HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 100 Block of Winward Way Appeal15
circ OF - Agenda Item No:
lAd�� Meeting Date: July 20, 2009
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Robert M. Brown City Manager
Community Development Director (SD)
SUBJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal
and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review
Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice -patterned
transmission tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN:
009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon
Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker and Louise Yost, appellants; Case Number: APO -003.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2, page 11 of this
report) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action affirming the Zoning
Administrator's conditional approval of a Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review
Permit (ED08-002).
BACKGROUND:
Setting/Site Conditions:
The proposed project site is a 2.29 -acre parcel located on Windward Way south of Bellam Blvd. The level
site is undeveloped except for a 117 -foot -high PG&E lattice -patterned steel transmission tower (high
voltage service line), which is sited at the northwest portion of the site.
Along Windward Way, the site is bordered to the south and west by both vacant land and commercial as
well as light industrial developments. To the east are mudflats and seasonal wetlands, while Bellam
Boulevard and Baypoint Village Drive are located approximately 350 feet north of the project site. All
properties north of Bellam Blvd. are residentially developed in Baypoint Lagoon, Spinnaker Point and the
Rafael Bay Townhomes. Ecology House, a residential complex that provides rental housing for low-
income persons "disabled by chemical sensitivities and intolerance," is located at the northwest corner of
the Baypoint Village Drive/Catalina Blvd intersection, approximately 425 feet from the PG & E
transmission tower. The general area also contains high tension power lines and a number of similar
PG&E transmission towers. One of the neighboring PG&E transmission towers contains a cluster of Metro
PCS antennas. This Metro PCS facility is located approximately 600 feet to the south of the proposed
project site.
The project site is located within the Multifamily Residential (MR2) District, which is the only residentially -
zoned property located south of Bellam Boulevard. With the exception of two small parcels located north
of the project site which are located within the Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) District, all other properties on
Windward Way are within the Light Industrial/Office (LI/O) District.
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.:
Council Meeting:
Disposition:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 2
History/Project Description:
On January 14, 2008, Verizon Wireless, the applicant, applied for a Use Permit (UP08-001) and an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) to allow the installation of six panel antennas on
the existing PG&E transmission tower that is located on the site. The proposal includes the installation of
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower. A complete description of the
improvements is provided in the attached Planning Commission (PC) Staff Report (Attachment 5, page
42) and in the project graphics/plans that were distributed to the City Council (plans on file with the
Community Development Department). A report on the projected RF emissions concludes that the
facilities would be well within the RF emission standards allowed under the Federal Communications
Commissions (FCC) regulations. RF emission exposure would be 0.37% of the of the public exposure
limits set by FCC.
Per San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities), approval
of both a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit is required for the installation and
operation of a new, unmanned wireless communication facility. Since the project proposes a co -location
on an existing building/structure (PG&E tower), the hearing body for review and action is the Zoning
Administrator (ZA). The provisions of the City Code do not regulate RF emissions, but regulate location
and design. The City Code specifies the most- to least -preferred locations for siting telecommunication
facilities. Residential zoning districts are considered the least -preferred location. When proposed in a
residential zoning district, an Alternative Site Analysis must be prepared to demonstrate that all other
feasible sites were considered and studied prior to the selection of the proposed site. An Alternative Site
Analysis was prepared assessing four alternative sites within the service area. These alternative sites are
described in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5, page 59).
Review and Action by the Zoning Administrator:
The Use Permit and ED Permit applications for the proposed facility were favorably reviewed by the
Design Review Board. The ZA held several public hearings on this project, ultimately approving the Use
Permit and ED Permit with conditions on November 4, 2008.
Planning Commission Review - Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action:
On November 12, 2008, a resident of the neighboring Ecology House appealed the ZA approval. The
grounds for the appeal raised both design -related and non design -related issues. The appeal letter is
attached as part of this staff report (Attachment 3, page 25 of this report). On January 13, 2009, the
Planning Commission reviewed the appeal. The Planning Commission accepted public comments from
numerous speakers including seven (7) people in opposition of the project (see January 13, 2009,
Planning Commission Minutes, Attachment 5, page 47 of this report). The majority of the public
comments opposing the project presented the following points:
➢ The proposed wireless communication project will render the purpose and operation of the
existing Ecology House as obsolete.
➢ The Telecommunication Act of 1996 under Section 704 precludes the consideration of
environmental effects but not the consideration of health effects of personal wireless service
facilities. The proposed project would have adverse impacts on Ecology House residents with
chemical sensitivities.
➢ The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and California State laws guarantee people
with disabilities reasonable accommodation for access to public facilities, housing, education,
employment and transportation.
➢ Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) has catastrophic personal, financial and social
consequences for the person who has this disability. The proposed project would adversely
impact residents who have MCS and are residents of the Ecology House.
➢ Residents of the Ecology House are hypersensitive and none of them can afford to be exposed to
higher electromagnetic or RF emissions.
➢ Other issues were raised by non -Ecology House residents relating to the potential harmful health
effects of RF emissions and the credibility of the emission limits set by the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC).
The Planning Commission discussed these issues and concerns in detail. Ultimately, the Commission
continued the project directing the applicant to: a) return with more substantive and conclusive data
regarding their Alternative Site Analysis, and b) provide a graphic showing the geographic area for
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
service (service ring). Additionally, the Commission requested that the City Attorney review and report on
the City's limits of discretion for reviewing the telecommunications facilities and to address whether the
FCC preemption includes local consideration of health effects. The City Attorney was also requested to
report on whether protection, under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 'trumps' and/or overrides the
FCC regulations in the reviewing of telecommunications facilities and the strict application of ADA
requirements on neighboring properties.
In May 2009, the applicant submitted a graphic showing the geographic area of the desired service ring
and a revised Alternative Site Analysis. These documents are provided as attachments to the May 26,
2009 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5, pages 69). The geographic area that the proposed
telecommunication facilities would serve is bounded by Canal Street, Kerner Blvd. and Vista Del Mar. City
staff initiated a peer review of the Alternative Site Analysis, which was conducted by Jonathan Kramer
(Kramer Firm, Inc.), a telecommunication specialist. This peer review (Attachment 5, page 77 of this
report) concludes that Verizon has only two realistic alternatives to accommodate their service ring: a) to
proceed with the project at the currently proposed location; or b) to construct a separate, freestanding,
75 -80 -foot tall monopole adjacent to the proposed location, or at another site just to the north of the
search ring near Pickleweed Park. The Kramer Firm confirmed the conclusions of the analysis, which
ruled out the availability of the alternative site located adjacent to the proposed site (because of an
unwilling landlord). The Kramer Firm also found the potential for a very tall, monopole structure near
Pickleweed Park is an appropriate alternative but is also a less -preferred site as it is within the Park/Open
Space zoning district and would not be of stealth design. The peer review included recommended
conditions regarding the design, color and size of the cables, connectors, brackets, etc. for the proposed
facility.
On May 26, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a second public hearing. The Commission
accepted public comment from 12 people, with 11 opposing the project and 1 in support (see May 26,
2009, PC Minutes, Attachment 6, page 97 of this report). The public comments opposing the project were
generally the same as those issues expressed at the January 13, 2009, hearing (health effects, ADA
conflicts). However, the following two new issues were raised:
One comment expressed concern related to the 'electro smog' or 'dirty electricity.' This hypothesis is
that, when an electric transmission line is located near an antenna, it is believed to act as a conduit
for the transmission of RF emissions, enabling these emissions to enter into businesses and homes
adjacent to or quite far from the antenna facility. In response to this issue, Bill Hammett, Hammett and
Edison, Inc., RF/telecommunications consultants reported that this hypothesis does not hold by
explaining that electric transmission lines are open lines whereas RF lines are coaxial and are
transmitted in closed conduits. The two systems do not interact with each other.
2. Several persons commented that the proposed telecommunication facility would render the Ecology
House useless to its initial purpose and intent to house low-income persons with chemical
sensitivities. It was stated that the proposed facility would change the character of the neighborhood,
and therefore, would be inconsistent with General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 (New Development in
Residential Neighborhoods). The Commission discussed General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 and how
'residential character of neighborhoods' is defined in interpreting this policy. Staff explained that, in
reviewing projects for consistency with the General Plan, neighborhood character has been typically
and historically interpreted to mean and apply to physical changes and physical improvements that
could impact the physical character of the environment/neighborhood. The Planning Commission
concluded that the installation of new antennas to an existing tower structure would result in minimal
physical changes to the tower and would not change the physical character or environment of the
neighborhood.
Following closure of the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission voted 4-1-2
(Commissioner Colin opposed, Commissioners Sonnet and Paul absent) to adopt the Resolution No. 09-
05 (Attachment 4, page 29 of this report) to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator
approval of the project. A chronology of events has been prepared, which summarizes the background
and evolution of this project through the stages of project review. This chronology is attached to the PC
Staff Report (Attachment 5, page 42 of this report).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 4
City Attorney Report on FCC Regulations and Relationship to ADA
Through the Planning Commission review process, the City Attorney reported on several issues
pertaining to the City's limits of discretion in reviewing telecommunication facilities. The City Attorney
reported that the City is preempted from the Telecommunication Act, which specifically prohibits local
governments from regulating the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service
facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, if such facilities comply
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Further, the
City Attorney reported that based on a research of the laws, the City is required to comply with and defer
to the FCC regulations because the FCC is the sole agency that governs RF emissions related to
telecommunication facilities. The City Attorney also reported that only one law (the FCC regulations)
applies here and compliance with that law would not result in the City violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), nor would it place the City in a position of choosing between two laws. Lastly, the
City Attorney reported there is no distinction between environmental effects and health effects in how the
FCC regulations are interpreted or applied; they are one and the same.
ANALYSIS:
Summary of Appeal and Response to Appeal Points:
Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Planning Commission's May 26 action was filed along
with the required filing fee. The appellants, Louise Yost and Connie Barker (residents of the Ecology
House) submitted an appeal letter dated June 2, 2009, which is included as Attachment 3 (page 25 of this
report). This appeal letter raises three non design -related issues, some of which were already addressed
and considered by the Planning Commission. Below is a summary of the appeal points (in bold and
italics) identified in the appeal letter followed by staff's response:
1. Ecology House, as a home and community gathering place of almost 15 years standing for
people disabled by environmental illness (EI) and chemical injury and intolerances (CI), is a
well established existing community. Should the area around it become substantially less
accessible to a significant segment of the particular disabled population that it currently
serves, the character of the neighborhood as an accessible community gathering place for
those people would most certainly be changed.
Response: General Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) reads
as follows:
"Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make
them desirable places to live. New development should:
• Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life,
• Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to
respect adjacent development character and privacy,
• Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures,
• Respect existing landforms and natural features,
• Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and
• Provide adequate parking."
As discussed above, the neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean and apply to
physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the
environmentineighborhood. As proposed and conditioned, the project would be consistent and would
not conflict with Policy NH -2 for the following reasons:
a. The project site is located in a neighborhood that is developed with a broad mix of land uses and
improvements including commercial, light industrial, residential and public/quasi-public facilities.
In addition, the general area contains numerous PG&E transmission towers that are identical to
the tower on the project site. One of the neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of
antennas. This Metro PCS facility is located approximately 600 feet to the south of the proposed
project site. Collectively, these land uses and improvements define the physical character of the
area. The proposed addition of six antennas on the existing PG&E tower with associated
improvements would not result in a physical change to the size or shape of this tower. In fact, with
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 5
the implementation of recommended conditions of approval (painting the antenna and facilities to
match the tower), there would be minimal visual changes to the tower structure.
b. As discussed above, the property is located within the MR2 zoning district, which is unique in that
it is the only property located south of Bellam Boulevard that is residentially -zoned. Bellam
Boulevard clearly defines the separation between the predominantly residential area of the
neighborhood (north of Bellam Boulevard) and the non-residential and light industrial area of the
neighborhood (south of Bellam Boulevard). While collectively, these land uses and improvements
form the neighborhood character, this division is apparent. Although the subject property is
residentially -zoned, which is unique, its location south of Bellam Boulevard makes it more
appropriate for the siting of telecommunication facilities because it is primarily surrounded by non-
residential land uses.
c. The proposed co -location of the facilities on an existing utility tower is precisely what the City
Code provisions for such facilities are intended to achieve. By co -locating, the proposed facilities
make use of an existing structure without changing its size, shape, character or general
appearance, thus making it blend in with the existing character of the neighborhood.
Please note that potential noise generation was assessed and considered in reviewing the project to
determine the potential for change in noise levels. The proposed project would include the installation
of an emergency generator for occasional use. The generator is designed to be within the maximum
60 Ldn noise limit (exterior noise level allowed near new residential development). Additionally, at the
request of the residents of the Ecology House, the generator is proposed to be located on the farther
side of the PG &E tower. Therefore, the project would not result in noise levels incompatible with the
existing residential uses in the neighborhood.
2. The viability of Ecology House as a home and gathering place for the local EI/C/ community is
absolutely dependent on its remaining accessible to as large a segment of the local
population with CS/CI as possible. Any substantial increase in RF and EMF radiation in
Ecology House's immediate vicinity necessarily impacts its ability to serve the population that
it is both federally and locally funded specifically to serve.
Response: The Ecology House was built by Marin Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) in
1994, and is owned and managed by EAH. The complex contains 11 rental apartment units for
chemically -sensitive, low-income residents that were built using non-toxic building materials (which
was confirmed in reviewing the initial building permit). Planning approvals were limited to an ED
Permit. The ED Permit file for Ecology House contains no information regarding the project being built
for persons with RF or EMF sensitivities. The record and information available regarding the project
approval indicate that the Ecology House project was presented and approved as a low-income
apartment development for 'chemically -sensitive' residents. Chemical sensitivity was not defined but
has been interpreted to refer to sensitivity to odors and air emissions. The ED Permit approval did not
include any special conditions or land use restrictions for the Ecology House or the immediate
neighborhood. Further, there was no special safety zone placed or recorded on the property that
would influence land use decisions on the apartment site or neighboring properties. EAH staff was
contacted to obtain clarification on the special purpose of this apartment complex. EAH staff indicated
that there is nothing in their records that indicates the complex is for residents with sensitivity to radio
frequencies (RF's), light or noise. In fact, a high tension PG&E power line running along Playa del
Rey is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest unit in the Ecology House. High tension power
lines are believed to carry EMFs. This power line existed when the Ecology House complex was
reviewed and approved by the City.
The applicant's RF consultant Hammett and Edison, Inc has conducted a study of RF levels at the
Ecology House. The report was not available at the time this staff report was completed. The report
will be distributed to the City Council before the July 20'h hearing.
