| uoten/iu at the sarne level as che pane|mncennas. The exist�nce ofa controlled one does not rn,�an that the pn�ecc violates Kraig Tambomini |95gLas {SalUnooAvenue UPI |-2O/LUC |4A/ExtenetSystems, LLC) June 5'2U|2 Page 4 of 4 mative steps to restrict access tothe controlled zones. |nthis case, the con- trolled zones will be in inaccessible airspace at the same level as the antennas. To comply with the existing FCC rules and FCC DETBulletin 65 m|esre- garding RE safety, I recommend the City condition the project as follows: |. Extenet and/orT-Mobi|e shall place and maintain a permanent RF Caution sign /n English and Spanish at the base of the &' td/ utility pole extension just above the cross arm. The signage must be a minimum of8"wide by|2"high, compliant with FCC {}ETBulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free tel- ephone number to its network operations center, and such tele- phone number shall be able to reach a|i*e person who can exert transmitter pov/epduvvn control over this site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to climbing above the base ufthe utility pole extension. KExtenet and T-Pkobik*agree tothe conditions just stated, there will be memamranndwmm To: Kraig Tambornfflii, City of San Rafael From: ,.nnmy`/ Reviewed by: Jona___ L Kr�h Date: April z3,2o/2 RE: UPI |-2O/ED|| 459 Hibiscus Way (Extenet Systems, LLC) Acthe direction ofthe City, | have reviewed tkeExteot Systems,LLC (" application to install u new/ distributed antenna system on u utility pole at 459 Hi- biscus Way. �e�����������a�&u��mIn | have reviewed the proposed project in light of the recently oasoaJ Middle Class ToxRelief and job Creation Act o[2O|2(the "Act1. Section 640966ofthe Act addresses mandatory approvals of collocations at existing wireless towers, facially eliminating local discretion in connection with collocations. The instant project is proposed to be constructed on on existing utility pole that was not constructed for, orhas aprimary use osuwireless tower. Given that the project is not on an existing wireless tower, the instant project does not, in my opinion, fall within the provisions of Section 6409(a), and is not subject tothe mandatory approval required bvthat law. Accordingly, the City's discretio- nary review of the project pursuant toits Municipal Code isappropriate. i0escriple[c -g Extenacproposestoinuta|anevv2`-2"td|ornniancmnnaono6`extensionoole to be attached to the top of an existing 39' tall utility pole. The California Public Utili- ties Commissions requires a minimurn of 6' separation between the electrical ser- vice and any secondary set -vice on the utility pole. epvicaandnnysecondarysenicnontheuti|hypo|e. The omni antenna will bemounted at 46' above ground level ("AGOand will be capable ofsupporti��Mobi|�'o���in����/9�MHz ������. mmn�Frm, 'nc. Eucanec proposesto install on equipment cabinet and an e|ccuic:| mocerzt�zound level approximately 6' from the base of the utility pole. The Fropose6 oqu!pnnenc cmbinervviH extend S`AGL 't appears [rum the project 6ocunnencution 1:h21che equipment cabinet will house battery backups and adelta node. Amorercabinet will also be mounted to the equipmeni: cabinet. Acozrd<n�oo ,he pr��� �ams. E�en�� proposes to oznne��e s�e n�ro �e °==*=^, . �'eguipnnenccabinatviaconduitthacvviUrununder�round�omzhecabinec�uthe po!ezn�do�����uri!h7p�|e��rhe�n��n�z/\����in�ofrhocab||��`�|||be visible czdhebase ofthe zncanno. KraigTambmrnini 459 Hibiscus Wm UPI |-20/E[)||-24(Extenet Systems,LLC) April 23.2O/2 Page 2 of 3 Extent does not disclose the dominant purpose of this project, however the project documentation suggests that the primary purpose of this project is to provide coverage for T-Mobi|einits |9OUMHz band ofservice. Neither Extene1 nor T -Mobile has submitted proposed or existing coverage maps for this project., Therefore, | am unable to offer an opinion ostuwhether 7 -Mobile is attempting to close agop in set -vice or is attempting to add more sig- nal capacity to the area surrounding this site. ig-no|capzcitytutheoreasurroundingthissite. tPlhysical Design Considerations According mothe photo simulations, this site is located near uresidential area and will have animpact onthe aesthetics to the area surrounding this site. Additional- ly, having an above ground cabinet could block the view line for the driversalong Hibiscus Way and drivers utilizing their driveways at the surrounding residences. In order to reduce this impact, | recnnnnoend that Extenet place its electrical power meter onthe utility pole such that the lowest portion ofthe meter isnot less than 8' /VSLond place the remaining equipment in an underground flush to grade vault. Placing the equipment in on underground vault is not only asohyty concern as m��n������ma���au���ae�����dm����ephysical intrusion of the equipment for pedestrian traffic in that area. 1V Safety Considerations The FCC completely occupies the field as to setting RfaaKetvstandards ill the United States. The City is not permitted Cmset its own standards regurd|esoJ whether higher, lower, ureven the same asthe FCC's standards. TheCommis- oion does, how'ever, permit the City rudetermine whether uproposed wireless project nneucu the required FCC 47 CFR § i.!307 ei: seq. (the "FCC rules") and FC[ Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 (°()ET65") RF mfecydi- rectives. Under the FCC FLJ|es'certain types ofvvirelesspmjec�sare Jeemedmba^cate- gohcd|vexdudad.^thusnot subject nofurther RFavaluadonunder tile rules due toidentified factors including: whether the antenna supporcin�struccure�not o building orshared cmpsrfornnsonwother [uncdon,--odthe lowest po/tn'nnofc6a -,:r;;nsmitting antenna is at !east 10 meters above cround. The proposed project dues not� ouzKv for cateaohczd exclusion under the FCC KroigTambornini 459Hibiscus Way UP||-2O/E[)||-24/ExtenetSystems, LLC) April 23'2D|2 Page 3 of 3 some other function. Ali analysis of the RFemissions isnecessary todetermine whether a project design will comply with the FCC rules. Extenet has submitted udiird party RF emissions report from Sitesufe dated March 9' 2012 (the "Sitesafe Report"). The Sitesuha Report contains sufficient emissions data to perform an independent analysis of the proposed emissions from the omni antenna. 8uoud on the frequency and power to be emitted from 7 -Mobile's omni m`cennu' a controlled access zone of 3.3 feet will extend out- ward from each transmitting panel antenna utthe same level as the panel anten- nas. The existence ofucontrolled zone does not mean that the project violates the FCC rules; rather, it merely requires that the wireless carrier take affirmative steps to restrict access to the controlled zones. in this muue' the controlled zones will beininaccessible airspace o1the same level aethaantennas. To comply with the existing FCC rules and FCCDE Bulletin 6Srules RF safety, I recommend the City condition the project as follows: Extenet and/or T -Mobile shall place and maintain a permanent RF Cau- tion sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6' tall utility pole ex- tension just above the cross arm. The signage must be annininnunn of 8~ wide by |2" high' compliant with FCC {}ET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbu|, and concent conventions. All such signage shall at all tinies provide a working local or toll-firee telephone number to its network operations center' and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power -clown control over this site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to climbing above the base of the util- ity pole extension, If Extenet and T -Mobile agree tothe conditions just stated, there will beno memmersandumm To Kraig Tambor(r�'ni, City of Sa f el From: CnnscyOoe Reviewed by: Jonathan L Kram Date: June |3,20|2 RE: UPI |-2O/LUC 873 Del Ganado Road (Extenet Systems, LLC) At the direction of the City, |have reviewed the Extenet Systems, LLC ("Exte- nut') application to install