3. The independent review of the applicant's alternatives analysis addressed the technical
concerns of coverage areas, but not the issue of community and neighborhood identity and
its preservation. Since Ecology House specifically serves a disabled population, we therefore
ask, as a matter of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), and as a matter of complying with general plan provisions requiring that the character
of existing neighborhoods be preserved, that the city act to preserve access to Ecology House
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
for as broad a range of EI/CI people as possible.
Response: As discussed above in response to Appeal point #1, the Planning Commission concluded
that the project would not impact the physical character of the neighborhood. An Alternative Site
Analysis was prepared assessing four alternative sites within the service area and a peer review was
conducted by the City. SRMC Section 14.16.360C.3.d sets forth the purpose and scope of an
Alternative Site Analysis, which is to: a) identify other sites that have been considered and rejected in
favor of the proposed site; b) present supporting reasons why the alternative sites were infeasible and
rejected; and c) identify why the proposed site is superior from a technical or other standpoint. The
scope of the Alternative Site Analysis prepared for this project complies with the requirements of the
City Code.
The issue of reasonable accommodation under ADA has been researched and reported by the City
Attorney's Office. As a point of clarification, a request for reasonable accommodation is not applicable
in this situation. A request for reasonable accommodation is made by a property owner to relieve their
own property (not through the action on a neighboring property) from a code requirement that
challenges or impairs the right of access or use.
Analysis of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
General Plan: The Planning Commission determined that the project is consistent with the applicable
goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 in regards to land use, noise levels, new
development in residential neighborhoods and telecommunication improvements. Please refer to the draft
resolution (Attachment 2, page 11 of this report) for detailed findings of general plan consistency.
Zoning Ordinance: Although the subject property is a less -preferred site for siting telecommunications
facilities, it is the only residentially -zoned site located south of Bellam Boulevard. As proposed and
conditioned, the project is consistent with the uses allowed in MR2 Zoning District. Please refer to the
draft resolution (Attachment 2, page 11 of this report) for detailed findings of Zoning Ordinance
consistency.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is categorically
exempt from environmental review, as it involved minor additions to existing private structures.
NOTICE/CORRESPONDENCE:
City Council public hearing public notice for the July 20, 2009 hearing was published in the Marin
Independent Journal and mailed to the complex tenants, neighboring property owners, businesses and
residents within 1,000 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations. A public notice sign was also
posted near the PG&E tower. A copy of the public hearing notice and the notification list is provided as an
attachment (Attachment 7, page 109) to the July 20, 2009 staff report. No public correspondence was
received until the date this report was completed. Any correspondence received after the date of
completion of this report would be submitted to the City Council before the hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project is for a new wireless communication facility. Staff does not anticipate that the approval of the
proposed project will cause a change in City service costs because the wireless facility would not result in
any new residential or commercial development. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate any
more demand in city services or emergency response as well as street and drainage maintenance and
other municipal services to these properties.
OPTIONS:
The following options may be considered by the City Council on this matter:
1. Deny the appeal and approve the project as presented and approved by the Planning
Commission;
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 7
2. Deny the appeal and approve the project with additional modifications, changes or additional
conditions of approval;
3. Continue the application to allow the project sponsor to address any new or additional comments
or concerns of the Council; or
4. Approve the appeal and deny the project.
ACTIONS REQUIRED:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action affirming the
Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of a Use Permit (UP08-001) and an Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED08-002) (Attachment 2, page 11).
NUMBERED PAGES IN
REPORT
ATTACHMENTS: (LOWER RIGHT CORNER)
1. Vicinity/Site Map 9
2. Draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding PC action affirming ZA 11
approval of the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit
3. Appeal Letter dated June 2, 2009, and Initial Appeal Letter dated
27
November 12, 2008
4. Planning Commission Resolution (No. 09-05) denying the appeal and
31
upholding the ZA approval of the Use Permit and Environmental and
Design Review Permit
5. Planning Commission staff report with exhibits, May 26, 2009 - key
43
Color maps
Exhibits:
attached to the
Chronology of the Project Development
44
Coverage Map
distributed City
Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009
49
.
Council only.
Revised Alternative Site Analysis, February 26, 2009
61
Coverage Map Submitted by Applicant
71
Peer Review Report of Alternative Site Analysis dated May 7, 2009
79
6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 26, 2009
99
7. RF readings at the Ecology House (To be submitted at the hearing)
111
8. Public Hearing Notice and Notification List
113
Distributed to the City Council only:
Reduced Project Plans (11'x17) and Color Maps
[N:/ ... /CC Staff Report 7-13-09]
Location Map — 100 Block of Windward Way — Verizon Wireless
,
v -1
,a '�'°'i7 AUpCE�
n,
l
axx I � y8i: l a� z
D
odfS o .Av �xs.�t
c FIMIj1.
x � i
ti! ;1t 1 _ -BLyp j 312 me p 70n
46
a _
7
� I
ry� GI$
ode j \
IN - i
i
A
,1
�
,NIP
/ --------------
SCALE 1 :4,822 N
zoo o zoo aoo soo
FEET
attachment 1
Monday, January 05, 2009 3:20 PM
Map of PG&E Tower and Ecology House
z
oti
v
Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:24 AM
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
DENYING AN APPEAL (AP09-003) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR ACTION TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT (UP08-001) AND AN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED08-002) TO ALLOW
THE INSTALLATION OF SIX PANEL ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING PG&E
TOWER WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS ENCLOSED IN A SHED
SITED AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER WHICH IS LOCATED ON 100 BLOCK
OF WINDWARD WAY (APN: 009-330-01)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2008, Verizon Wireless filed applications for a Use
Permit (UP008-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
requesting the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower The project
application was deemed complete for processing on April 23, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board favorably
reviewed the proposed project, recommending some plan changes and directed staff to
review the Alternative Site Analysis; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed the Use Permit
(UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) applications, closed
the public hearing and continued the matter to October 27, 2008 to review and consider the
information submitted by neighboring residents; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2008, Joan Ripple, a neighbor's representative,
contacted the Zoning Administrator (ZA) to submit additional information regarding the
health impacts of radio frequency (RF) radiation and emissions. The ZA expressed that,
although the public hearing was closed, Ms. Ripple could submit the additional information.
The ZA explained that the information would be reviewed prior to making a determination
on the applications by November 4, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2008, following review of the additional information
submitted by neighboring residents, ZA approved the Use Permit (UP08-001) and ED
Permit (ED08-002) applications for the wireless facility. The approval incorporated two
conditions, among others, requiring: a) that within 45 days of commencement of operations
of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider is to submit the
results of RF testing to the Community Development Department, Planning Division; and
ATTACHMENT 2 2.1
(b) every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider is to participate in a study
by the City to measure the RFR of the facility; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2008, Connie Barker, a resident of the Ecology
House located at 375 Catalina Blvd filed an appeal (AP08-007) of the ZA approval; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, following closure of the public hearing and
discussion, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to date uncertain and
directed the project applicant to complete and submit a more substantive alternative site
analysis; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2009, the project applicant submitted a revised
alternative site analysis. The analysis was peer reviewed by an FCC -licensed RF engineer.
The peer review report dated May 27, 2009 concluded that the subject site is a better
alternative site to achieve the project objective. Another alternative would be to construct a
new 75 to 80 feet tall monopole near Pickleweed Park; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the appeal, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the
written report of the Community Development Department staff. Following closure of the
public hearing and lengthy discussion, the Commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold
approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit with conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2009, Louise Yost and Connie Barker, residents of Ecology
House filed an appeal (AP09-003) of the Planning Commission action upholding of the
Zoning Administrator approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2009, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed
public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and
the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Wireless Communication Facilities Section
14.16.360.A.3, the City Council prefers the joint use of existing tower sites as a primary
option rather than construction of additional single -use towers; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the City Council has confirmed that the
project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), which exempts additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of
ATTACHMENT 2 2.2
less than 10,000 square feet from the requirements of CEQA, if the project is located in an
area that is served by all available public utilities to allow for maximum development
permissible under the General Plan and if the project is located in an area that is not
environmentally sensitive. The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base
(footprint) of the existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area for locating an emergency
generator outside the tower base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of
the floor area of the original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the
requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San
Rafael hereby denies the appeal (AP09-003) and upholds the Planning Commission's action
affirming the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP08-001)
and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002). The City Council finds that the
points of the appeal (in italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons:
1. Ecology House, as a home and community gathering place of almost 15 years standing
for people disabled by environmental illness (EI) and chemical injury and intolerances
(CI), is a well established existing community. Should the area around it become
substantially less accessible to a significant segment of the particular disabled
population that it currently serves, the character of the neighborhood as an accessible
community gathering place for those people would most certainly be changed: General
Plan 2020 Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) reads as
follows:
"Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods
to make them desirable places to live. New development should:
• Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life,
• Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent
properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy,
• Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures,
• Respect existing landforms and natural features,
• Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and
• Provide adequate parking. "
As discussed above, the neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean
and apply to physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the
environment/neighborhood. As proposed and conditioned, the project would be
consistent and would not conflict with Policy NH -2 for the following reasons:
a. The project site is located in a neighborhood that is developed with a broad mix of
land uses and improvements including commercial, light industrial, residential and
ATTACHMENT 2 2.3
public/quasi-public facilities. In addition, the general area contains numerous PG&E
transmission towers that are identical to the tower on the project site. One of the
neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of antennas. This Metro PCS
facility is located approximately 600 feet to the south of the proposed project site.
Collectively, these land uses and improvements define the physical character of the
area. The proposed addition of six antennas on the existing PG&E tower with
associated improvements would not result in a physical change to the size or shape
of this tower. In fact, with the implementation of recommended conditions of
approval (painting the antenna and facilities to match the tower), there would be
minimal visual changes to the tower structure.
b. As discussed above, the property is located within the MR2 zoning district, which is
unique in that it is the only property located south of Bellam Boulevard that is
residentially -zoned. Bellam Boulevard clearly defines the separation between the
predominantly residential area of the neighborhood (north of Bellam Boulevard) and
the non-residential and light industrial area of the neighborhood (south of Bellam
Boulevard). While collectively, these land uses and improvements form the
neighborhood character, this division is apparent. Although the subject property is
residentially -zoned, which is unique, its location south of Bellam Boulevard makes it
more appropriate for the siting of telecommunication facilities because it is primarily
surrounded by non-residential land uses.
c. The proposed co -location of the facilities on an existing utility tower is precisely
what the City Code provisions for such facilities are intended to achieve. By co -
locating, the proposed facilities make use of an existing structure without changing
its size, shape, character or general appearance, thus making it blend in with the
existing character of the neighborhood.
Please note that potential noise generation was assessed and considered in reviewing the
project to determine the potential for change in noise levels. The proposed project would
include the installation of an emergency generator for occasional use. The generator is
designed to be within the maximum 60 Ldn noise limit (exterior noise level allowed near
new residential development). Additionally, at the request of the residents of the
Ecology House, the generator is proposed to be located on the farther side of the PG &E
tower. Therefore, the project would not result in noise levels incompatible with the
existing residential uses in the neighborhood.
2. The viability of Ecology House as a home and gathering place for the local EI/CI
community is absolutely dependent on its remaining accessible to as large a segment of
the local population with CS/CI as possible. Any substantial increase in RF and EMF
radiation in Ecology House's immediate vicinity necessarily impacts its ability to serve
the population that it is both federally and locally funded specifically to serve: The
Ecology House was built by Mann Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) in 1994,
and is owned and managed by EAR The complex contains 11 rental apartment units for
chemically -sensitive, low-income residents that were built using non-toxic building
ATTACHMENT 2 2.4
materials (which was confirmed in reviewing the initial building permit). Planning
approvals were limited to an ED Permit. The ED Permit file for Ecology House contains
no information regarding the project being built for persons with RF or EMF
sensitivities. The record and information available regarding the project approval
indicate that the Ecology House project was presented and approved as a low-income
apartment development for `chemically -sensitive' residents. Chemical sensitivity was
not defined but has been interpreted to refer to sensitivity to odors and air emissions. The
ED Permit approval did not include any special conditions or land use restrictions for the
Ecology House or the immediate neighborhood. Further, there was no special safety
zone placed or recorded on the property that would influence land use decisions on the
apartment site or neighboring properties. EAH staff was contacted to obtain clarification
on the special purpose of this apartment complex. EAH staff indicated that there is
nothing in their records that indicates the complex is for residents with sensitivity to
radio frequencies (RF's), light or noise. In fact, a high tension PG&E power line running
along Playa del Rey is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest unit in the
Ecology House. High tension power lines are believed to carry EMFs. This power line
existed when the Ecology House complex was reviewed and approved by the City.
3. The independent review of the applicant's alternatives analysis addressed the technical
concerns of coverage areas, but not the issue of community and neighborhood identity
and its preservation. Since Ecology House specifically serves a disabled population, we
therefore ask, as a matter of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and as a matter of complying with general plan provisions
requiring that the character of existing neighborhoods be preserved, that the city act to
preserve access to Ecology House for as broad a range of EI/CI people as possible: As
discussed above in response to Appeal point #1, the Planning Commission concluded
that the project would not impact the physical character of the neighborhood. An
Alternative Site Analysis was prepared assessing four alternative sites within the service
area and a peer review was conducted by the City. SRMC Section 14.16.360C.3.d sets
forth the purpose and scope of an Alternative Site Analysis, which is to: a) identify other
sites that have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed site; b) present
supporting reasons why the alternative sites were infeasible and rejected; and c) identify
why the proposed site is superior from a technical or other standpoint. The scope of the
Alternative Site Analysis prepared for this project complies with the requirements of the
City Code.
The issue of reasonable accommodation under ADA has been researched and reported
by the City Attorney's Office. As a point of clarification, a request for reasonable
accommodation is not applicable in this situation. A request for reasonable
accommodation is made by a property owner to relieve their own property (not through
the action on a neighboring property) from a code requirement that challenges or impairs
the right of access or use.
ATTACHMENT 2 2.5
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
upholds the Planning Commission action to deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning
Administrator approval of Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review
Permit (ED08-002) based on the following findings:
FE14DINGS — Use Permit (UP08-001)
As proposed and as conditioned, the proposed telecommunication facility use is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the purposes of the MR2 district in which the site is located. Specifically,
the project is consistent with the General Plan Policy I-15 (Telecommunication
Improvements) in that the project would promote telecommunication access in the area.
The project is also consistent the General Plan Policy NH -2 (New Development in
Residential Neighborhoods), that requires that new development and activities `preserve,
enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable
places to live ..... The neighborhood character has been typically interpreted to mean
and apply to physical changes and improvements that could impact the character of the
environment/neighborhood. The project site is located in a neighborhood of mixed
character of vacant land and commercial as well as light industrial developments,
mudflats and seasonal wetlands and residential neighborhoods. The general area contains
high tension power lines and a number of similar PG&E transmission towers. One of the
neighboring PG&E towers contains a Metro PCS array of antennas. The mixed
neighborhood character described above would not be impacted by placing the wireless
antennae on an existing PG&E tower.
The proposed project is also consistent with consistent with the General Plan Policy N-1
(Noise Impacts on New Development) in that the emergency generator to be utilized for
occasionally, is of a design which enables it to be consistent with the maximum 60 Ldn,
exterior noise level allowed near new residential development. Additionally, at the
request of the residents of the Ecology House, the generator is proposed to be located on
the farther side of the PG&E tower.
Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the MR2 District in
which it is located. Since the NM District does not address the location of wireless
communication facilities, the proposed location of the wireless communication facility is
subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities),
which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of
such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and
placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to
minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and
the community. The proposed project is consistent with these standards as the proposed
facility would be located on, and at the base of, an existing PG&E tower and screened
ATTACHMENT 2 2.6
behind an 8 -ft. high fence; the proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with
the style and character of the existing tower; since the project does not propose stealth
design, the applicant studied four (including the subject site) alternative sites to
determine that the subject site is the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3"
height is exempt from the 36 -ft. maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance
Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks
required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the
project will be located within the base of the existing tower; the project does not require
additional landscaping since the facility will not be visible to the public as it is located
within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence; the
facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure
as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet
from the generator. the noise level generated by the facility will be less than the
maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project will not result in
new lighting levels.
2. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, as evidenced in
Finding # 1 above, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general
welfare of the city because the proposed wireless antennas are located on an existing
PG&E tower; will not result in new lighting levels; the emergency generator will be
located away from the existing residences so it will result only in minimal noise.
Additionally, the proposed project will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting
public exposure to radio frequency energy.
3. As evidenced in Finding # I above, the proposed project complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance in that the project will be screened from
public view; the antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character
of the existing tower; an alternative site analysis was complete to select the subject site
as the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36-11.
maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the
Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do
not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of
the existing tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility
will not be visible to the public as it is located within the footprint of the existing tower
and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of
the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study
prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator, the noise level
generated by the facility will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential
development; and the project will not result in new lighting levels.
4. Previously submitted Alternative Site Analysis has been revised. The revised Analysis
provides detailed study of different sites and is accompanied by a service search ring and
ATTACHMENT 2 2.7
coverage maps. The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan
Kramer, a City hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted
member of the State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009,
confirms the applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate
for coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would
necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the
optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact.
FINDINGS — Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
1. The General Plan Land Use Designation for this site is Medium Density Residential. The
proposed installation and operation of an unmanned wireless communication facility has
been designed to be consistent with the following design related General Plan 2020
policies: N11-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods); NH -49 (Conflicting
Uses); CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity); CD -10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines); CD -
18 (Landscaping); I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that:
a) The proposed new antennas would be mounted on an existing PG&E tower and
would appear to be a part of the existing tower. That would result in no significant
physical change to the tower or the site;
b) The project would locate the 10'/2 -ft tall equipment shelter within the base of the
existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. tall wood fence. The equipment shelter would be
generally screened from public view by the proposed fence;
c) The proposed equipment area not being very visible to the public, will not need
landscaping;
d) The design of the facility is compatible with existing configuration of the buildings
and landscaping on the project site surrounding the lease area;
e) It would preserve the existing neighborhood identity and not impact any views due to
the antennas being located on the existing PG&E tower and the siting of the
equipment shelter behind a fenced area;
f) The proposed antennas and equipment shelter would blend consistently with the
existing PG&E tower's profile regarding structure, materials and color; and
g) It provides access to telecommunications in the area.
2. As proposed, the project is in keeping with the applicable criteria of San Rafael Non -
Residential Design Guidelines in that:
a) The project of collocation of antennas is designed to be consistent with the existing
tower profile; and
b) The project will maintain the overall visual quality of the area by not introducing any
new structures in the area, in that the new antennas to be located on the existing
tower would be consistent with the overall profile of the tower; and the proposed
equipment shelter would be located behind an 8-11. high wooden fence and within the
footprint of the tower.
ATTACHMENT 2 2.8
3. The subject site is located within the Medium Density Residential (MR2) Zoning
District. Although the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless
communication facilities, the proposed location of the subject wireless communication
facility is subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication
Facilities), which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the
installation of such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the
design and placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private
property in order to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring
property owners and the community. The proposed project is consistent with these
standards as they apply to the MR2 District in that:
a) The proposed wireless facility which, although, is not located in a most preferred
industrial location, is proposed for placement on and at the base of, an existing
PG&E tower. The PG&E tower building on which the antennas will be mounted is
not an archaeologically or historically significant structure. The project will not
impact any views from the neighboring residential neighborhoods because the
antennas would be located on an existing tower and within the existing profile of the
tower and the equipment shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high fence within
the base of the tower;
b) The proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character
of the existing tower;
c) The Zoning Ordinance encourages co -location in order to minimize the overall visual
impact of a new facility. Since the project is proposed in an MR2 zoning district and
does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied four alternative sites (including
the subject site) described as follows:
1) Adjacent PG&E tower at 100 Windward Waw The tower at 100 Windward
Way is currently being used by Sprint with their equipment located within the
tower footprint, which means the Verizon equipment would need to be
located outside the tower footprint. Therefore, the PG&E is not interested in
entertaining another lease at this location;
2) 90 Windward Way: A ground lease for installation of facilities is not
acceptable to the property owner. Additionally, a collocation of the antennas
at this location would be at a lower elevation than the proposed one, which
would necessitate a taller monopole at this location rather than location on an
existing tower at the proposed site; and
3) PG&E towers located to the south of 100 Windward Way: Access to
equipment is constrained and telephone line access is difficult to obtain at
these locations. In addition, a ground lease was not acceptable to the property
owner; and
4) PG&E Tower at 100 Block Windward Way: This site has access for
maintenance vehicles right off Windward Way. The leasing space was
available within the tower footprint. Considering the above analysis, this site
presents the best option for the applicant's project.
ATTACHMENT 2 2.9
The submitted alternative site analysis concludes that alternative sites in the
neighborhood of the proposed project would be less efficient and less desirable than
the proposed site;
d) The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan Kramer, a City
hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the
State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms the
applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for
coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would
necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the
optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact.
e) The proposed height of the six antennas is 74'-3" on a 117' high existing PG&E
tower. The maximum allowable height under the General Plan for structures in the
area is 36 feet. Although height of the existing tower is not in question, according to
Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the maximum height
requirement, aboveground utility distribution facilities including communication
towers are not included in height calculations and may be permitted subject to an
Environmental and Design Review Permit. Additionally, the height of the proposed
antennas is approximately 42 feet lower than the tower height;
t) The setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed
project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower;
g) The project does not propose to add additional landscaping to the site. From the
public view, the proposed project site lease area is within the footprint of the existing
tower and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence;
h) The proposed base station, equipment cabinets, and other equipment associated with
the tower -mounted antennas would be installed on the ground. The equipment shall
be painted, and screened behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence located behind an
existing chain link fence (partial); and
i) No advertising signage or identifying logos is proposed for facility except for small
identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard
warnings, which are exempt from the provisions of the City's Sign Ordinance.
4. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) has been assessed and analyzed in considering these
applications. The proposed project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section
14.16.360.C.6, which requires that wireless communication facilities operating alone and
in conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess
of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC. Consistent with
the requirements of the City code, a Radio Frequency (RF) Study has been prepared for
the proposed project by Hammett & Edison, Inc (July 12, 2007). The report concludes
that maximum ambient RF exposure level will be 0.0022 mW/cm2 or 0.37 percent of the
applicable public exposure limit for anyone on the ground. The maximum calculated
level at the second -floor of any nearby building would be 0.51 percent of the public
exposure limit. The report concludes that the RF exposure level is well below the
maximum allowable limit of 1.00 mW/cm2 The study did not address the combined
ATTACHMENT 2 2.10
RFR exposure level of the subject facility and the wireless facility located on an existing
PG&E tower at 100 Windward Way, because "the two sites are different PG&E towers,
separated by more than 600 feet. Because of that distance, each would add only a small
fraction of a percent of the pertinent FCC public limit at the other's site, so we would not
normally consider them together." In addition, every three years, the applicant will
participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility so that the RF
exposure would not be greater than 75 percent of the FCC standard for public exposure.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360.0.7
which requires that wireless communication facilities (and backup generators) shall be
constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Specifications submitted
with the project plans and application materials pertaining to noise generation for both
the equipment shelter and the emergency back-up generator indicate that at 50 feet from
the equipment shelter, a maximum of 54dBA would be produced, which is below the
maximum allowed 60dBA for residentially zoned properties. The generator noise data is
given at points 23 feet from the center of the generator and noise levels are assumed to
dissipate further at greater distances. Given that the closest building to the new wireless
facility is just under 300 feet away, noise would be less than significant. Further, since
the generator would only be used when absolutely necessary, emergency repair work
performed by, or at the request of, a property owner on his or her own private property is
exempted through Section 8.13.070 of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
6. The proposed project would not result in new lighting levels. As required by conditions
of approval, any exterior lighting would be manually operated, low wattage, and used
only during evening maintenance or during emergencies.
7. Pursuant to Section 15301(e) (1) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of no more than 50
percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is
less The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the
existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area to for locating an emergency generator
outside the tower base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the
floor area of the original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the
requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
Community Development Department, Planning Division
The building techniques, materials, elevations, and appearance of the project, as
presented for approval on plans titled Verizon wireless, "Pickleweed " PSL # 40863151,
ATTACHMENT 2 2.11
Tower # 9149, Linename — Ignacio — San Rafael 11 SKV; prepared by JES Engineering,
Inc., approved by the Design Review Board on May 20, 2008 and stamped approved on
May 26, 2009 shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except
those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the
project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community
Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-
making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary.
2. Prior to any construction, a building permit shall be obtained for the work. Plans
submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these
conditions of approval.
3. All 1%" hardline coaxial cables shall at all times be run on, and affixed to, the inside of
the PG&E tower leg(s) to the approximate level of the antennas. At the approximate
level of the antennas, 'h" coaxial jumper cables shall be used to interconnect the
1%" hardline coaxial cables to the antennas.
4. All panel -type antennas shall employ only rear -facing connectors.
5. All antenna mounting bracket pipes shall be of the minimum height required to attach
the antenna. No antenna bracket pipes shall protrude more than six inches above and
below the associated panel antenna.
6. All portions of all cables on and adjacent to the tower from ground level to the antenna
connectors shall be completely painted a flat, non -reflective gray that is selected to
closely match the color of the PG&E tower. The paint color shall be subject to the prior
written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department.
7. All cable attachment hardware, antenna brackets, antenna attachment hardware, and
any other physical elements of the project attached to the PG&E tower shall be
completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community
Development Department in condition 6.
8. All antenna radomes (panels, GPS antenna, etc.) shall be completely painted the same
color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in
condition 6.
9. All of the project elements described in conditions 6 through 8, inclusive, shall be
completely repainted as required by the City. The paint used shall be a non -reflective
gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower as it exists at the
time of repainting. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written approval of the
Director of the Community Development Department.
ATTACHMENT 2 2.12
10. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the
neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the
Planning Division for approval before Building Permit submittal. The plan shall specify
the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials,
storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles,
construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel.
11. Except for clearing for the ground mounted equipment pad, no part of the existing
landscape including any trees shall be removed.
12. The existing chain link fence shall not be removed.
13. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the fencing and structures shall be
maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements
shall be replaced in a timely manner.
14. Any future changes in the materials, colors and design of the existing tower would
require that the design of the proposed equipment shelter be modified to be compatible
with the change. Modifications to the design of the equipment shelter shall be reviewed
by the Planning Division.
15. The service provider shall properly maintain this facility during the life of the permit.
In the event the wireless facility becomes abandoned, all wireless antennas and
associated accessory structures shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
(30) days of abandonment. The service provider shall notify the Planning and Building
Divisions within ten (10) days of abandonment. The removal of the entire facility shall
take place within Twenty (20) days of the notification of the abandonment and shall be
restored to the design prior to the installation of the wireless antennas. Failure to
remove the equipment shall be subject to action by the City's Code Enforcement
Division.
16. If technology improvements or developments occur which allow the use of materially
smaller or less visually obtrusive equipment, or equipment that generates less RF
emissions, the carrier shall be required to replace or upgrade the subject facility as
related to Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit
(ED08-002).
17. Testing shall be conducted once the six panel antennas mounted and equipment
installed and operating at maximum capacity. Within 45 days of commencement of
operations of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider, or
its successors, shall submit the results of this testing to the Community Development
Department, Planning Division. The testing shall entail verification of compliance with
ATTACHMENT 2 2.13
the FCC's Radio Frequency (RF) emission standards. This testing shall be conducted
during normal business hours and on non -holiday weekday with the facility operating
at maximum power. The telecommunication provider, or its successor, shall provide the
Community Development Director with a report, prepared by a qualified expert,
indicating the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line
or nearest point of public access and in the direction of the maximum radiation from
each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR.
18. Every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall
participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility approved by this
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-001).
The City will contract with a qualified expert to perform the independent testing and
the current wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall bear the
proportionate cost of testing for the wireless telecommunications facility approved by
this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-
001).
19. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication
facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any
change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within 45 days of
notification.
20. In the event the FCC changes their standards, the owner or operator of an approved
wireless facility shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to
comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. The upgrades to facilities
shall be made no later than 90 days after notification of the changed FCC standards and
the owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been
completed.
21. The generator pad shall use simple paving material color matching the galvanized
tower and would be with no curbs or gutters. The generator shall be of type and design
that provides sound attenuation as required by the City ordinances.
22. The proposed wood fence shall be painted neutral colors.
23. Except for the repainting of any components for regular maintenance, all painting shall
be done offsite using low VOC paints.
24. The applicant shall give a 30 -day notice to residents of the Ecology House prior to the
initiation of construction activities or operation of the completed facility.
ATTACHMENT 2 2.14
25. Contractor Contact Information Postine: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a
location visible from the public street.
26. Construction Hours: Construction hours shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday and Saturday from 9: 00a.m to S:OOp.m. Construction shall not be
permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include
delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction
equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or
construction workers arriving at or on the site.
27. On -Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and
directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any
proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance
with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting
fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential
development and shall incorporate energy saving features.
28. Archeological Features: In the event that archaeological features, such as
concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older
than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping, or
excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the
Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted
immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or
soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area.
If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop
in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a
qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be
performed. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the
remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely
descendant" can be designated.
29. Final Inspection: Prior to the final inspection, the applicants shall contact the
Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection.
This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice.