a new distributed antenna system on a ud|kx pole at the median at 873 Del Ganado Road near the intersection of Del Ganado Road and Duran Drive. Extenet is a California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") authorized wired telephone corporation. It does not hold any FCC -issued wireless licenses to provide cellular telephone service, Rather, Extenetinstalls wireless equipment for its customer's use. In this planning case, Extenet`s customer isT-Mobi|e. | have reviewed the proposed project in light of the recently passed [1Nd|e Class Tax Relief and job Creation Act of2O|2(the '\4ct"). Section 6409()of the Act addresses mandatory approvals of collocations at existing wireless tow- ers, facially eliminating local discretion in connection with collocations. TheinotantprojectisproposedtobeconmtructadonanexiS1ngoNkvun}etheo was not constructed for, or has a primary use as a wireless tower. Given that the project isnot onan existing wireless tower, the instant project does not, in my opinion` kd| within the provisions of Section 640966' and is not subiecttothe noundacoryapprov�required 6vthat |aw/ Accordingly, the City's |��-- ~—��t��Mun�'��bu�mp�d~'^~~'~/ ���t� project ate. Extenec proposes to install a nexv Z tall omni antenna on z6' extension pole to be attached to the top of an existing 36' tall ud|�v polo in the rnedizn of [}d {Sanodn Road. The CPUC requires anninirnunn of 6' separation between the e|ectr��d senic� and anyser/ice on ti— ud|itypo|e anre�n�ni|{ I -e ��ounced a`_*4IwiU Kraig Tambor ini 873 Del GanadoKoad UPI 1-20/LUC ITA (ExtenetSystems, LLC) June |3,2U|2 Page 2 of 5 Extenetproposes m install an equipment cabinet and an electrical meter at ground level approximately 5` to the north of base of the utility pole. The pro- posed equipment cabinet will extend 5` /\GL It appears from the project do- cumentation that the equipment cabinet will house battery backups and a delta node. /\rnetercabinet will also bemounted to the equipment cabinet. According to the project plans, Extenetproposes tuconnect the antenna tuthe equipment cabinet via conduit that will run underground from the cabinet to the utility pole and along the utility Pole to the antenna. A portion of tile cabling will bevisible u1the base ofthe antenna. Project Purpose Extent does not disclose the dominant purpose of this project, however the project documentation suggests that the primary purpose of this project is to provide coverage for T-MobUeinits 1.90OMHz and Z`1UOMHz bands cfser- vice. Extenetprovided acoverage map that appears toindicate the proposed signal level coverage for the area surrounding the site, Figure | below. KruigTambornini 873 Del Ganado Road UP| 1-20/ LUC 17/\(Ex1enet Systems, LLL) June |3,ZO|2 Page 3 of 5 for the proposed site as asserted by Extenet. (Source The proposed coverage map, however, does not provide objective signal level data For the proposed site. Extenet did not provide an existing signal covep ��/ noap. \A/thout odaquot� coveru�e noapa | nnn unab|� to of�r on opinion as to whether T -Mobile is attempting to close a gap in service or is attempting to add signal capacity tothe area surrounding this site. Eq-ui,[Dment Cabinet Accordin� tu the photo �nnuk�iono, e equipment cabinet will be placed in the median on the northeast side ofDel Ganndo Road. In this location the ccbins:"{! havisib|eto the surrounding residc:�cs and nnay iMpedls ,isil-Airy Tor vehicles travelling along Del GanodoRoad. KraigTombornini 873 Dei GonadoRoa UP||-2O/LOC |7A/ExtmnetSystems, LLC) June {3,2O|2 Page 4 of 5 In order to reduce the aesthetic impact the site will have, I recommend that the City require Extenet to place its electr ical power meter on the utility pole such that the lowest portion of the meter is not less than 8^ /\GL and place the remaining equipment inanunderground flush tograde vault. Site Aesthetics | also recommend that the City require Ertenetto'ntall equipment, indud- in�vvhhout limitation, the tha extena|on`conduits,cabling, and antenna color ap- proved by the City yo that all elements at this site have the same or similar visual appearance. SiteDoawnen Sheet E|detail |ofthe site plans indicates that Extenetproposes toattach a node tothe utility pole. However, the node isnot shown onthe elevation view of the site plans nor is it shown in the photo Simulations. I recommend that the City require Extenet to correct the site plans and pho- to simulations to accurately reflect the proposed design or to reflect theun' derground vault and node if this design change is required by the City. s; laior_­ TheFCC completely occupies dhm0eNantooetdngRFsofetvs1andordsincbe United States. The City konot permitted 0oset its own standards regardless of whether higher, lower, or even the same as the FCC's standards. The Commission does' however, permit the City to determine whether a pro- posed wireless project meets the required FCC 47 CFR § |.)307 at seq. (the "FCC ru|eo''\ and FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 ("OET 65") RF safety directives. Under the FCC rules, cerosn cype: ufwineess projects are deerned to be ^categorically exc uded.° thus not subject to further RF evaluation under the rules due to identified factors indudin�: vvhether the antenna muppooin� structL/re is nof a building or shared to perform sonne u -cher and 'Che lowest portion of the transmitting antenna is at least 10 meters above ground. ThU p F 0i doeallOt Ciunk6/for c�-,| cXcusI'cn undprrha FCC ru|es because the antenna is mount -2d on astruccurethat io shl-red to psrTo/rn some other funczion. �o ano�s�s o|t�a Q� �o)is�ionu �s noc��sa/y �, KruigTombomini 879 Del (SunodoRoad UP||-2O/LUC|7A(ExtenetSystems, LLC) June |3'2O|2 Page 5 of 5 Exteethas submitted athird party FFemissions report from SiteSafedated March 9'20|2(the 'SheSafe Report'). The SheSafeReport contains sufficient emissions data toperhorn�onindependent unu�uisufthe proposed ennisoions from the omni antenna. Boxed on the frequency and power to be emitted from T -Mobile's omni antenna' ocontro||ed access zone o{3.] feet will ex- tend outward fzono each transmitting panel antenna a1the same level as the pune|antennua. The existence ofzcontrolled zone does not mean that the project violates the FCC rules; rather, itmerely requires that the wireless carrier take affir- mative ffip nna1iveateps to restrict access to the controlled zones. In this case, the con- trolled zones will be in inaccessible airspace at the same level as the antennas. To comply with the existing FCC rules and FCC {}ET Bulletin 65 rules ne- gardi I ng RF safety, I recommend the City condition the project as follows: Extenet and/or 7 -Mobile shall place and maintain a permanent RF Caution sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6' tall ud|hx pole extension just above the cross arm. The signage must be a nnininnunn of 8" wide by {2" high' compliant with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such a|gnoge shall at all times provide avvorking local or toll-free tel- ephone number to its network operations center' and such tele- phone number shall be able to reach aiiva person who can exert transmitter power -clown control over this site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to dinnhin�above the base ofthe ud|itypole extension. IT' Extanetand T-Mobi|eagree tothe conditions just stated, there will be no RF emissions basis to deny or further condition the project. �- _2E-e� ILUCAS "VALLEEY C 0 MI S T R U GIF � 0 LN M A P L CC Meeting Nov. -1'9, 20*12 File No. AP 12-006 Exhibit 5-5 ExteNet Maps Lc 1 - 7 J4,7 dip Kraig Tambornini From: Paul H. Gusciora [ Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:28 PM To: Kraig Tarnbornini Co: Maia L. McGehee; Paul H. Gusciora Subject: Re: ExteNet - San Rafael Kraig: I am out of town and not able to attend the planning commission meeting tonight. I still object to the project as proposed. A long-term objective of many San Rafael residents