Community Development Department, Building and Fire Prevention Division
30. The generator shall require permit application for a deferred submittal submitted to the
Fire Prevention Division. The permit is required for the Generator which based on the
ATTACHMENT 2 2.15
maximum allowable quantities (MAQ) of diesel fuel used to operate the generator. This
will be an Aboveground Storage Tank Permit.
Public Works Denartment
31. A Best Management Practice plan shall be included in the building plan submittal. For
a copy of the BMP plan call Karen Chew at 415-458-5369.
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held Monday, the 20a' of July, 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2 2.16
oc73
RECEIVED CITY CLERKCITY OF SAN RAFAEL
ZD09 JUN -2 PN w: 48
June 2, 2009
Sarjit Dhaliwal
Associate Planner
Community Development Department - Planning Division
San Rafael, CA 94915
As concerned residents of Ecology House we hereby appeal the Planning Commission's
upholding of approval of the Zoning Administrator approval of the Use Permit (UP08-001)
and Environmental Design Review Permit (ED08-002) for a new wireless communication
facility at 100 Windward Way. We appeal for the following reasons:
1) We agree with the minority opinion expressed by Planning Commissioner Colin,
that the character and identity of existing neighborhoods, as used in the general
plan provision requiring that cell antenna facilities be located in such a manner
so as to preserve such identity, does and should include the impact of even
seemingly minor physical changes, if those changes would have a
disproportionately large impact on existing communities. Ecology House, as a
federally and locally supported (through local community development block
grant (CDBG) funds) home and community gathering place of almost 15 years
standing for people disabled by environmental illness (EI) and chemical injury and
intolerances (Cl), is a well established existing community. Should the area
around it become substantially less accessible to a significant segment of the
particular disabled population that it currently serves, and for which it continues
to be funded, the character of the neighborhood as an accessible community
gathering place for those people would most certainly be changed. Should one
or more of the current long term tenants of Ecology House (almost half the
current tenants have been residents since it's opening 14% years ago) be forced
to relocate, or become unable to participate in community activities due to
exacerbation of their disability, or have their formerly accessible homes rendered
inaccessible to one or more of their friends and associates in our extended
community, or find that the Ecology House community room has become
inaccessible for community events they had previously hosted there, the
character of the Ecology House community itself would clearly also be
substantially changed.
2) The viability of Ecology House as a home and gathering place for the local EI/CI
community is absolutely dependent on its remaining accessible to as large a
segment of the local population of persons with CS/CI as possible. Since a
substantial percentage of people with CI/CS also experience RF and EMF
sensitivity, any substantial increase in RF or EMF radiation in Ecology House's
immediate vicinity necessarily impacts its ability to serve the population that it is
both federally and locally funded specifically to serve. Any such increase would
also necessarily effect the privately funded Environmental Health Network's
ATTACHMENT 3
(EHN's) ability to serve that same population, since EHN's regular monthly support
group meetings and other community functions -such as free thanksgiving and
holiday dinners, scent free clothing and used item swaps, remote telephone
testimony before government bodies by EI/CI persons who cannot safely access
most government buildings, accessible meetings between elected and
appointed officials and EI/CI community members, etc - are, and have been for
14 1/2 years, held in the Ecology House community room, and there is no
comparably designed and maintained similarly accessible site available
anywhere in the state. (Indeed, the Ecology House site and the Ecology House
community room are currently the only sites adhering to the voluntary CA
Department of State Architects (DSA's) guidelines for "Cleaner Air" rooms and
paths of travel in publicly funded facilities, and displaying the state's approved
"Cleaner Air" logo designed to identify such rooms and paths of travel to the
EI/CI community.) The fact that the proposed new panel antennas planned for
the 100 Windward Way site would be in compliance with federal health
guidelines for RF emissions established for the general population over a decade
ago, in no way establishes, as the planning commission resolution of May 26
mistakenly maintains, that the proposed facility will therefore "not compromise
the viability of Ecology House" as a home, or as a community gathering site and
community resource.
3) The independent review of the applicant's alternatives analysis addressed the
technical concerns of coverage areas, but not the issue of community and
neighborhood identity and its preservation. It also indicated at least one other
viable site, and reiterated the existence of multiple other technically viable sites
where owners were unwilling to lease to the applicant for this project. Since
Ecology House specifically serves a disabled population, we therefore ask, as a
matter of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), and as a matter of complying with general plan provisions requiring that
the character of existing neighborhoods be preserved, that the city act to
preserve access to Ecology House for as broad a range of EI/CI people as
possible, by: 1) finding that, all other factors being equal, the viable site or sites for
these kinds of facilities farthest from Ecology House are to be preferred under the
general plan, and 2) directing staff to complete the City's review of the
applicant's alternatives assessment for this project and the independent
reviewer's assessment, by specifically evaluating the non -optimal general plan
neighborhood impact elements of co -location in close proximity to Ecology
House vs. the non -optimal general plan impacts of any alternative site where co -
location is not possible, and 3) issuing the required permits only after this review
has been completed and presented at a public hearing.
Respectfully Submitted-
'`
Connie Barker
Louise Yost
Ecology House tenants
Page l oft
Sarjit Dhaliwal
From: Joan Ripple [purrycomo@jps.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:49 PM
To: Sarjit Dhaliwal
Subject: FW: Appeal : City of San Rafael decision re: location of Verizon Cell towers near Ecology House
From: Joan Ripple [mailto:purrycomo@jps.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:43 PM
To: 'Sarjit Dhaliwal'
Subject: Appeal : City of San Rafael decision re:
Dear Mr. Dhaliwal:
location of Verizon Cell towers near Ecology House
I have been asked by residents of Ecology House and the Environmental Health Network to assist them in
preparing an appeal of the city's decision to permit the erection of Verizon cell towers on the high tension tower
located on the 100 block of Windward Way immediately adjacent to Ecology House.
RE: - Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit to allow the installation of six (6)
panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the
base of the tower.
The appellants contend thaithis project is not in compliance with the general plan requirement that the existing
neighborhood identity be preserved. Ecology House is the only project in the United States that provides housing
for low income persons disabled by chemical sensitivities and intolerance. Thus, the character of the
neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed project is that it is the only location in the country where such
a community exists. Furthermore, the Ecology House community room, is the main and only safe and accessible
community gathering place for this disabled population:chemically sensitive people in the greater Bay Area.
To locate more high intensity electromagnetic field generating devices so near Ecology House seriously
compromises its long-term viability and thus fundamentally changes the character of the immediate
neighborhood. Ecology House was designed and built using materials and techniques to accommodate the
disability access needs of this population. Since it cannot be relocated, if the population in question is rendered
unable to utilize it the public expense involved in building it to such exacting standards will have been wasted. Its
tenants and prospective tenants would likely be forced into finding housing that does not accommodate their
needs.
Living in housing that isnot safe for them is the number one way that persons with chemical and/or electrical
sensitivities become or remain disabled affect additional public expense for medical care, disability payments, etc.
Additionally, the appellants believe that the Design Review Board's request that the applicant more thoroughly
investigate alternative sites farther from Ecology House was not complied with. The alternative site analysis
provided to Constance Barker and the Environmental Health Network by Sarjit Dhaliwal appears to be identical to
the original alternative site analysis provided prior to the Design Review Board hearing, and the Design Review
Board specific instructions that the applicant re -visit this issue. Further, the Environmental Health Network (EHN)
and Ecology House residents offered to assist the applicant in attempting to locate a viable alternative site and in
appealing to or negotiating with alternative site owners to allow use of their land or site for this purpose. Although
contact information was provide to the project representative, Clarence.Chavis, neither EHN or residents of
Ecology House were contacted to assist in this process.
Thus, the Environmental Health Network and Ecology House residents do not believe the direction given by the
Design Review Board was followed.
For these reasons EHN and residents of Ecology House ask the City of San Rafael to rescind the approval and in
the future require that such tower locations be a certain distance from Ecology House to be determined during
11/12/2008
_Page 2 of 2
t ,
the appeal process.
On behalf of EHN and residents of Ecology House,
Joan M. Ripple
N
11/12/2008
RESOLUTION NO. 09-05
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN
APPEAL (AP08-007) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION
TO APPROVE USE PERMIT AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF SIX PANEL ANTENNAS ON AN
EXISTING PG&E TOWER WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS
ENCLOSED IN A SHED SITED AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER WHICH IS
LOCATED ON 100 BLOCK OF WINDWARD WAY (APN: 009-330-01)
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2008, Verizon Wireless filed applications for a Use
Permit (UP008-001) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
requesting the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower The project
application was deemed complete for processing on April 23, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board favorably
reviewed the proposed project, recommending some plan changes and directed staff to
review the alternative site analysis; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed the Use Permit
(UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) applications, closed
the public hearing and continued the matter to October 27, 2008 to review and consider the
information submitted by neighboring residents; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2008, Joan Ripple, a neighbor's representative,
contacted the Zoning Administrator (ZA) to submit additional information regarding the
health impacts of RF radiation. The ZA expressed that, although the public hearing was
closed, Ms. Ripple could submit the additional information. The ZA explained that he would
review the information and make a determination by November 4, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2008, following review of the additional information
submitted by neighboring residents, ZA approved the Use Permit (UP08-001) and ED
Permit (ED08-002) applications for the wireless facility. The approval incorporated two
conditions among others, requiring: a) that within 45 days of commencement of operations
of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider is to submit the
results of RF testing to the Community Development Department, Planning Division; and
(b) every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider is to participate in a study
by the City to measure the RFR of the facility; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2008, Connie Barker, a resident of the Ecology
House located at 375 Catalina Blvd filed an appeal (AP08-007) of the ZA approval; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15301 (e) (1) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which
ATTACHMENT 4 1
exempts additions to existing private structures that do not result in an increase of more than
50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is
less; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, following closure of the public hearing and
discussion, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to date uncertain and
directed the project applicant to complete and submit a more substantive alternative site
analysis; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2009, the project applicant submitted a revised
alternative site analysis. The analysis was peer reviewed by an FCC -licensed RF engineer.
The peer review report dated May 27, 2009 concluded that the subject site is a better
alternative site to achieve the project objective. Another alternative would be to construct a
new 75 to 80 feet tall monopole near Pickleweed Park; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Wireless Communication Facilities Section
14.16.360.A.3, the Planning Commission prefers the joint use of existing tower sites as a
primary option rather than construction of additional single -use towers; and
WHEREAS, design/construction related conditions recommended by the peer -
review report have been incorporated into this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
denies the appeal (AP08-007) and upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision to
conditionally approve the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review
Permit (ED08-002). The Commission finds that the following points of the appeal (in
italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons:
1. The project is not in compliance with the general plan requirement that the existing
neighborhood identity be preserved: The project, being an addition of
telecommunication facilities to an existing, PG&E tower will result in minimal physical
changes to the tower structure, would be minimally visible from the residential
neighborhood to the north and, would therefore, not change the physical identity of the
neighborhood. The facility, being well within the limits of RF radiation established by
the FCC, it will not lower the quality of life in the neighborhood;
2. The Ecology I-Iouse community room is the main and only safe and accessible
community gathering place for this disabled population: chemically sensitive people in
2
the greater Bay Area. To locate more high intensity electromagnetic field generating
devices so near Ecology House seriously compromises its long-term viability: Measured
at the base of the PG&E tower, the proposed telecommunication facility is well within
the limits of RF radiation established by the FCC, and will, therefore, not compromise
the viability of the Ecology House, which is 422 feet north of the proposed facility; and
3. The Design Review Board's request that the applicant more thoroughly investigate
alternative sites farther from Ecology House was not complied with: The applicant
submitted an alternative site analysis, which has been reviewed. The alternative site
analysis assessed four sites (including the subject site) and finds that the proposed site is
the most suitable for the functioning of the facility. Under the FCC regulations, the City
cannot require a facility to be sited on an alternative site, as long as the facility complies
with the FCC regulations for RF emissions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning
Administrator approval of Use Permit (08-001) and Environmental and Design Review
Permit (ED08-002) based on the following findings:
FINDINGS — Use Permit (UP08-001)
1. As proposed and as conditioned, the proposed telecommunication facility use is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the purposes of the MR2 district in which the site is located. Specifically,
the project is consistent with the General Plan Policy I-15 (Telecommunication
Improvements) in that the project would promote telecommunication access in the area.
Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the MR2 District in
which it is located. Since the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless
communication facilities, the proposed location of the wireless communication facility is
subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication Facilities),
which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the installation of
such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the design and
placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private property in order to
minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and
the community. The proposed project is consistent with these standards as the proposed
facility would be located on, and at the base of, an existing PG&E tower and screened
behind an 8-11. high fence; the proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with
the style and character of the existing tower; since the project does not propose stealth
design, the applicant studied four (including the subject site) alternative sites to
determine that the subject site is the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3"
height is exempt from the 36 -ft. maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance
Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks
required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed project because the
project will be located within the base of the existing tower; the project does not require
additional landscaping since the facility will not be visible to the public as it is located
S
within the footprint of the existing tower and behind an 8-11. high wooden fence; the
facility shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure
as adopted by the FCC; the noise study prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet
from the generator. the noise level generated by the facility will be less than the
maximum allowed 60dBA for residential development; and the project will not result in
new lighting levels.
2. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, as evidenced in
Finding # 1 above, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general
welfare of the city because the proposed wireless antennas are located on an existing
PG&E tower; will not result in new lighting levels; the emergency generator will be
located away from the existing residences so it will result only in minimal noise.
Additionally, the proposed project will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting
public exposure to radio frequency energy.
3. As evidenced in Finding # 1 above, the proposed project complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance in that the project will be screened from
public view; the antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character
of the existing tower; an alternative site analysis was complete to select the subject site
as the best option for the project; the proposed 74'-3" height is exempt from the 36 -ft.
maximum height requirement (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the
Maximum Height Requirement); the setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do
not apply to the proposed project because the project will be located within the base of
the existing tower; the project does not require additional landscaping since the facility
will not be visible to the public as it is located within the footprint of the existing tower
and behind an 8-11. high wooden fence; the facility shall not produce RFR in excess of
the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC; the noise study
prepared for the project indicates that at 50 feet from the generator, the noise level
generated by the facility will be less than the maximum allowed 60dBA for residential
development; and the project will not result in new lighting levels.
4. Previously submitted Alternative Site Analysis has been revised. The revised Analysis
provides detailed study of different sites and is accompanied by a service search ring and
coverage maps. The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan
Kramer, a City hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted
member of the State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009,
confirms the applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate
for coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would
necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the
optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact.
The consultant recommended conditions of approval have been added to the draft
resolution at no. 3 thru 9.