is the underground relocation of electrical, cable, and telephone service cables and equl 'pm"nt. This would include elimination of the poles that support these cables. The only remaining poles would be to support street lighting. The utility poles would not be available to support antennas. I propose that the project be encumbered with a requirement that they remove or relocate the antennas and equipment when utility services are placed underground, perhaps with the following, language: Within a reasonable amount of time, say six months, of project commencement to relocate the utility service cables underground, the applicant of this project or the asset owner, their assignees or successors, be required to remove and reloca-It-e, the antennas and their associated equipment at no cost to the city, county, residents or any other entity funding or regulating relocation of utility service cables and elimination of utility poles. Best regards, Paul H. Gusciora, Ph.D., P.E. 19 Maple Hill Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 415-492-1869 Original Message ----- From: "Kraig Tambornini" To: < , "Carolyn Lenert" < , "da-vid caret'" < --, <I'lwi- , "Osborne, Neal" "Paul Gusciora" <- >, "Pay SAFE PASS -'.GE Lorber" "Ster�hen Marshall" < -d i -h- cu -r- s"taus. f0- the <<ExteNet Lette_c T --n pro-ject. 9 a r 1�: a C_ I . S C n-- ___3 CC Pvleezling Nov. 19, 2012 File No. AP 12-006 Exhibit 5-6 PUblic Correspondence Kraig Tambornini From: Kristen Flynn EaUleimor[ .00m] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 20129:38PYN To: KraigTembornini �.� Subject: Re: Terra Linda/Lucas Park - Wireless Antenna's for which 3Wireless Carriers -ExbenetSystems � Thanks, That would bagreat. Having lived here mywhole life, then moving away for 20years I'm now �`. back having purchased my parents home and finding it's not technically up to par. | know there was amyU `'. tower declined over in Mont Marin, and I thought this would be an alternative. Looking forward toyour Z� ' . Krishan Kristen Flynn Ea8lmhner ` OriginalMessage From: Flynn ~-—_' Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 7;18 pm .`_ Subject: RE: Terra Linda/Lucas Park - Wireless Antenna's for which 3 Wireless Carriers - Extenet Systems ' Extenet LLC is required to provide infrastructure capacity to serve up to 3 carriers per PLIC regulations. ' They are building this infrastructure specifically otthe request /bzserve one carrier, T Mobile. AT&T � Mobile Services could also lease this infrastructure from Extenet if desired. I arn surprised that they have �not proposed something similar since they have the existing telephone company arm of AT&T that owns , the existing land line infrastructure, | can ask Extenet if AT&T has expressed any interest. KraiQTembornini Senior Planner City of San Rafael (415)485-30Q2 � From.Kristen Flynn EsU7ehner |muiKo: ' Sent. Tuesday, July 24. 2012 7:29 PM To: KraigTannboonini Subject: Terra Linda/Lucas hark - Wireless Antenna's for which 3 Wireless Carriers - Extenet Systems Hello Kraig, ` Would you knnxUhe three wireless carriers who are involved in this extension. |tn all for it We have AT&T and even though they say we have cell service here on 7 Corte Verano, we do not. An internal ., Lower weadded inour house still makes itUmitndcoverage. Can you hear rnenow Sotherefore I'm in support ofthis addition. |sone of' the carrier's AT&T7 � Thanks for your efforts onour behalf. Kristen Kristen Flynn Estheimer ` 7/25/20I2 Page I of I From: LJ Finch [ Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:40 PM To: Kraig Tambornini Subject: Wireless Antenna installation near my property Hello, I'm writing in regard to a proposed installation of a wireless antenna installation atop a telephone pole near my property (on Nlanuel Frietas). I aiii completely opposed to this and will pursue all legal recourse to stop this installation near my home which shares a backyard with Manuel Frietas. Furthermore, the proposed installation is near a park which harbors rare nests of hawks and other birds. I suggest you use the "alternate" Hibiscus location. I would like some additional information regarding this as I've seen no public flyers, nor mention of a public hearing. I will be certain to rally the neighbors as to this "sneaky" proposal to install these antennas with not much notification to neighbors (I'm sure you are well aware that not everyone agrees to the benefits of these antennas). Please send me/email additional information. Regards, Lisa Page 1 of I From: David Carey [ Sent: Sunday, June 17.2U1210:i6AM To: KreigTambonnini Co: Poo; Subject: Proposed Uti|tyPole work at714Penny Royal Lane Mr.Tambornini, I live adjacent tothe utility pole Penny Royal Lane which is a proposed location for the installation of communication transmitter. I strongly oppose this installation for the following reasons: 1. Aesthetically Unsightly- The proposed pod or antenna will look like something from a temporary military outpost in the Mideast. it will cheapen the neighborhood and obstruct views of the surrounding hills. The transformers and other boxes that will be mounted to the poles are just as ugly and and will add to a completely unacceptable visual eyesore. It is obvious this is just a cheap band aid type of. system that will be quickly thrown up and AT&T or Exonet could care less what it looks like. 2. Safety- The idea of attaching a 6 foot metal pole to the top of an aged 30' wood pole with significant checking and cracking is certainly not a good idea. I really doubt there is enough solid wood at that height to though bolt to hold this antenna in place properly and safely. There is also a P,G&E transformer pretty much in the same location otthe top of the pole. Has a licensed structural engineer reviewed this specific location for the proposed attachment and provided stamped and signed drawings? 3. Noise- Will there be a step down transformer mounted on the pole to provide 120 voltage for their equipment? This will make a constant hum sound which is totally unacceptable. 4. Electromagnetic Transmitted Waves- I don't believe the effect of these transmitters has been honestly evaluated and the public informed of the potential health issues. To have a high powered transmitter in my and other peoples back yards here in Terra Linda really is an outrage. With the amount of deceit we have already seen from Exonet trying to install these transmitters over the last year why would anyone believe that these are safe. AT&T is a huge corporation and certainly could absorb the cost to run new low voltage communication cable in new underground conduits in the street which is safe, modern and the right way hodoit. This isjust acheap fly bynight fix. Thank you for your work onour behalf. David Carey Sari Rafael, CA94983 6/18/2-012 From: Paul H. Gusciora [ net] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:39 AM To: Kraig Tambornini; Community Development Internet Mail 0: Maia L. McGehee; Paul H. GUsciora Subject: 2012-06-19 Design Review Board meeting to discuss: Lucas Valley Area (ExteNet Systems DAS Network) - Use Permit Environmental and Design Review and Exception San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division Design Review Board Kraig Tamborini & Design Review Board Members: According to a public notice that I received in the mail, and an agenda published on the San Rafael web -site, on Tuesday 2012-06-19 you will consider applications UPII-020 & ED11-024. if my schedule permits, I will attempt to attend the Design Review Board meeting. 