N
FINDINGS — Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
1. The General Plan Land Use Designation for this site is Medium Density Residential. The
proposed installation and operation of an unmanned wireless communication facility has
been designed to be consistent with the following design related General Plan 2020
policies: NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods); NH -49 (Conflicting
Uses); CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity); CD -10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines); CD -
18 (Landscaping); I-15 (Telecommunication Improvements) in that:
a) The proposed new antennas would be mounted on an existing PG&E tower and
would appear to be a part of the existing tower;
b) The project would locate the 101/2 -ft tall equipment shelter within the base of the
existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. tall wood fence. The equipment shelter would be
generally screened from public view by the proposed fence;
c) The proposed equipment area not being very visible to the public, will not need
landscaping;
d) The design of the facility is compatible with existing configuration of the buildings
and landscaping on the project site surrounding the lease area;
e) It would preserve the existing neighborhood identity and not impact any views due to
the antennas being located on the existing PG&E tower and the siting of the
equipment shelter behind a fenced area;
f) The proposed antennas and equipment shelter would blend consistently with the
existing PG&E tower's profile regarding structure, materials and color; and
g) It provides access to telecommunications in the area.
2. As proposed, the project is in keeping with the applicable criteria of San Rafael Non -
Residential Design Guidelines in that:
a) The project of collocation of antennas is designed to be consistent with the existing
tower profile; and
b) The project will maintain the overall visual quality of the area by not introducing any
new structures in the area, in that the new antennas to be located on the existing
tower would be consistent with the overall profile of the tower; and the proposed
equipment shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence and within the
footprint of the tower.
3. The subject site is located within the Medium Density Residential (MR2) Zoning
District. Although the MR2 District does not address the location of wireless
communication facilities, the proposed location of the subject wireless communication
facility is subject to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360 (Wireless Communication
Facilities), which establishes standards to regulate the general location (including the
installation of such facilities in residential zoning districts subject to conditions), the
design and placement of wireless communication facilities on public and private
property in order to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring
property owners and the community. The proposed project is consistent with these
standards as they apply to the MR2 District in that:
a) The proposed wireless facility which, although, is not located in a most preferred
industrial location, is proposed for placement on and at the base of, an existing
PG&E tower. The PG&E tower building on which the antennas will be mounted is
not an archaeologically or historically significant structure. The project will not
impact any views from the neighboring residential neighborhoods because the
antennas would be located on an existing tower and within the existing profile of the
tower and the equipment shelter would be located behind an 8 -ft. high fence within
the base of the tower;
b) The proposed antennas will be integrated architecturally with the style and character
of the existing tower;
c) The Zoning Ordinance encourages co -location in order to minimize the overall visual
impact of a new facility. Since the project is proposed in an MR2 zoning district and
does not propose stealth design, the applicant studied four alternative sites (including
the subject site) described as follows:
1) Adjacent PG&E tower at 100 Windward WU: The tower at 100 Windward
Way is currently being used by Sprint with their equipment located within the
tower footprint, which means the Verizon equipment would need to be
located outside the tower footprint. Therefore, the PG&E is not interested in
entertaining another lease at this location;
2) 90 Windward Wav: A ground lease for installation of facilities is not
acceptable to the property owner. Additionally, a collocation of the antennas
at this location would be at a lower elevation than the proposed one, which
would necessitate a taller monopole at this location rather than location on an
existing tower at the proposed site; and
3) PG&E towers located to the south of 100 Windward Way: Access to
equipment is constrained and telephone line access is difficult to obtain at
these locations. In addition, a ground lease was not acceptable to the property
owner; and
4) PG&E Tower at 100 Block Windward Way: This site has access for
maintenance vehicles right off Windward Way. The leasing space was
available within the tower footprint. Considering the above analysis, this site
presents the best option for the applicant's project.
The submitted alternative site analysis concludes that alternative sites in the
neighborhood of the proposed project would be less efficient and less desirable than
the proposed site;
d) The revised Alternative Site Analysis was peer-reviewed by Jonathan Kramer, a City
hired consultant who is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an admitted member of the
State Bar of California. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009, confirms the
applicant's finding that the proposed height of the antennas is appropriate for
coverage of the large area; an alternative location near Pickleweed Park would
necessitate a 75 -foot to 80 -foot tall new monopole; and that the subject site is the
optimal site to provide the desired coverage with the least amount of visual impact.
e) The proposed height of the six antennas is 74'-3" on a 117' high existing PG&E
tower. The maximum allowable height under the General Plan for structures in the
ri
area is 36 feet. Although height of the existing tower is not in question, according to
Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.120 Exclusions to the maximum height
requirement, aboveground utility distribution facilities including communication
towers are not included in height calculations and may be permitted subject to an
Environmental and Design Review Permit. Additionally, the height of the proposed
antennas is approximately 42 feet lower than the tower height;
1) The setbacks required under the MR2 zoning district do not apply to the proposed
project because the project will be located within the base of the existing tower;
g) The project does not propose to add additional landscaping to the site. From the
public view, the proposed project site lease area is within the footprint of the
existing tower and behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence;
h) The proposed base station, equipment cabinets, and other equipment associated with
the tower -mounted antennas would be installed on the ground. The equipment
shall be painted, and screened behind an 8 -ft. high wooden fence located behind
an existing chain link fence (partial); and
i) No advertising signage or identifying logos is proposed for facility except for small
identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard
warnings, which are exempt from the provisions of the City's Sign Ordinance.
4. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) has been assessed and analyzed in considering these
applications. The proposed project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section
14.16.360.0.6, which requires that wireless communication facilities operating alone and
in conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess
of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC. Consistent with
the requirements of the City code, a Radio Frequency (RF) Study has been prepared for
the proposed project by Hammett & Edison, Inc (July 12, 2007). The report concludes
that maximum ambient RF exposure level will be 0.0022 mW/cm2 or 0.37 percent of the
applicable public exposure limit for anyone on the ground. The maximum calculated
level at the second -floor of any nearby building would be 0.51 percent of the public
exposure limit. The report concludes that the RF exposure level is well below the
maximum allowable limit of 1.00 mW/cm2The study did not address the combined
RFR exposure level of the subject facility and the wireless facility located on an existing
PG&E tower at 100 Windward Way, because "the two sites are different PG&E towers,
separated by more than 600 feet. Because of that distance, each would add only a small
fraction of a percent of the pertinent FCC public limit at the other's site, so we would not
normally consider them together." In addition, every three years, the applicant will
participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility so that the RF
exposure would not be greater than 75 percent of the FCC standard for public exposure.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.360.0.7
which requires that wireless communication facilities (and backup generators) shall be
constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Specifications submitted
with the project plans and application materials pertaining to noise generation for both
the equipment shelter and the emergency back-up generator indicate that at 50 feet from
the equipment shelter, a maximum of 54dBA would be produced, which is below the
7
maximum allowed 60dBA for residentially zoned properties. The generator noise data is
given at points 23 feet from the center of the generator and noise levels are assumed to
dissipate further at greater distances. Given that the closest building to the new wireless
facility is just under 300 feet away, noise would be less than significant. Further, since
the generator would only be used when absolutely necessary, emergency repair work
performed by, or at the request of, a property owner on his or her own private property is
exempted through Section 8.13.070 of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
6. The proposed project would not result in new lighting levels. As required by conditions
of approval, any exterior lighting would be manually operated, low wattage, and used
only during evening maintenance or during emergencies.
7. Pursuant to Section 15301(e) (1) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of no more than 50
percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is
less The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint) of the
existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area to for locating an emergency generator
outside the tower base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the
floor area of the original structure, or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the
requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002)
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. The building techniques, materials, elevations, and appearance of the project, as
presented for approval on plans titled Verizon wireless, "Pickleweed" PSL # 40863151,
Tower # 9149, Linename —Ignacio — San Rafael 115KV, prepared by JES Engineering,
Inc., approved by the Design Review Board on May 20, 2008 and stamped approved on
May 26, 2009 shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except
those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the
project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community
Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-
making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary.
2. Prior to any construction, a building permit shall be obtained for the work. Plans
submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these
conditions of approval.
3. All 1%" hardline coaxial cables shall at all times be run on, and affixed to, the inside of
the PG&E tower leg(s) to the approximate level of the antennas. At the approximate
level of the antennas, %2" coaxial jumper cables shall be used to interconnect the
1%"hardline coaxial cables to the antennas.
0
4. All panel -type antennas shall employ only rear -facing connectors.
5. All antenna mounting bracket pipes shall be of the minimum height required to attach
the antenna. No antenna bracket pipes shall protrude more than six inches above and
below the associated panel antenna.
6. All portions of all cables on and adjacent to the tower from ground level to the antenna
connectors shall be completely painted a flat, non -reflective gray that is selected to
closely match the color of the PG&E tower. The paint color shall be subject to the prior
written approval of the Director of the Community Development Department.
7. All cable attachment hardware, antenna brackets, antenna attachment hardware, and
any other physical elements of the project attached to the PG&E tower shall be
completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of the Community
Development Department in condition 6.
8. All antenna radomes (panels, GPS antenna, etc.) shall be completely painted the same
color as approved by the Director of the Community Development Department in
condition 6.
9. All of the project elements described in conditions 6 through 8, inclusive, shall be
completely repainted as required by the City. The paint used shall be a non -reflective
gray that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower as it exists at the
time of repainting. The paint color shall be subject to the prior written approval of the
Director of the Community Development Department.
10. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the
neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the
Planning Division for approval before Building Permit submittal. The plan shall specify
the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials,
storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles,
construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel.
11. Except for clearing for the ground mounted equipment pad, no part of the existing
landscape including any trees shall be removed.
12. The existing chain link fence shall not be removed.
13. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the fencing and structures shall be
maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements
shall be replaced in a timely manner.
14. Any future changes in the materials, colors and design of the existing tower would
require that the design of the proposed equipment shelter be modified to be compatible
9
with the change. Modifications to the design of the equipment shelter shall be reviewed
by the Planning Division.
15. The service provider shall properly maintain this facility during the life of the permit.
In the event the wireless facility becomes abandoned, all wireless antennas and
associated accessory structures shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
(30) days of abandonment. The service provider shall notify the Planning and Building
Divisions within ten (10) days of abandonment. The removal of the entire facility shall
take place within Twenty (20) days of the notification of the abandonment and shall be
restored to the design prior to the installation of the wireless antennas. Failure to
remove the equipment shall be subject to action by the City's Code Enforcement
Division.
16. If technology improvements or developments occur which allow the use of materially
smaller or less visually obtrusive equipment, or equipment that generates less RF
emissions, the carrier shall be required to replace or upgrade the subject facility as
related to Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and Design Review Permit
(ED08-002).
17. Testing shall be conducted once the six panel antennas mounted and equipment
installed and operating at maximum capacity. Within 45 days of commencement of
operations of the wireless communication facility, the telecommunication provider, or
its successors, shall submit the results of this testing to the Community Development
Department, Planning Division. The testing shall entail verification of compliance with
the FCC's Radio Frequency (RF) emission standards. This testing shall be conducted
during normal business hours and on non -holiday weekday with the facility operating
at maximum power. The telecommunication provider, or its successor, shall provide the
Community Development Director with a report, prepared by a qualified expert,
indicating the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line
or nearest point of public access and in the direction of the maximum radiation from
each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR.
18. Every three years, the wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall
participate in a study by the City to measure the RFR of the facility approved by this
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-001).
The City will contract with a qualified expert to perform the independent testing and
the current wireless telecommunications provider, or its successor(s), shall bear the
proportionate cost of testing for the wireless telecommunications facility approved by
this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) and Use Permit (UP08-
001).
19. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication
facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any
change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within 45 days of
notification.
10
20. In the event the FCC changes their standards, the owner or operator of an approved
wireless facility shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to
comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. The upgrades to facilities
shall be made no later than 90 days after notification of the changed FCC standards and
the owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been
completed.
21. The generator pad shall use simple paving material color matching the galvanized
tower and would be with no curbs or gutters. The generator shall be of type and design
that provides sound attenuation as required by the City ordinances.
22. The proposed wood fence shall be painted neutral colors.
23. Except for the repainting of any components for regular maintenance, all painting shall
be done offsite using low VOC paints.
24. The applicant shall give a 30 -day notice to residents of the Ecology House prior to the
initiation of construction activities or operation of the completed facility.
25. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a
location visible from the public street.
26. Construction Hours: Construction hours shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday and Saturday from 9: 00a.m to 5:OOp.m. Construction shall not be
permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include
delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction
equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or
construction workers arriving at or on the site.
27. On -Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and
directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any
proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance
with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting
fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential
development and shall incorporate energy saving features.
28. Archeological Features: In the event that archaeological features, such as
concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older
than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping, or
excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the
Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted
11
immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or
soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area.
If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop
in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a
qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be
performed. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the
remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely
descendant" can be designated.
29. Final Inspection: Prior to the final inspection, the applicants shall contact the
Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection.
This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice.
Community Development Department, Building and Fire Prevention Division
30. The generator shall require permit application for a deferred submittal submitted to the
Fire Prevention Division. The permit is required for the Generator which based on the
maximum allowable quantities (MAQ) of diesel fuel used to operate the generator. This
will be an Aboveground Storage Tank Permit.
Public Works Department
31. A Best Management Practice plan shall be included in the building plan submittal. For
a copy of the BMP plan call Karen Chew at 415-458-5369.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael
Planning Commission held on the 26`" day of May 2009.
Moved by Commissioner Lang and seconded by Commissioner Kirchmann as follows:
AYES: Commissioners: Lang, Kirchmann, Chair Pick, Wise
NOES: Commissioners: Colin
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Paul, Sonnet
ATTEST:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
Robert M. Brown, Secretary Charles Pick, Chair
12
Meeting Date: May 26, 2009
Agenda Item:
Community Development Department— Planning Division Case Numbers: AP08-007
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal—(415) 485-3397
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way - Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a Use
Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six
panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets.
located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density
Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant;
Connie Barker, appellant; File No: AP08-007.
EXEOIITI SUMN{Alf
The project proposes the installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower located on
Windward Way. The project includes the installation of associated equipment cabinets located in a shed
at the base of the tower. In late 2008, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project and
recommended approval with some design changes. The amended project was approved by Zoning
Administrator (ZA) on November 4, 2008. The ZA approval of the project was duly appealed by Connie
Barker, a resident of Ecology House located at Bellam and Catalina Blvds. The appeal raises both
design related and non -design related issues. The design -related issue focuses on the impact of the
project on the character of the neighborhood. The non -design related issue focuses on the impact of
radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.
This appeal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2009. The Planning Commission
continued the project directing applicant to return with more substantive data regarding their Alternative
Site Analysis. The applicant has complied with the Planning Commission directive. The Alternative Site
Analysis has been revised and a peer review has been conducted by a telecommunication specialist
hired by the City. The peer review of the Site Alternative Analysis confirms the conclusions that there is
no viable alternative to the subject site. Further, the project will not impact the character of the
neighborhood. As summarized in the RF study submitted with the project application, the project is well
within the RF standards allowed under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, and
therefore, the City is pre-empted from denying or modifying the application based on potential health or
environmental impacts. Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the ZA approval of the project
be upheld.
The January 13, 2009 Planning Commission staff report and associated plans and exhibits are available
and on file with the Community Development Department and have been distributed to the Planning
Commission separately.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and
upholding the ZA action conditionally approving the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED08-002) for the new wireless communication facility.
Attachment 5
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: APOB-007
Page 2
_.r
_ ..� :A N
The following is a chronology of events summarizing the current proposal:
1/14/08 The applicant, Verizon Wireless, applied for a Use Permit and an Environmental and
Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six panel antennas on an existing PG&E
lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the
tower.
4/23/08 Applications deemed complete for processing.
5/20/08 The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project. The DRB recommended approval
of the project design with some changes to the site improvements and fencing. The DRB
also recommended that staff review the alternative site analysis to assist in determining
the suitability of the proposed site.
10/22/08 Zoning Administrator (ZA) conducts a public hearing on the applications. Several
neighboring residents submit documents to support why the project should be denied. In
order to review the submitted materials, ZA continues the hearing to October 27, 2008.
10/27/08 ZA receives a call from Ms. Joan Ripple wishing to submit additional documents in
opposition to the project. ZA explains that although the public hearing is closed, the
additional information would be accepted for review.
10/27/08 ZA conducts the continued public hearing but continues the hearing to November 4, 2008
to review the submitted documents and to render a decision.
11/4/08 ZA conditionally approves the project.
11/12/08 Connie Barker, neighbor, files an appeal of the project approval.
1/13/09 The PC reviews the appeal and continues it to a date uncertain with the directive that the
applicant return with additional data to support the Alternative Site Analysis.
2/26/09 The applicant submits revised Alternative Site Analysis.
3/26/09 Alternative Site Analysis forwarded to RF/telecommunication specialist for peer review.
4/28/09 The applicant submits the Coverage Maps required for the peer review.
5/7/09 Staff receives the peer review report on the Alternative Site Analysis.
PRQJI=-CT QERIPTIQI
Required Entitlements:
The submittal and approval of both a Use Permit (UP08-001) and an Environmental and Design Review
Permit (ED08-002) is required for the installation and operation of new unmanned wireless
communication facilities pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 14.22, Use Permits, and Chapter 14.25,
Environmental and Design Review Permits, consistent with the provisions of design and development
standards contained in the Wireless Communication section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section
14.16.360). This particular project required review by the Design Review Board since the proposed
panels involve more than a minor addition or modification to an existing facility (in this case, the PG&E
lattice tower). The hearing body for this project was the Zoning Administrator since the project is
proposing to collocate on the existing PG&E tower.
Use:
Verizon Wireless proposes to lease approximately 324 square feet of space between the legs of the
existing PG&E tower for the new wireless facility. The facilities include the following (see project plans):
Panel Antennas
The design of this particular wireless facility calls for locating six panel antennas on an existing 117 -
foot high PG&E lattice tower. The tops of the panels would reach a maximum height of 74 feet, 3
inches on the 117 -foot tall tower. Two differently sized panels are proposed for three of the four
sectors of the tower. One panel measures approximately 50.5 inches x 18 inches, while the other
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007
Page 3
panel would measure 53.5 inches x 12 inches. One panel of each size would be oriented at 170
degrees, 240 degrees, and 355 degrees from true north. One type of panel would be dedicated to
cellular service while the other would be dedicated for personal communication services (PCS).
Equipment Shelter
Associated equipment cabinets are proposed to be located within a new 13 -foot x 14.5 -foot
equipment shed on a proposed new concrete pad (pad to measure 18 -feet x 18 -feet) and situated
within the legs of the PG&E tower. The shelter will be 10 feet, 6 inches high with a flat roof. The
applicant has proposed that the equipment shelter be prefabricated CMU block with a stucco finish.
The shed would be painted tan so as to be inconspicuous. Additionally, two Global Positioning
System (GPS) antennas would be located on the roof of the equipment shelter, one at the north
elevation and one at the south. The radio equipment would be connected to the antennae by coaxial
cables that run up one of the legs of the tower. These cables would be bundled together and placed
in attachments bolted to the tower, which would keep them straight up until they reach the antennas.
The applicant has also proposed an 8 -foot high wooden fence to surround the equipment shed,
further obscuring it from public view. A portion of the fence would encroach into the required 10 -foot
street side yard setback, but fences not exceeding 8 feet in height may be located within a side yard,
per Section 14.16.140 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The fence and equipment shelter would be
located behind an existing 6 -foot tall cyclone fence that runs along the property boundary along
Windward Way.
Emergency Generator
Verizon Wireless proposes a 9 -foot x 14 -foot non-exclusive generator parking area to the immediate
south of the existing PG&E tower. In the event of an emergency, a stand-by generator would be
brought to the site and parked in this proposed space. No permanent stand-by generator is
proposed. If needed, Verizon would bring in a 60 kilowatt standby generator, located just south of
the concrete pad, and would measure approximately 5 feet in height. This generator would supply
power in emergency situations only and would be removed when no longer needed.
Hours of Operation
The proposed Verizon Wireless facility would be an unmanned facility operating 24 hours per day, 7
days per week and would require access by company representatives for routine maintenance,
typically once a month for a one- to two-hour time span. The site is entirely self -monitored and
connects directly to a central office where computers would alert personnel to any equipment
malfunction or breach of security.
Architecture:
The six proposed panels would be painted a non -reflective gray color so as to match the color of the
existing PG&E tower. The ZA had initially requested the panels to be tilted at the same angle as the
tower to decrease the amount of visibility, but was informed by the applicant that tilting the panels at an
alternate angle is infeasible since the range of wireless service would not be maximized.
The proposed equipment shelter would be painted tan in an effort to blend in with the existing
surroundings. An eight -foot high redwood fence would surround the equipment shelter and would
provide access to the equipment shed at the north of the concrete pad.
Site Improvements:
No additional landscaping or lighting is proposed and the project would entail minimal grading. New
signage consisting of identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard
warnings is proposed.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007 Page 4
Planning Commission Review of Appeal
On January 13, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing of an appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approval of the Use Permit and ED Permit (Planning Commission hearing minutes are
provided in Exhibit 3). In addition to the project sponsor's presentation, the Planning Commission
accepted public comment from seven people opposing the project. The majority of the public comments
focused on the following issues:
• The proposed wireless communication project will render the existing Ecology House located at
(Bellam Blvd. and Catalina Blvd.) obsolete. The Ecology House accommodates low income
residents disabled by chemical sensitivities and intolerances, was built with public funds and
cannot be moved anywhere else;
• The Telecommunication Act of 1996 under Section 704 precludes the consideration of
environmental effects but not the consideration of health effects of personal wireless service
facilities. The proposed project would have adverse impacts on Ecology House residents with
chemical sensitivities;
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and California State laws guarantee people
with disabilities reasonable accommodation for access to public facilities, housing, education,
employment and transportation;
• Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) has catastrophic personal, financial and social
consequences for the person who has this disability. The proposed project would adversely
impact residents who have MCS and are residents of the Ecology House; and
• Residents of the Ecology House are hypersensitive and none of them can afford to be exposed to
more EFM's.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the City Attorney reported that, although an interpretation has
never been made by any court regarding the environmental/health impact issues of the 1996
Telecommunication Act, the extent of environmental effects has always included health impacts. The City
Attorney further clarified that the extent of review and discretion on this project is not about
environmental/health effects.
Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City Attorney responded that the City is not in a
position to reconcile any potential conflict between the ADA and the 1996 Telecommunication Act.
However, the City Attorney reiterated that the Planning Commission must abide by the preemption of the
Telecommunication Act applying to the issue of discretion with regard to the placement of the antennas.
In regard to the preemption of the Telecommunication Act, which specifically calls out the
environment/health effect, the City Attorney did not believe raising federal law intended to protect the
rights of Americans with Disabilities affects the Commission's discretion to consider health impact, nor
does it place the Commission in a position of choosing between the two laws. Only one law (the 1996
Telecommunication Act) applies to this project.
The Planning Commission discussed that, although the proposed site may best meet the project
objectives, it is located in a residential zoning district whereas the preferred location required by the City
ordinance is industrial or commercial zoning. Because the project is not located in a preferred location,
therefore, the ordinance requires an alternative site analysis. The Commission found that the submitted
Alternative Site Analysis was not substantive enough and directed the applicant to return with a more
supportive data.
Following the Plannig Commission hearing, on March 11, 2009, Ms. Joan Ripple acting on behalf of the
appellant, forwarded an e-mail to City staff (Exhibit 7) requesting the City Attorney to review Section
601(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Ms. Ripple expressed that she had been informed that
the City is required to comply with the ADA, even if that means paying attention to health. As
summarized above, the City Attorney has already reviewed this issue and has provided an opinion at the
Planning Commission hearing. The opinion has also been confirmed in a memorandum form (Exhibit 8).
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007
Page 5
Response to Planning Commission Directive
Following the January 13 Planning Commission hearing, the project sponsor submitted a more detailed
Alternative Site Analysis (Exhibit 4) on February 26, 2009. The revised Alternative Site Analysis included
a map showing location of other existing facilities in this area, a search ring of service and an analysis of
the locations and details of each site and summary of the findings for each site.
The City hired Jonathan Kramer of Kramer. Firm Inc., a telecommunications consultant, to conduct a peer
review of the Alternative Site Analysis. Jonathan Kramer is an FCC -licensed RF engineer and an
admitted member of the State Bar of California. Kramer.Firm Inc. was also hired by the City to complete
citywide antennae inventory and testing. The consultant report dated May 7, 2009 (Exhibit 6) is briefly
summarized as follows:
• The proposed height of the antennas is consistent with the height necessary to cover the large
area described in Verizon's existing and proposed coverage maps;
• The majority of the properties within and adjacent to the search ring are residential uses. A 1.9
sq. mile service area is somewhat toward the larger end of the range for suburban wireless sites,
and to achieve this level of wide -area coverage typically requires a wireless site located within or
just adjacent to the search ring and of a significant height;
• The Verizon has two realistic alternatives:
a. To proceed with the project as currently proposed on the existing PG&E power
transmission tower; or
b. To construct its own freestanding, approximately 75 to 80 feet tall monopole tower
adjacent to the proposed location, or just to the north of the search ring near Pickleweed
Park which would result in a very tall wireless structure (which is not a preferred site by
the City's Wireless Communication Facilities ordinance).
• The existing and established power transmission tower exceeding 100 feet in height at the
subject location is suitable, if not optimal, for the intended use;
• The Verizon's proposed site is the best choice balancing low visual impact on the City (by
collocating and not adding a new tall structure), against the suboptimal location in relation to
Verizon's desired search ring.
Kramer has recommended some design/construction related conditions of approval in order to reduce
the visibility of the project now and in the future as follows:
• To limit the thickness of hardline coaxial cables and to affix them to the inside of the PG&E tower
legs;
To employ only rear -facing connectors for all panel -type antennas;
Mounting bracket pipes to be of minimum height; and
All cables, antenna radomes and attachment hardware on and adjacent to the tower to be painted
flat, non -reflective gray to match the tower color.
These recommendations are presented as conditions of approval at no. 3 thru 9 in the attached draft
resolution (Exhibit 2) for approval of the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit.
The original appeal points were discussed in the January 13, 2009 staff report distributed to the Planning
Commission. Staff concludes there are no further issues_
City Attorney Confirmation of Project Discretion
As a follow up to the discussion at the Planning Commission hearing and Ms. Joan Ripple's e-mail, the
City Attorney has provided a memo (Exhibit 8) regarding the city's ability to regulate Personal Service
Wireless (PWS) facilities on the basis of impacts of RF emissions. The memo concludes that the
provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act preclude the City from denying the Verizon application
solely or substantially on the basis of alleged health impacts from RF emission, where those emissions
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-007 Page 6
comply with applicable federal standards, and that the ADA does not apply with respect to the City's
action on the application.
Pursuant to Section 15301 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), additions to existing private
structures that result in an increase of less than 10,000 square feet are exempt from the requirements of
CEQA, if the project is located in an area that is served by all available public utilities to allow for
maximum development permissible under the General Plan and if the project is located in an area that is
not environmentally sensitive. The project will add a 324 sq. ft. equipment shed within the base (footprint)
of the existing tower and a 126 sq. ft. paved area for locating an emergency generator outside the tower
base. Since the proposed addition doesn't exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the original structure,
or 2500 square feet, this addition meets the requirements for a categorical exemption under Section
15301 of CEQA.
A courtesy notice for the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within a radius of 1,000 feet of the subject property within 15 days prior to the hearing. A public notice
sign was also posted near the PG&E tower. As of the date of this report, no correspondence has been
received regarding the project. Staff received a phone call message from Dr. Sandra Ross of Health and
Habitat expressing that the proposed facility would have a serious impact on the Ecology House which is
being used as a residential and meeting place for persons with chemical sensitivities.
rP�ta .
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the appeal and approve the project as presented;
2. Deny the appeal and approve the project with additional modifications, changes or additional
conditions of approval;
3. Continue the application to allow the applicant or staff to address any of the Commission's
comments or concerns; or
4. Grant the appeal and direct staff to return with a revised resolution denying the project.
3. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009
4. Revised Alternative Site Analysis, February 26, 2009
5. Coverage Map Submitted by Applicant
6. Peer Review Report of Alternative Site Analysis dated May 7, 2009
7. E-mail message from Ms. Joan Ripple
8. Memorandum from City Attorney
Photo simulations, color Revised Alternative Site Analysis, color Coverage Map, Planning Commission
staff report of January 13, 2009 and Reduced Plans Project Plans (11"x17") Distributed to the Planning
Commission only
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 13, 2009
ROLL
Commissioners Present: Chair Kirchmann, Vice Chair Pick,
Colin, Lang, Mills, Paul, Sonnet
Commissioners Absent: None
APPROVED
Community Development: Bob Brown, Community Development Director
Paul Jensen, Planning Manager
Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner
Stephanie Lovette, Housing Specialist
Rob Epstein, City Attorney
AGENDA
CONSENT
1. Minutes, December 9, 2008
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a
Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the
installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN:
009-33001; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio
LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File no.:
AP08-007.
Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt
3. 1050 Cresta Way (includes 1010-1065) Cresta Way; 122-150 Cresta Drive; 1-
6 Cresta Circle) — Highlands of Marin and Cresta Marin Apartments —
Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and Design
Review Permit for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a
recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785
sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251-20, 21, 24, 25 and 155-280-01 tbru
16 and 18; Planned Development (PD) 1547 and Multi -Family Residential
(MR2.5) District; NorthBay Properties 11, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams,
architect, applicant; David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt, appellants, File No.:
AP08-004.
Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09 EXHIBIT 3
AYES:
Commissioners:
Pick, Sonnet, Chair Kirchmann, Colin,
Lang, Mills, Paul
NOES:
Commissioners:
None
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Chair Kirchmann/Colin (Item 3)
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
None
Commissioner Sonnet recused himself from the next agenda in order to avoid the
appearance of a conflict.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a
Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the
installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN:
009-33001; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio
LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File no.:
AP08-007.
Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt
Sarjit Dhaliwal, Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ZA action
conditionally approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit
for the new wireless communication facility.
Planner Dhahwal then submitted modifications to Condition Nos.: 8, 10, 14 and 22 to the
Commission for their review.
Planning Manager Jensen clarified that the Federal Communication Commission
regulates the radio frequency emissions and the City of San Rafael does not. As long as
the facility is within the standard then it must comply with City's ordinance requirements
primarily related to design and placement. Chair Kircbmann pointed out that the federal
law prohibits the City from considering health effects of radio frequency emissions in
making land use decisions. Planning Manager Jensen responded in the affirmative.
Chair Kirchmann indicated that the Commission received a volume of additional
information tonight and it appears to be all geared to health effects of radio frequency
emissions, which is an important consideration, but one the Commission cannot consider.
Connie Barker, appellant, Vice President of Ecology House/President of Environmental
Health Network, explained that this is not directly about health or environmental effects,
but about the viability of a business and a business that has been in business on that
corner for over 15 years and because of its nature cannot be moved anywhere else. The
facility was built with federal and local CDBG money and continues to receive federal
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
4
money and is in grant process each year for capital improvements. They cannot take that
business elsewhere and cannot take the environmental health network out of California.
They are not capable of moving their business. The General Plan specifically states that
cell towers cannot be located in such a way as to interfere with the existing character of
the neighborhood. They feel it should be within the Commission's purview to require that
these antermas be located further away from their business. Like other forms of
electromagnetism, the intensity decreases with the square of the distance. She did not
believe it was ever the intent to put a business out of business that cannot be relocated.
They cannot serve several individuals due to the power lines, and the extra load will be a
major impact. She reiterated that this is the viability of their business.
Alex Richards, speaking for the appellant, submitted information on the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 under Section 704 that states, "No State or local
government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental
effects of radiofrequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. " There is no discussion of health
effects. Environmental effects are quite different than health effects. Environment is
thought to be global warming, carbon dioxide, animals, air quality, wetlands, and bio
systems which are all part of the environment. This is so important for all and tonight
they have a group of people that have chemical sensitivities. This is the only such HUD
facility in the United States. 60 to.70% have electromagnetic sensitivities, diseases such
as chronic fatigue. They want to talk about health effects and will not talk about
environmental effects. They all face wireless stress syndrome. He then made a
powerpoint presentation to the Board on wireless stress syndrome that included the
following information:
• Myth 1: No Scientific Evidence
o There is really no evidence that microwaves or other electromagnetic
fields are harmful.
■ More than 1100 studies link microwaves and EMF to dozens of bio
effects, symptoms and diseases
• Bio Initiative Report released by 14 scientist August 2007:
• DNA Damage
• Chromosome Damage
• Neurological Effects
• Immune System Impacts
• Brain Tumors
• Childhood Cancers
• Breast Cancer
• Alzheimer's
• Electromagnetic Sensitivity
Myth 2: Thermal Effect is only Threat
o Scientist universally agreed that the "Thermal Effect" is real — fields
strong enough to heat tissue are dangerous.
o FDA and FCC dismiss the existence of low-level bio effects from
microwaves
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
Non -Thermal Studies: 1100 studies link low-level EMF and
microwaves to dozens of bio effects, symptoms and diseases
Microwaves effect is nonlinear:
• Frequency windows
• Wave coupling
• Modulation of frequencies
• Continuous waves (chronic exposure)
• Myth 3: US Standards are safe
o hi the US, are we well protected relative to the rest of the world from the
hazards of microwaves?
o Worldwide Exposure limits to cell towers:
• US — 580 Microwatts
• Russia — 10 Microwatts
■ China — 6 microwatts
■ Italy -5 Microwatts
• Switzerland — 4.2 Microwatts
• Salzburg Austria —.1 Microwatts
2002: Freiburger Appeal
o Hundreds of physicians in Europe call out explosion of new symptoms in
patient population. 30,000 sign the appeal.
• Fatigue, Chronic Exhaustion
• Memory Loss, Increased Forgetfulness
Concentration Issues
■ Sleep Disturbances
■ Headaches, Migraines
Joint Pain
■ Muscle Pain
• Anxiety/Irritability
■ Mood Disturbances — Depression
• Immune System Suppression
■ Heart, Chest pain
• 1985: Chronic Fatigue Strikes — Same 11 symptoms
• 1990s: Fibromyalgia = Freiburger — Same 11 symptoms
• 1990s: Environmental Illness — Core 11 Symptoms
• 2000: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) - 285,000 disabled in Sweden
(Symptoms linked to Microwaves/EMF)
• Wireless Stress Syndrome: 2000-04: Microwave Studies — Cell tower studies:
overlapping symptoms
• Cell Tower: Dosage Effect
o High 50 meters —Anxiety, depression, concentration, memory
o Medium 50-300 meters —Loss of sleep, headaches, fatigue
o Low— 300 meters —Fatigue
Clarence Chavis, representing Verizon, proposing to install 6 antennas on an existing
PG&E power at the address of 100 Windward Way, explained that they are proposing to
install all equipment underneath the legs of that tower. They had an opportunity to review
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
the staff report, met with the DRB and reviewed the Conditions from the ZA. They also
had meetings and telephone conversations from members of the Ecology House. They
modified and made changes to their plans based on recommendations from the Ecology
House. Such as relocated their proposed equipment pad for emergency generator to the
other side of the tower. They agreed to paint the fence itself with low volatile organic
compounds (VOC) paint as recommended and agreed to a 30 -day notice to the Ecology
House, if approved for construction of the project. He understands the concerns in regard
to the RF emissions and an independent study was conducted by H&E Consulting, a
representative from which is present tonight to discuss in more detail.
Raji Mather, Hammett & Edison Consulting Engineers, analyzed the site and finds that it
complies with the FCC guidelines. The maximum level at any publicly accessible
location is 0.51% of the FCC standard. Which means that it is about 200 times below the
FCC standard. All are aware of the 1996 Telecommunication Act, but if the Commission
desired further explanation in that regard he is present to do so.
Mr. Chavis noted for the record that they conducted the alternative analysis. They
reviewed different locations and explained why the other locations were not feasible and
why the subject location was the best to meet the coverage objective for Verizon
Wireless.
Chair Kirchmann opened the public comment on this item.
Joan Ripple, Health & Disability Researcher/Secretary & Treasurer of Council on
Wireless Technology Impacts/former staff person for the California Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee, noted that in September of 1996, the California Senate published a report
on `Access for people with environmental illness/multiple chemical sensitivity and other
related conditions. " The report was the result of four years of deliberation by a 75
member Blue Ribbon Committee of nationwide experts who examined access issues for
people with this disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and
California State laws guarantee people with disabilities reasonable accommodations for
access to public facilities, housing, education, employment, and transportation. The 1996
reportstate, "that MCS has catastrophic personal, financial and social consequences for
the person who has this disability. Further, there is a high cost of the community in
billions of dollars lost annually by business and industry to drops in productivity in the
workplace (chronic headaches, colds, sinus problems, et all); this includes the cost of
supporting people with preventable disability and the loss of their creativity and tales. "
Listed among the common barriers to access in the report were "electromagnetic fields
from computers, elevators, escalators, generators, fluorescent lighting, office equipment,
BART and other modes of transportation. " That report was issued in 1996 long before
the proliferation of cell towers, broadband and WiFi, which are ubiquitous in society
today. People with allergies, asthma, immunological, neurological, respiratory and other
illnesses also have negative health effects related to, poor air quality, chemicals, and
electromagnetic fields, radio frequencies and other modem electronic exposures. In 2000
the California Department of Health issued a report that shows 50% of persons with
chemical sensitivities also developed electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and that 3% of the
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
7
total population exhibited symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity. More recent
worldwide data show that 3 —10% of the population at large has severe EHS while
another 35% have moderate symptoms of EHS. CWTI has been working with the
scientist who is researching the development of a diagnostic tool to assist physicians in
diagnosing EHS. In October, they hosted the scientist here in Marin and assisted in the
research. Some residents of Ecology House as well as the general population participated
in the research. When spoken to as recently as yesterday, this scientist linked placing
antenna so close to a building that houses chemically sensitive people as abhorrent, like
giving peanuts to someone with a peanut allergy. They are not against the
telecommunications antenna, but would like due diligence to be conducted to place the
antenna elsewhere, where it will not deteriorate the purpose of Ecology House and
subsequently the health of a very vulnerable population, not to mention the waste of
millions of taxpayers dollars that have gone into this special housing project. She then
submitted information noting the presence of an electric grid of radio frequency currents
used for communication and remote control for the Commission's consideration. She
explained that these currents have been detected on high and medium voltage lines. In
some cases they are even used on the main system for remote rating electric meters. This
implies that radio frequency (RF) magnetic fields are present near the electric network in
addition to the 50/60 Hz fields. The intensity in the human body by exposure to magnetic
fields increases with frequency.
Sarah Reilly, Fairfax resident/Health Practitioner in Bay Area, explained that this is a
very real.situation. What is at hand is real whether one has chemical or electrical
sensitivity. People in the Ecology House are particularly sensitive as well as infants,
pregnant women, and elders. This is a scary situation for people because it is not seen and
it is impacting all of us. The research in this country is very suppressed. With the
convenience of wireless technology comes a huge consequence. She asked that the
Commission give this deep consideration because the health consequences are dark and
withstanding. It is not seen or heard, but it is incredibly real.
Ginger Sounders -Mason, Kentfield resident, has friends that live at the Ecology House
and this is the only place they can live. They survive on very low incomes due to their
disabilities. She further asked the Commission to give deep consideration to those that
have sensitivities.
Barbara Wienqes, Woodacre resident/pharmacist, is chemically sensitive and found a
home in Woodacre where the levels of radiation are low enough to not affect her muscles.
She is able to go to work during the day. If this tower is placed where it is, it will greatly
impact the Ecology House business. These people would be homeless, so this is a
financial situation for the business. She suggested looking at a moratorium on cell towers
or place this tower further down the street near the Metro PCS tower so it is located
further away from the Ecology House, which accommodates those with chemical
sensitivity.
Louise Yost, Ecology House resident, stated that when there is an indication of adverse
health effects, the risk of doing nothing might be far greater than the risk to control
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
exposures. Residents of the Ecology House are hypersensitive and none of the residents
can afford to be bombarded with more EFM's. The Ecology House is the only facility of
its kind in the United States. She asked that the cell tower be moved one block away and
to do so would mirror the spirit of the Disability Act.
Ms. Barker appreciates Verizon Wireless and is not against the technology and has been a
loyal customer for years, but respectfully asked the Commission to consider how many
times in the few years they danced this same dance such as with the light brown apple
moth and local ordinances about GMO's. Organizations in this area are working on issues
of pesticides and are working on legislation and initiatives that will take on this issue and
the whole idea of preemption around health issues.
Mr. Richards stated that the tower is 422 feet from the Ecology House and on page 12 of
the first document on Wireless Stress Syndrome there are three exposure syndromes. It
shows that people more than 300 yards away increase fatigue by 40%. Those in the
middle range, which is 50 to 300 meters will have an increase in sleep disturbance,
headaches and fatigue. The high area increases anxiety. These individuals are already
experiencing seven of the effects, and those impacts will result in economic difficulties,
ability to contribute to the community and the ability to remain in San Rafael.
Commissioner Mills asked staff if supporting maps and graphics were provided by the
applicant. Planning Manager Jensen responded that page 7 of the staff report shows the
site alternatives and all are located in the same general area of this particular proposed
site. They are all around Windward Way. Commissioner Mills stated that it would have
been helpful to have maps and indicators of the locations.
Mr. Chavis explained that they propose six antennas and the two for GPS are not
considered for transferring and receiving signals. They are more for global positioning.
They are located on the bottom legs of the tower. They provided locations and
photographs in regards to the different sites and businesses. Due to all factors listed in the
report, the current proposal is the best approach to move forward.
Commissioner Paul discussed Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9 and noted that the existing Metro
PCS site is one of the four alternatives analyzed. Mr. Chavis responded that the PG&E
tower south of their proposal is the Sprint site. The existing Metro PCS site is the Sprint
tower, so they are talking about the same tower. Commissioner Paul clarified that PG&E
owns all the towers. Mr. Chavis responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Paul clarified that the closest tower is approximately double the distance
from the Ecology House. Mr. Chavis agreed.
Commissioner Colin asked staff to explain the 1996 Telecommunication Act. City
Attorney Epstein responded that the interpretation has never been made by any court
looking at these issues. The idea of environmental effects has always included health
impacts. Commissioner Colin asked if health could be separated from environmental
impacts. City Attorney Epstein explained that based on his review of the law, he believed
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
9
that argument to be implausible. They do not choose the controversies that come before
the City. Good people explain experiences and disability issues and yet they are in a
position that he must advise the Commission on the law. They have federal pre -
exemptions. When there are references made regarding other venues where issues might
be argued and federal statute contest it that makes sense. These are other places where the
argument could and should be made, but tonight the debate is not about
environmental/health effects. Law is clear that the Commission does not have purview on
the health effects.
Commissioner Mills believed there is a conflict between the Disabilities Act and FCC.
She believed the two federal laws are in opposition. City Attorney Epstein is not in a
position to reconcile those matters. Congress occupied an area and arguably acted in
conflict with itself with another act. They must abide by the preemption of the act
applying here on the issue of discretion with regard to the placement of the antenna.
Commissioner Mills believed they would violate one or the other tonight. City Attorney
Epstein must further consider the question before responding.
Commissioner Paul clarified that there are three alternate sites all owned by PG&E and
the conclusion was that PG&E was not interested in entertaining a lease and desired an
explanation. Mr. Chavis explained that there is the existing landlord along with PG&E.
The carrier has all their equipment and there is no space for Verizon. At the time their
request to entertain a lease was not satisfied or agreed to. PG&E owns the towers and one
other landlord owns the site and they must have an agreement with both. He added that
the easement and tower is PG&E's, but the land is a different entity. The property owner
did not want to entertain their project.
Commissioner Paul asked if it is possible to locate equipment into the easement area. Mr.
Chavis stated that PG&E only allows equipment to be located underneath the tower and
there was no space available.
Chair Kirchmann asked if it would be functionally feasible to have equipment under one
and then towers on another easement. Mr. Chavis noted that would involve several leases,
which is not typical of Verizon.