1 recommend alternative locations for the cell -phone antennas and transmitter proposed to be Located on top of existing power poles in San Rafael. Some people have observed that many cell -phone carrier's reception is marginal in Lucas Valley including the campuses of Dixie Elementary School, Marin Waldorf School, and Miller Creek School.; as well as the Mont Maria San Rafael neighborhood, and the MarinWood Community Center. Phis presents a public safety issue and provides an incentive to cell carriers to improve reception for their customers by installing additional cell phone transmitter sites. Driving with cell -phones in field test mode shows that marginal AT&T cell -phone coverage in several of these areas is provided by an AT&T cell transmitter near Northgate mall. At these same locations, NexTel cell phones receive excellent reception from a cell -phone transmitter Lower located North-West of St. Vincent's school. Google earth images suggest', and personal experience driving on highway 1,01. confirms, that the cell phone antennas North-West of St. Vincent's school are difficult to observe from public roads. Fn particular, I recommend that the proposal to install a cell -phone antennas and transmitters Dn a power poles on or near Las Gallinas Avenue be rejected in the short term. Instead, I recommend that the applicant co -locate a cell -phone transmitter at one (or more) of the existing antenna sites including: the tower Noxth-West of St. Vincent's school latitudowt+38.04217, longitude�-122.53249 the tower on Luiz Fire Road latitude"+33.038, longitude= -122.591 the antenna sites on Big Rock Ridge Fire Road including: 1_atitude-+38.037, longitude= -122.568 latitude:-+38.0499,longitude--122.601:L the MMWD parcel an Old Lucas Valley road Ehese antenna sites are less likely to lcose power due to fallen power disrribution lines. if ar qhen power is lost, it would be easier to deploy portable genetoro to these antenna sites thaTI to We-m2unted transmitters. Aftnr the apyllcanzs 1ccaze t:=_.,.,_. _...__c antennas and t7anamitteru at or near one of thaw!_- 2xisting annonna sitco, a ce!L-phcne antonna and zronaniouer might he unnecessary or ninht vrovt6e irfaricr incrcy�nzaL call-qh= coverage to a cell - Yom: cns =ansmitzor at cna of the c7h� AU7!ng antanhi sitn2. lo-1ccating cell-yhcne anzennas at existing antenna siteL rcdsocs the i�pact to the envircnmeni and srcvides an oppcyLunity to provide a proven incrcase in cell -shone ccuerage rc a widor arca, Zes' sizan ha7e more rcliabin power, and arc hitinr solzed Or tzmpo2ary, pornable gvnexatcrs, in FdMinnal DeEefiv za inn anpitcan7 is U,az 1ha capital coat C� pro4ding serv!ce =�ld he fnducEd hy -a-i:-Ej,n7 at n =11 nuTbor of fized lccali=3 rather than deploVing zFny zri-I sites than cich cover a smaller area. Rest rogards, ?au! A. Guscicra, Ph.D,, 2,E. rm no UIJLGI_tz, Yq,.;J-v -uluu, ILK'AnIum-Rum- m -u-, To: "Kraig Tarnbornini" <Rraig.tai-nboy nini@cityofsaivafiel.org>, "San. Rafael Planning," < Froln: "Paul H. Gusciora" < Subject: 2012-06-19 Design Review Board meeting to discuss: Lucas Valley Area (ExteNei Systems DAS Network) -Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review and Exception Cc: "Maia L. McGehee" < corn>, "Pa -u! H. Gusciora" < . > Bcc: X-Attacli.ments: San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division Design Review Board Kraig'-Famborh-d A Design Review Board N fen.ibers: I According to a public notice that 1 received in the Eo.ail, a­i,,d an agenda -pubhslled on -the Sa-11, 0 - Rafael web -site, on Tuesday 2012-06-19 you will coiisideril--�-ptica'tioiis'UPII,-020 &ED11-024.1f ri-Ly schedule permits, T will attempt to attend the Design Review Boa -M lneeting. I reconunend alternative locations for the cell -phone antennas and iransmitter proposed to be located on top of existing power poles in San Rafael. Some people have observed that many cell -phone carrier's reception is marginal in Lucas Valley including the campuses of Dixie Elementary School, Marin Waldorf School, and Miller Creek SchooJ; as well as the Mont Marin San Rafael neighborhood, and the MarinWood Corn unity Center. This presents a public safety issue and provides an incentive to cell carriers to improve reception for their customers by installing additional cell phone transmitter sites. Driving with cell-pho).-ies in field test mode shows that marginal. AF&T cell -phone coverage in several of these areas is provided by an AT&T cell iransmitter:aear Nortligate mall. At these same locations, NexTel cell phones receive excellent reception frona a cell-photie trans. -I- 1- -ed- North-West of St. Vincerfs school. Google eazrh i -i -naps stlgges� ard rierso-aa-i �_ower to cat 1 0 If experience dr: ing on highway 101 cmifirins, that 'the cefl� pho-n_e am-e-Falas North-West ofSt. IVI Vincent's school are difficult to observe ho -m publicroads. -cor ad that the -posal 'to installaw del -pl-mre nntennas and transmitte-is oil .11 particular, 11 re mii,ei th pro a power poles on or near Las Gallinas Avenue be rejected JR the short te-rm. fflstead, 1 Zecoi'muend that the applicant co' -locate a cell -phony (oxr -more) of r1he edstIJ*_n,g anter -aa sites illcluoling: the tLower Norflh.-TiVcst oi"'t'. Vincent's school t oilgil o 0 e-122.53249 the 'tower on Luiz Fire Road latiWde3S 038 JOIL, U(I thea-,ife--mia sites on B-1-0 Rock rkidoel-' eRoadhiciuciing 0 g: latitrud'e-z-38.037, latiiuele:--+`18.04,99 to J RgJ L -422.'041 the X! NIA, IflD parcel on Old Lucas "galley r0a d "-4, -e `,-ss i; o i oose povv,eir due -X; 13 MV eT cd"; "YlOu jj nes it o t. - De -CS ;'�-O J, 011e 0, L Kraig Tambornini" <kraig, ibarninWelt ofsanira, 6/18/12 10.31" /1 -0760,201-2-36-19 antenna sites, a cell -phone antenna and transmitter might be unnecessary or might provide inferior ix-icrementa.1 cell -phone coverage to a cell -phone transmitter at one of the other existing antenna sites. Co -locating cell -phone antennas at existing antenna. sites reduces the -impact to the environment and provides an opportunity to provide a proven increase in cell -phone coverage to a wider area. These sites have more reliable power, and are better suited for temporary, portable generators. An additional benefit to the applicant is that the capital cost of providing service would be reduced by co -locating at a small number of fixed locations rather than deploying many cell sites that each cover a smaller area. Best regards, Paul 1-1. Gusciora, Ph.D., P.E. San Rafael, CA 94903 The following is background so that the San Rafael City Planning Department Staff, the applicant, and the public may verify the information that I have reported in this message: Posted meeting agenda for UP11-020 er EDII-024: Lucas Valley Area (ExteNet Systems D Network) -Ilse Peimit, Environmental and Design Review and Exception for installation of 2`2" tall by 16" diameter oi-n-m-antenna on. 4" by 4" by 6' tall post eXtensions attached to the top of e,,dsting 39' to 48! talljointutility poles, and associated 01round ii-tounied equipinent cabinets -located within- t-ile public rights-of-way al five locafio-as Jur. -north San Rafael, as ipart of a distrfIbukted antemia system ("DAS") public telephone iii-frastructure proj e ct hnplemeiile iter- by.Exi eNet Sy stef-as; APN: n/ a, siu',. e Ic catiojas ne ar 1959 Las sa I E* Y -Las Ave, 8703 Del Granado Rd, 714 Per_ny loyal 7 Mou�,-c­,71deo Wey, and 459 Flibiscus Way; R5, R7.5, RIO, R20, PD and R5 -EA Zone Dis-Mcts; Ricl,, 1741rscIll, Applicant,- 1,17xieNet Systems, LLC Owner; Terra Linda/ Santa Margarita and Neighborhoods. Project Planner: Kraig Tarnbornird According to a document that was once posted on the Sci-ri Rafael Pla-tu-iii-ig Departtlllel-(€ web -site: 4 ap- rayl I -qu - --o er - sir,, -m -e tiliat'diere a-�e -,-I.o " as' le or nno-re e, - 0" - "'Ee Ib plicant ri ;e Yc ire J t d uoll M)ec --ed altei�nM­I-Ves available -oioul I, ineei 'kRe coverao�e ob- tives." -he M X -re 3 iel d i est i7n if -r, veaJs t1i at froin Lucas Vafley, the Nk.�\'Yef cell-pho ne I -J ceJt-i Ii -one f7' ' ' * e 1. - Y I - 4� �j I coiisiste-_ntly cmrt.nects ik-o a ceill'-plao-ne towe at taf itude� '38. 