Commissioner Mills asked why telephone access is a problem with Alternative No. 3.
Mr. Chavis indicated that they need power and telephone access. Further south, they run
further and further away from their coverage objective and closer to an existing site that
is meeting their coverage down the road. Commissioner Mills noted that when driving
around the area she had exceptional coverage. Mr. Chavis explained that Verizon
Wireless Engineers map out all different locations and identify areas for coverage or
capacity. At this site, they saw a gap in coverage, so Verizon sent his company out in the
field to see if there are opportunities to install towers to help with coverage objectives.
This particular area of Windward Way needed additional coverage. Verizon would not
add a site where one was not required or requested. They provide a search ring of an area
and site where they feel coverage is needed.
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
10
Commissioner Mills noted that zoning is residential and light industrial is further south
and Verizon Wireless has chosen an area least preferred in the City, so to move down the
block would make zoning sense. Mr. Chavis tried to look at other locations and
understands the concerns, but the subject area is the best to meet Verizon's objectives.
Commissioner Pick asked staff if there is any legal means by which City Council can
require applicants to use an alternate location assuming other conditions are met such as
obtaining a lease and so forth. He asked how far does the alternative analysis go and how
far can the process be pushed. City Attorney Epstein responded to Commissioner Mills'
previous questions and is not sure the question is framed whether they have to follow one
law and violate another federal law. That presentation has not been made. The City's
public facilities must be ADA compliant, and if there were an alleged violation of ADA
after this and if this proposal were approved, whether that such action would be a private
action between whoever claimed to be the effected party and the applicant. In regard to
the preemption of the Telecommunication Act, which specifically calls out the
environmental/health effect and he does not believe raising federal law intended to
protect the rights of Americans with disabilities affects the Commission's discretion
tonight to consider health impacts nor does it place the Commission in a position of
choosing between two laws. Only one law applies here. Planning Manager Jensen
indicated that the code provisions are very clear that an alternative site analysis is
required if there are certain conditions. This project site meets two of those conditions. It
is a residential zone. The zoning on this project is somewhat unique to this site. Most of
Windward Way is industrially zoned including properties north of this site. Also, if the
antenna does not meet a stealth design requirement and the test for looking at alternatives
analysis is open ended and not real cut and dry. The code states, "that the applicant shall
provide supporting reasons why the alternate sites were infeasible and rejected and why
the proposed site is superior from a technical or other standpoint to the others
considered. " It is difficult to make a finding that one site may be rejected over another
for any specific reason other than what is presented by the applicant. Since this site meets
the test to require an alternative site analysis, the Commission has the discretion that this
be reviewed further or consider other sites in that analysis in order to consider whether or
not those were rejected for good reason.
Chair Kirchmann noted that City policies would encourage siting of a facility like this
other than in residential districts, if feasible. Planning Manager Jensen responded in the
affirmative. The preferred location is commercial and industrial zoning districts. If
located outside those districts, then it must meet other performance standards.
There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public portion
and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action.
Commissioner Colin noted that the DRB focused on the design aspects. She noted that
General Plan NH -2 states, "New development should enhance neighborhood image and
quality of life. " This is a unique neighborhood and this feels very strange to have a tower
located so close. Hearing about alternative sites, she is under whehned by the support for
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
11
the alternative sites. She believed they can work a little harder given the Ecology House
is in such close proximity.
Commissioner Pick did not want to get involved with a legal argument with definitions of
environmental and health. As they heard, the City code is pretty clear and the preferred
locations are in commercial and industrial areas. It seems it meets the standard for pretty
detailed set of evidence or analysis for looking at the alternatives. He wanted to review
the radius analysis as to where this tower can be located and still serve the need. This is
not a proposal for a tower in a preferred location. There could be a compelling paper trail
that alternative locations work. If so, the applicant should submit. It seems since they are
at the edge of a very large industrial and commercial neighborhood that potentially this
radius analysis would show that there are many potential sites. He is inclined to look for
more information on the alternative analysis.
Commissioner Paul agreed with Commissioners Pick and Colin's comments. More
information is needed on alternate sites and additional alternate sites should be explored.
He is not convinced that the study was thorough enough and desired a paper trail and
absolutes on why co -location is not feasible on the Metro PCS site. He further
recommended continuing the matter to allow the applicant the ability to conduct an
expanded alternate study.
Commissioner Lang stated that towers should be along with other similar items. These
are not residential structures. They are very heavy industrial towers. The setback
requirements and the management requirements are extensive. This is the perfect place to
put a cell site because they already have all kinds of limitations. This area is already
impacted by frequencies. Part of the overall plan is having all towers located in one area.
She cannot in her mind justify denying Verizon Wireless when there is a tower 600 feet
away. As for the alternative analysis, it could have been more articulated, but did not
need more text to indicate that the landlord did not want to rent any additional area
around the bottom of these towers. There are particular limitations on what can be done.
The surrounding landowner has requirements and PG&E has requirements for access for
its facilities and for maintaining its facilities. She is opposed to a continuance. They do
not have the factual evidence to justify a requirement that they pick and choose among
transmission towers as to which one is appropriate for a cell tower. The alternatives
analysis could have been more thorough, but the landlords do not want to lease the
property and that is sufficient. The standard is infeasible. If the landlord is saying, "no"
that is enough feasibility to support the conclusion that it is not feasible to locate
somewhere else. If Verizon had any place else to locate this tower they would have done
it. If there were a convenient and readily available alternative, Verizon would have found
it. She is prepared to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Mills supported the work being done by City Council on wireless impacts
and encouraged CWTI to continue pressuring the FCC to come into line with
international standards. Under current law, they cannot deny approval over health
concerns. However, following the lead of the DRB, two of the members suggested that
the alternative towers south be reviewed. She would deny the appeal on an additional
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
12
condition that Verizon work with PG&E and the property owners for a more southerly
tower for its location. Verizon's preferred location is on a least preferred site. While the
most preferred location is just down the street. PG&E towers in the adjacent industrial
and commercial areas have street access and do not appear to have limited access. The
argument presented by Verizon's representative that this would be difficult she finds
troubling and wonders why. She also sees the necessity for the new Verizon facility
seems questionable since service was excellent by her observations. The fact that Sprint
has located in an industrial area, not residential, is a fact that shows respect for the
zoning. She further encouraged a continuance for more research to be conducted and then
brought back to the Commission for further review.
Chair Kirchmann is not impressed by the stealth of this installation. They have a number
of cell phone and PCS locations where antennas are enclosed that appear as an
`architectural' feature of a building. PG&E transmission line towers are not the best
examples of architectural structures in the City. These antennas are not hidden. He is far
from convinced that there is not a better area to serve the coverage gap. He agreed that it
is troublesome that they were not provided with the search ring. He heard about
alternatives and is not convinced those others are infeasible. He further agreed to
continue the matter to allow the applicant time to provide the additional information
requested. Planning Manager Jensen clarified that if the project is continued, then an
expanded site alternatives analysis or the existing analysis reviewed by City's
telecommunications consultant. Chair Kirchmann did not know whether it is
technologically feasible and whether it serves the coverage needs of Verizon, but asked
whether it is necessary to transmit at the same power on all three sectors in any particular
antenna location. Whether there is a possibility in this case to achieve coverage
objectives, but reducing radio emissions projected toward the immediate residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Pick stated since this is not proposed in a preferred location as the General
Plan is structured that if there is direction offered to the applicant that they could clearly
state that if a proposal was brought forward for a location nearby within the commerciall
industrial zone that would meet every objective that the City has and fall within the
Commission's purview. To the extent the Commission can provide such direction that an
alternate site located solidly in that commercial/industrial area that would be the preferred
means. It seems when not in that preferred location that high level of detail is required. If
they had a preferred location perhaps such a great detail would not need to be heard.
Chair Kirchmann clarified that if they had a proposed location that was in a clearly
preferred area then they would not have to search as far for alternatives. When the
location is within a residential zoned area they must search harder for alternatives. Even
though the General Plan and code speaks in terns of zoning districts, they must also look
at the adjacent zones and uses.
Commissioner Mills believed more information is needed on the three alternatives and it
would be great to have additional alternatives as well. She also wanted to hear back from
the City Attorney on further research conducted.
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
13
Chair Kirchmann desired guidelines about where their discretion lies and what factors
can and cannot be taken into account in approving or denying a particular location and
evaluating potential alternatives.
Chair Kirchmann asked for a motion.
Commissioner Colin moved and Commissioner Pick seconded, to continue this
appeal to a date uncertain.
Commissioner Paul noted that the purpose of the continuance is for the applicant to look
at other alternative sites and go back to the three other alternative sites and explore in
more detail, The stealth design should be addressed as well. He believed these antennas
should be co -located as much as possible. He wanted to see the search ring and other
alternative sites investigated.
Commissioner Mills believed directive could be enhanced to Verizon if they could
negotiate a different site that it might be much easier to receive approval by the
Commission.
Motion carried 5-1. Lang opposed.
AYES:
Commissioners:
Colin, Pick, Chair Kirchmann, Mills, Paul
NOES:
Commissioners:
Lang
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioners
Sonnet
The Commission took a short recess at 8:48pm and Commissioner Sonnet reconvened his
position on the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Chair, the meeting adjourned at 12:OOam.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Woods, Recording Secretary
SRPC MINUTES (Regular)1/13/09
February 26, 2009
To: Saijit Dhaliwal
From: Clarence Chavis
Re: Altematve Site Analysis for Case No; AP08-007
Since
ana me summary or inelr rnnaings. in this reviSed alternative analysis; we he
conduoted a review of existing co -location bpportuniti on a cityuvide basis
additional candidates within the proximity of the proposed area of coveraoe
RECEIVED
MAY 14 2009
PLANNIN'
EXHIBIT 4
Facts about the New Facility
• This facility has been designed to meet the established guidelines detailed
in the Zoning Ordinance for the City of San Rafael section 14.16.380
Wireless communication facilities.
• In order to improve Verizon Wireless coverage in the area we have
explored many options. This site will meet our coverage needs while
blending in with the existing infrastructure.
• No location within the proposed coverage area is able to satisfy this need,
so we moved south — with the same coverage objective requirements. The
coverage objective is the residential area:
1. to the east of Kemer Blvd
2. south of Piekleweed Pant;
3. west of the water
4. North of vista Del Mar.
Verizon's coverage needs are in the middle of the residential area defined
above.
•
Moving further west or south would require taller structure — and still result
in a weaker signal in the area requiring coverage, so we can't move too
far:
• The closest NON residential areas are;
a West of Ifemer — too far from coverage objective
b North and east is across water -not' viable due tie interference
C. South is undeveloped land, or Windward Way. Anything further
south is too far to satistj coverage objective.
The
I.
2.
first two parcels on the NW side of
3. 87 Windward Way APN 009-X30-11 has a -business located upon it
(tenant to Universal Portfolio). It is a lout/ level commerolol t Industrial
structure. A tower, would need to be built to make this work, Also,
landlord did not want to bother or impede on tenant's use of property.
4. 90 Windward Way — APN 009-330-10 has Kerner Optical as a tenant, who
was not interested in leasing ground space there.
5. 100 Windward Way —APN 009-330-10 has a few businesses as tenants.
The landlord was not interested in leasing additional space on this
property. There is an existing carrier, MetroPCS, with equipment under
the PG&E tower and antennas on a 6 foot extension at the top of the
tower. The space under the tower is full.
6. PG&E towers further south would be too faraway to satisfy coverage
objective:
i. The most visible building (line of sight) south was also researched: 3155
Kamer Blvd was George Ludas' Industrial Light,and Magic Company.
The owner was not interested in leasing space to Verizon.
it
d
o
,
U
a
ae �C
ego -
CD
p
cu
14
TsC m
i
U
m
� N
5
F
y
CD
p
cu
14
TsC m
i
lei
sCa #S
t 3c "`may 1a
Y
L
is f,
0-
0
a
L
d
4
O
T
�K=ttt CL)u
O
4
L O
U
a'
0-
0
o �
L
d
4
O
T
�K=ttt CL)u
O
L O
CD
x k
?
N
r'
T
l
a t
,
F
U N N �P
tt
A
N
its,
Valovo 10,
z Zi
: v
rn
d
7
CTI
r5
m
L f"N
Q
0
v
u
o
c �
7
C`A
o
Q
c
•
L
C
�r74
t
17
�
Jr�
c
Vile
w `r'
w,
m
�y . r
•
m
w
�
'ra
CTI
r5
�pJ.:N
L f"N
Q
v
u
c �
7
C`A
o
Q
CEJ
D
L
C
�r74
t
17
�
Jr�
c
Vile
w `r'
CTI
r5
�pJ.:N
L f"N
v
7
�
o
CEJ
[7 c
C
t
17
�
Jr�
c
Vile
w `r'
m
w
�
'ra
CTI
r5
�pJ.:N
L f"N
a
o
q*
C
t
17
R I D G E
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
12667
April 28, 2009
To: Sarjit Dhaliwal, PhD, AICP
Associate Planner
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1400 5' Ave.
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA
From: Clarence Chavis
602 Z add
Re: ED08-002; UP08-001;Verizon Wireless proposal; RF Coverage maps
Dear Mr. Dhaliwal:
I am submitting two copies of the set of coverage maps for our proposal on Windward
Way. A goal of Verizon is to provide the optimum coverage for their customers;
particularly "In Building" coverage which is weak in the area that Verizon is attempting
to address. The following is an explanation of the maps:
1) Current Coverage: Map of the existing coverage without the proposed site. The
coverage map shows the lack of "In Building" coverage within the proposed area
and around the proposed site at 100 Windward Way.
2) Coverage from Pickleweed Site: Map of proposed site in opera n and the
surrounding Verizon sites not in operation. In this scenario our " Building"
coverage objective is met for the area in question.
3) Pickleweed and Current Coverage: Map of
conjunction with the existing Verizon sites.
I am also submitting the required $800 payment for review of
site in o ation in
If
J
t
a�
� ��
_`
x'`" 1'
t�: f.
a :. ,.
�.
o
a�,��
a
a��.
r i d
�_.
a� ��
��
���"�
,KK
��a � ,
1
a
��� � �.
�, � ;�
���
'�:
x� �, _
�e xv
E k+'y �;-
��� _—__
>�'� �4
:¢
z��
e
e
e e
® m
e
.�
s
_ _
��,���n
May 7, 2009
Mr. Raffi Boloyan
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 1560
San Rafael, California 94915-1560
RE: Peer Review of Alternative Analysis:
Verizon Wireless Proposed Site in the 100 Block of Windward Way
Dear Mr. Boloyan:
At the direction of the City of San Rafael, I have reviewed the referenced
project in the context of the San Rafael Municipal Code § 14.16.360
regarding potential