0421 o)-tb­ de 122,53,24-9. Comparin-0 t1lat location (MapQuest) 2 I 11,Ild_ 38 -4 01: VV r, -v7,Ajw.927.,,--_cE/ Lists 'n- s ---d t�i: '; ,-vv,- Kraig Tainbornini 11 <kraig.taiiiboriiiiiiecityofsalira, ro/iS/12-10-39 AM -0700,2012-06-19 3 shows that the NexTel cell. -phone is connecting to: Callsign Loc Addr Loc City Grant Date WPPN464 ONE ST. VINCENTs DR. SAN RAFAEL 12/17/1999 Field test node for NexTel cell -phones reveals the cell -phone received signal level and often the cell -phone transmitter site servicing the call. Field test mode for the AT&T Whone cell -phones requires driving away from the transmitter or from the target location to the likely transmitter which is alit more tedious. flere is the inforniation, about how to put a cell telephone into niany cell -phones includitig Who:ae avid, INfe,­11el naio Field _a­`LIJ_3: / /,,,�n. w;I<Jk*_0 ed o;z / -w-`ki /.Fielcl tes L, irtoel 2 -Ixiod 2 d,13/P.lioiie-Test-Mor esl.i:,,dff Apple Whone In phone node dial %3001#1234,5#'` 'then press CALL. The Field Test Screen will, appear. Select "Cell Information." Signal Strength is on the top line after RX-. Frequency follows F) and is based on the channel number (i.e. 100-200 is 800 -1\4FIz and 500-700 is 1900NII-1z). The top line displays information about the tower you, are using. The lines below display itifo about your neighboring towers. Nextel, Mike, SouthernLINC (iDEN Phones) Quickly dial #, *, Menu, RIGFfr ARROW Scroll down to System Status or RX Status, press "View." NOTE: On some phones you will push TRACE or MENU so the signal will automatically update. Other phones you will have to press BACK to return to the Menu and theca choose TRX StaWs again to manually update. On the RX STATUS Screen t.ie toopaledimal _aurnber is ycur Sigo-nal Q-aaEi'L­y.r_,'(-,u-,v c (SOE). '11 -his r,-jnaber -1 _k - nt - needs to be as high as possible between 25.00 to 35.00. YoLur signal strength is the second t aty.; b er on tile s e c o P, d L! n e f ; c, v) f,-. !�_i e ', ai ril 0(e -,,,v e k Ire be -00 -90 w fu��:�- e s y , it iii - "Bac- s�rengfii. ToExi T 0 '" t P _k 1L� i i y o u -� e i u i i i -f�- �,. a e ni -1 j i -i screen r e e n o j: u j qj � - e o i i e c June 19, 2012 Kraig TannbomniniSenior Planner City ofSan Rafael Community Development Department -Planning Division I40UFifth Avenue San Rafael, CA949O3 RE: ExteNEtSystems DASNetwork Project - Installation at 714Penny Royal, San Rafael, C4 Dear Mr. Tambornini: Thank You for taking the time toreview the proposed project last week, | was surprised atthe scope of the work proposed. ifeel that the neighborhood does not really understand the impact Lnour community. We has homeowners are banned from building a second story on Our homes, but we can have this antenna high inthe sky? |nreviewing the proposed project, concerns are the following: Aesthetic and visual impacts Characteristics impacts Privacy and views ofopen space Benefit only totheir customers Inability Loscreen the antenna Due to the blind corners on this street, children have to ride on sidewalk in this area and the box at the edge of sidewalk; which would restrict the ability to move suddenly off the sidewalk if needed. Maintenance and if company abandoned site due to any constraints. Neighbors onLas Rapmsas,T/a/eeWay, Knocknabou|VVay Patricia Way, Las CohndasRoad should have the opportunity to review and comment on this project due this impacting their views looking down from the hillside. Require photos of current locations insimilar type neighborhood to realize impact and/or story poles and mock cabinet at this site. If project is allowed for the City to require the project underground. We are in opposition and support your recommendation to relocate Penny Royal site. Ric &, Kimberly Wilson San Rafael, [A94903 Community Development Department Planning Department, City of San Rafael San Rafael, California 94915-1560 We would like to report our strong objection to the proposed 6' extension and antenna placement at 459 Hibiscus Way, Terra Linda. Our neighborhood fought long and hard to have special design review status, due to the design of our homes and their close proximity to one another. This status should preserve the views and privacy of our homes. The proposed location is on a pole in the middle of residences.... not along the public walkways or main streets, where the poles are already higher. It would stand out and be obtrusive. We are also concerned about the nature of such antennae in general, and the health questions raised by this close proximity to people's homes ..... just above a bedroom, in this case. If this extension is made, we will see it from all the clerestory windows of our home, as well as from our kitchen table. it will take away our only slice of a view of the hills, and we will no longer have our view of a tiny slice of the sky..we would be looking at electronic equipment that is put there to benefit private enterprise/profits. Are we not protected from this by our special architectural area status? That is certainly what we all intended when, as a neighborhood, we fought so hard for that status... San Rafael has already allowed AT T to place ugly electronic boxes, with NO planting or screening, along Freitas Parkway. These boxes produce an electronic "hum" 24 hours a day, and have service people there on a regular basis, with the attendant noise and disruption. It seems that Terra Linda does not get the same consideration that other areas of San Rafael receive... it seems that the City allows things here, for for profit, that might not be allowed in other parts of San Rafael. Please do not do this to us .... there are a lot of ways to hide these antenna and a lot of places to put them besides adjacent to our homes. Thank you, Van and Carolyn Jar VLS �-, a= � afa1�- I 1-�ei April 30, 2012 Mr. Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner Community Development Department -Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue, Post Office Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Mr. Neil Osborne Community Development Agency County of Marin 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: ExteNet Systems (California) LLC -Telecom DAS Network -Terra Linda/Lucas Valley Gentlemen: Thank you for transmitting the above project referral to Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association and the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents. The following represents a joint response on our behalf. A. In re Memo to Kraig Tambornini re incomplete letter of 4120111 response memo dated 4/10112 ­ Item 6 Stealth Design. Landscape screening for equipment cabinets mounted at grade is proposed. Although the aesthetic intent is appreciated, without an allocation for maintenance and irrigation, this is not feasible. The installations are in un- irrigated public rights of way with extremely depleted and hardened soils. In the unlikely event that plants installed for screening could survive, the costs of irrigation and regular maintenance should be borne by the Applicant and not by City taxpayers. B. Memo To KT re 4/2011111 response mem.o dated 4110/112 -- Rern 7 General Plan Compliance. Equipment boxes have been redesigned to be mounted at grade. While this is an improvement over the "garbage can in the sky" approach, equipment boxes at grade will attract graffiti and require re -painting within 24 hours of their defacement. To prevent the blighting of the neighborhoods, a toll-free graffiti hotline telephone number should be established, placed on each installation together with sorne ExteNet identification that describes the location of the facility. The terms of this maintenance should be written, specific and involve no expense for the City. "The equipment boxes can be vaulted in certain unique cases if absolutely necessary, - vided _'-hpt `"he 'itv can Pagree �o a cost-st-12ring ac --h (Pity (ta,l oavers) Q,, 0 � k" , greernen.." I I * ea should bear no cost o-1 any kind in connection with the highly -lucrative private enterprise Q being conducted in public rights of way. If utilities are to be undergrounded and the existing wood utility poles are left in place, ExteNet should bear all costs and liability since it is the primary beneficiary. C. Memo To KT re 4/20/11 response memo dated 4/10/12 - Item 8. Basic Description; last sentence of third paragraph. 'Wireless -only households as a percentage of overall households is (sic) increasing steadily, and will eventually be the predominate (sic) means of telephone communication." In the event of disaster, wireless -only households and VOIP-households will be left vulnerable--- without telephone service within a short period. Since ExteNet is promoting this outcome, they should fund a public service announcement program for the foreseeable future regarding their customers' clients' expectations during disasters and/or prolonged electrical outages. D. 8a. CPUC regulations that apply to the DAS system network and purpose for installing the utility infrastructure, 10th line. "Although it is ExteNet's policy that it will work with local jurisdictions on location and design issues, it is also ExteNet's position that local jurisdictions cannot take actions that are contrary to this grant of authority or that are otherwise inconsistent with the CPUCs exercise of its jurisdiction in determining that DAS networks and the advanced telecommunication services that they provide are in the state's interest in ubiquitous deployment of such services. " According to the Bagley -Keene Act.- "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." The State's interest is the people's interest and this is further delineated and expressed in local government, local control and local regulations to which ExteNet will comply without objection or exception. E. Of. Alternative design solutions that would nieelt, coverage objectives and decrease node and equipment visibility, height, nui-aber, placement, etc. Explain why alternatives that decrease v! ' sibility are not pursued. See the first paragraph, 7th line: "...and novil has evolved to ground -mounted boxes, softened by landscaping. ExteNet believes that this latest solution will decrease the visibility of the installations to the greatest extent possible..." See comments A and B above. F. Pole Loading Analysis. DPW Comment 4. Agil 19;ement to remove improvenients. "'ExteNet is willing to post a surety bond satisfactopy to the City in form and amount to I en -sure the rest-oratior.) of t,' -,,e light standards to a condition absent ExteNet's DAS ,-qtAwnent in the elvent ,that F�dp_Ne[ C.anfloi- S.,!!Stain actillitfii9s or the 3 deemed no longer needed. Please confirm the direction and the amount of the surety Bond." Of course, the bond should ensure the restoration of the entire pole (not just the light standards) to pre-ExteNet installation conditions. We do not understand what the "direction" of a bond is. The amount of bond should be tied to the CPI or other appropriate and customary cost/inflation projection index. G. Open House Summary. "Most people simply want to be heard, and they appreciate that we took the time to listen, " said Patti.' We vigorously disagree with the above statement. ExteNet was forced to convene a community forum after a total failure to properly engage one community while attempting to install a 60' tower 20' from a San Rafael homeowner's bedroom on Cedar Hill without the necessary permits or regulatory review. The "divide and conquer" approach at the Open House with five topic -specific stations was unsuccessful and resulted in a lively community question and answer period. One vice president began his statement "in all good faith..." while the Applicant was suing another Bay Area city that was attempting to apply its local telecommunication ordinances. The five -station approach is inefficient and incoherent. The public did not "want to be heard," but wanted the facts and assurances of local design standards. "Most people" cannot believe assertions made by ExteNet representatives due to their divisive attempts to circumvent local regulations and their later false written assertion that Underground Service Area markings on Cedar Hill have been removed. The multi -color paint remains to this day along the entire length of the street, reminding "most people" what almost happened on the 2011 Martin Luther King 3 -day holiday weekend. Lasi page. "All of the utility lines in this particular community are underground..." While this may be true of the Lucas Valley installations, four of the facilities are planned for Terra Linda. So this statement is confusing or untrue. "Also, please note that none of the comments submitted concerned any of the nodes that are currently planned for the City of San Rafael. "The public record is clear: from the beginning of the proposed project, the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association requested compensation for the blighting of its community, objected to the "garbage cans in the sky," and asked that a bond for equipment removal be secured. H. Obsolesance. We understand that DAS technology is already obsolete and are not enthusiastic about the proposed project. r 1.;2 Hs -fight of Aelvi_al Rouldneg. VVe have obser ed that aerial Inole-to-pole rou'finq has 1 v r - 'been installed too lov�j and without cable -wrapping in our neighborhoods. In several locations, ofliner vendois' facilities do not enable moving trucks to stavin their lane of .1 4 travel which is completely unacceptable. In other locations ---especially at wide intersections ---the steel cable -wrapping around the fiber optics has failed. There were lengthy delays until this could be repaired. Most of Terra Linda and parts of Lucas Valley experiences high winds and deferred maintenance is not acceptable. J. Age/Condition of Poles, Our community has 50+ year old wood poles. The additional weight of above -ground fiber optic cabling is causing the poles to lean and/or fail. The staking or "tie -downs" on private property are further blight and may create public safety issues that Applicant should mitigate. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We appreciate your attention to detail and prompt clear communication on this issue. Respectfully submitted, NORTH SAN RAFAEL COALITION OF RESIDENTS* SANTA MARGARITA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION** 103 Carolyn S. Lenert cc: City of Novato Telecommunication Specialist *Post Office Box 6442, San Rafael, CA 94903 **Post Office Box 6449, San Rafael, CA 94903 Page I of .1 Kraig Tambornini From: David Carey [ com] Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:04 PM To: Kraig Tambornini Cc: CarolynLenert@msn. Subject: Protest of ExteNet Distributed Antenna Phone Syst. File Number: UP1 1-020 (ED1 1-024) Dear Mr. Tambornini, I live on Penny Royal Lane adjacent to the proposed equipment installation and I am strongly opposed to this. I have lived here in San Rafael for over 20 years, I am a responsible citizen and pay my property taxes every year. I believe there should be a public forum, (well advertised), to itifom-i the people of Terra Linda what is going on, how a large corporation is trying to sneak in here and install an extremely unsightly installation ugly atioon 50 year old infrastructure which is already unsightly. Additionally, I believe there are safety issues that should be addressed. In the Santa Margarita Valley area we have wonderful views in all directions and that is an obvious benefit to living here. There is a moratorium on altering the roof on your house. Anyone who wants to modify the roof line of their house needs to go through a public hearing process. Why does this not go to the same scrutiny? This installation is far more unsightly than proposed roof modifications I have seen that were not allowed to be built. The proposed installation looks like a military communications pole in a war zone or something from a third world nation, it does not belong in Terra Linda. I cannot believe it is even being proposed. It also provides no benefit to any citizen of this area. There is already very good cellphone coverage, Internet and television service. It is not necessary. Please inform me what avenues 1 have as a citizen of San Rafael to protest this installation. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, David J. Carey San Rafael, CA 94903 411W201 I April 16, 2011 Mr. Kraig T@nlbornini Planning Department City of San Rafael 140OFifth Avenue San Rafael, CA94SO3 Subject: ExteNetApplication File No. UP11-O2O0ED11-O24\ Dear Kraig: The Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association B0erd of Directors (representing 1,230 homes and other members) has authorized me to respond to the above ExteNet proposal to modify telephone poles onDel Genado,Hibiscus, Las GaUinaoand Penny Royal. Our concerns are: 1.This iavisual' blight. VVewant owritten guaranty (and anamount inescrow) that the extensions, wires and equipment will beremoved when obsolete. 2.Our 50-OOyear-old poles are already leaning. Anchoring the existing poles creates more visual blight and new easements onto private property. Please address. 3. We call for ExteNet make an annual. contribution of $2,500 per extended pole per yeai. (now and iDthe future) to promote community engagement via our nonprofit 5O1 o3 status. 4. We would like one ExteNet contact and 24/7 telephone number in case of emergency (during installation and for the futuns). This information would be affixed to each modified pole. 5. We strongly object hm placing additional equipment (such as o OO' towerin K4MVVD property) inMarin County Open Space. Thank you for your attention to this, and for keeping us informed in the future. Very truly yours, /s/Carolyn Loned Cano\ynLened President 49S-9234 PoO�OffiC�B0���42'BanR�f@�!.C/\94�O3—vwm�sn�na-cn|inecorn Page 1 of I Kraig Tambornini From: Jan Vazquez [ Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:02 PM To: CarolynLenert@msn. Cc: Kraig Tambornini Subject: ExteNet application Hello Carolyn, Thank you for taking the time and effort on behalf of the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association to contact neighbors near the proposed ExteNet project. I have reviewed your letter and the attached application materials and have the following comments: . 1. Yes, the telephone poles and the ExteNet antenna attachment will be a visual blight. But even without the antenna, the series of utility poles and lines in the Terra Linda valley are huge distraction from the view of the beautiful open space hillsides. The City of San Rafael has been collecting money for decades from the utility companies for the sole purpose of undergrounding utilities and I really want to know why that money cannot be used/why it has not been used in Terra Linda. It's more than time that it should be. As for a financial guaranty that ExteNet remove their equipment when it comes obsolete, I think that would be a good idea, if it is feasible. However, I don't know of cities holding such securities for years on end without some sort of term specified. It may be time for the City to establish a fund to be paid into for the City have them removed when obsolete. 2. I did not find anything in the plans or written materials showing a proposal to create new anchors for the utility poles. I doubt that the addition of the equipment on the top of the poles will have any affect on the poles: they are too small to have an effect given the existing anchors and foundation of the poles. 3. I don't know what events have occurred that lead you to conclude ExteNet is a "bad actor" that is attempting to force the facilities on the neighborhood without rectuired hearings. What I get from the application materials is that the company is a public utility licensed by the State of California; it is a member of the Norther California Joint Pole Association, subject to the California Joint Pole Agreement which I guess entitles them to use utility poles; the ExteNet representative has met with some neighbors and as a result decided to locate a node outside of the City to gain neighbors' support for the project; and ExteNet has now filed for use permit and design review permits which will entail a public hearing before the planning commission. I don't see where there is anything amiss or where there might have been a public hearing through any prior action or change in company ownership. Apparently, the ExteNet representative. smartly, took the initiative to contact neighbors in advance of filing the application and amend the plans, something that is not required of them. 4. It would be prudent for ExteNet to provide an emergency contact information to the Fire Department, as they are the ones who would most likely be the first responders. -�. The application does not include the installation of a 60' tower in public open space. Jan Vazquez San Rafael A 11 7;701 1 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: PROJECT: PROJECT: ExteNet LLC Distributed Antenna Systems (Lucas Valley Network) — Appeal of the Planning Commission action approving a wireless antenna infrastructure improvement (Node t.UC-003A) within City public rights-of-way adjacent to 714 Penny Royal Lane as part of its decision to grant Master Use Permit No. UPI 1-20, Master Environmental and Design Review Permit No. EDII-24 and Exception No. EX12-002 for the ExteNet Wireless Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Infrastructure project. File: AP 12-006. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends a finding that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) tinder 14 CCF? Section 15301(b) and 15303(d) (utility facilities), If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. HEARING DATE: Monday, November 19, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL The Citv Council will consider all oublic testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the HAPPEN: IFYOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Office of the City Clerk-, Room 209, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box ATTEND: 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE Contact Kraig Tarnbomini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or INFORMATION: ki-aig.tamboriiini*citylofsanrafael.oig. You can also come to the Planning Division office. located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at httta:1,itivtiv.citvofsanrafael.orr?'meeiint s. SAN RAFAEL CITU COUNCIL Esther Beime CITY CLERK At flic "Ibow I i!ii,, at-, d placc. at I 1,`ticr, roccixed \\ it I be noted antl ,iIt intere,,tt:d piries \\i':I be heard, I I',, mi ch<illcngc in Court Ilia tilatler lcscribcd lit wl I St -,:i\ 1%, 1 in)ilcd to rai,;1to 0n h those' issues wii orstir icone el,t, mised iii the pit h I ic hearin dcciihed in Ibis nt ;! ice, or in Nxt-111cr., cortvzpon, 1,:: ice dcli\ cro" o- pno,- it 1. 111 obo% C rete r, -,I Ice"I 1111blic I Icaring. Council 1094,0) >r& ril?, r to 01,.I Hit"! Goido" Rile' 2" 01--J i,, CC ilvle e fir a Nov. 19; 2012 i - de No. A 12-006 Exhibit 6- CC Hearing Notice Jeannie Courteau From: Esther Beirne Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 6:40 PM To: Kraig Tambornini Cc: Jeannie Courteau Subject: RE: CC Hearing Notice for Appeal 12-006 Yes needs publication notice please send to jeannie Courteau for Jeanne leoncini's attention From: Kraig Tambornini Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:25 PM To: Esther Beirne Cc: Anne Derrick Subject: CC Hearing Notice for Appeal 12-006 Hi Esther: The referenced appeal has been scheduled for a hearing before the CC on Nov 19 2012 and the notice below will be mailed out next Friday to owners, residents and interested parties within 500 feet of the site, and posted at the site. Do you need to publish this in the IJ, and if so, do you need me to prepare a form for that? I will be out next week so am asking Anne to help take care of any noticing details for the CC meeting. Thanks, Kraig << OLE Object: Microsoft NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL Word Picture >> You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: ExteNet LLC Distributed Antenna Systems (Lucas Valley Network) — Appeal of the Planning Commission action approvinc wireless antenna infrastructure improvement (Node LUC-003A) within City public rights-of-way adjacent to 714 Penny Royal Lane as part decision to grant Master Use Permit No. UP11-20, Master Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED11-24 and Exception No. EX1 for the ExteNet Wireless Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Infrastructure project. File: AP12-006. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends a finding that this project will not h significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under 14 CCR Se 15301(b) and 15303(d) (utility facilities. If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies maybe require MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, November 19, 2012, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafae FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or kraig.tambornini@cityofsanrafael.org. can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can al: the staff report after 5:00 p.m, on the Friday before the meeting at httr)://www,citvofsanrafael.ora/meetings WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to appro deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division. City of San Rafael, P. 151560, San Rafael CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and puce all letters received'v:1. be noted and al! interested parties wil, be heard iF you challenge ;r. court the matter descrited above. you may be limited to raising on;y those issues you or someone e'se rased at the pubic hea^ng described in this notice or in writer correspondence cleiivered at. or prior to the above referenced cubiic nearing tGcver mer.t Code Section e5Gv9 't; Jud,oal review ,f an administratr,e dec.s,cr cf tre C by Counc.. must be fired wit" the Court not iater than the 92" da, fc icving tre date of the Ccunc,:'s decision JCode of C `,-i P,ccedure Sectio 1G94 6', Sign Language and interpretat,cr, aria assistive :,sten,rg cevices ,; ay Ce requested by ca,.;ng 415; 485-3085 , voice; cr , 41, 5) 485-3'98: TLI--i at least 1 12 hours .r, ad race ;op;es of docurrmerts are avauab;e it access;tIe formats upon request Punic transportatia,; to City Nal. <s avadabie through Gcider, Gate Transit u.ne 22 or 23 Para -transit is avauabie Cr caGng Wr„stiestcp Wineeis at i415) 454-0964 To ar avv ,rdivrduais grill-, er,v�rdnrreniai ;,mess or.murtip+'e chem;ca, se,rsitmly to attend tie meetingtt-,earng rnmviduars are requested to refrain from :veanng scented ,products. Marin independent Journal Legal No 0004673097 RAFAEL 150 Alameda del Prado CITY OF SAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PO Box 6150You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: Novato, California 94948-1535 PR01ECTr PROJECT: ExteNet LLC Distributed (415) 382-7335 Antenna Systems (Lucas valley Network) - Ap- peal of the Planning Commission action ap- proving a vvireless antenne infrastructure im. provement thode LUC-003A) within City public rights-of-way adiacent to 714 Penny Royal Lane as part of its decrswn to grant Master Use Per- mit No. UPI 1-20. Master Environmental and De- sign Review Permit No. EDIT-24 and Exception SAN RAFAEL,CITY OF No. EX12-002 for the ExtoNet wireless Distribut- ed Antenna system (ans) Infrastructure proj- ect. rile: AP12-006. WORKS,1400 FIFTH AVE As required by state law, the project's poten- tial environmental impacts have been as- SAN RAFAEL CA 94915 1560 mssed. Planning staff recommends a findingg that this project will not have a significant ef. fect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the pprovisions of the California Act under 14 CCR Environmental r9uality iCEQA), Section ty and utility PROOF OF PUBLICATION is project if the City Council determines that this project Council determines is in an environmentally sensitive area, further (2015.5 C.C.P.) studies may be required. HEARING DATE: Monday, November 19, Z012 at 7:00 P,M. LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall - City Council STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street Sari Rafael, California WHAT WILL HAPPEN; The City Council will 1tA County Os I Marin consider all public testimony and decide shether to approve or deny the appeal. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Cifice of the City Clerk. Room 209. City of San Rafael. P. O. Box 151560. Sari Rafael, CA FILE NO. 0004673097 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE INFORMATION : Contact Kraig Tmnbornird, Project Planner at (41S) 4855-3092 or kraig.tambormniia cityofsanrafaei org. You I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County can also come to the Planning Division office. located in City Hall. 14-00 Fifth Avenue, to soak at aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the fife for the proposed project. The office is npen from 8:30 a.m to 5:00 p.m, 5-,n Monday and or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the Thursdedoesd B:30nd m, to 1 :45 p.m. T leS- printer of the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of also the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday be- circulation, printed and published daily in the County of fore the meeting at ntep:v;'�^ww.cityrotsanrafaei general Marin, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of .org/meetings. general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Marin, SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL Esther Eeirne State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, CASE CITY CLERK NUMBER 25566; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed At the above time and place, all letters received copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in ,will be noted and all interested parties •vull be heard. if ou challenge in court the matter de- each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in an gY scribed above, you may be limited 5-o raising only those issues you or someone else raised at supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit- the public hearing described in this notice. or in mitten correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearingg, (Gov. ernment Code Section 65009(b)i2)).ludiciai re- 11/2/2012 Jew of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed Aith the Court not later than 30th day fol{owiny the date of the Coun- cil's decision. tCede of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Public Transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 20 or 23. Para-transit is available by calling whistlestop Wheels at (415)454-0964. To allow individuals .lith environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the ni etinq'hearing, indi- viduals are requested to refrain from wearing scented pn,ducts. NG, 161-3 NOV2, 2012 certify for declare` under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct Gated this 2nd day of November 2012 Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION Jeannie Courteau From: Lazarus, Donna [ com] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 9:54 AM To: Jeannie Courteau Cc: LEGALS@MARINIJ.COM Subject: 4673097 Attachments: OrderConf.pdf , " OrderConf.pdf (102 KB) PROOF OF PUBLICATION COST $154.00 NET LOG 1673 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF A CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL / AGENCY. SRRA/ SRCC AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.b DATE OF MEETING: November 19, 2012 FROM: Kraig Tambornini DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department DATE: November 8, 2012 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Extenet Appeal AP 12-006 Report and Resolution Department Head (signature) (LOWER HALF OF FORM FOR APPROVALS ONLY) APPROVED AS COUNCIL AGENCY APPROVED AS TO FORM: AGENDA ITEM: City Manager (signature) City Attorney (signature) NOT APPROVED IXEMARKS: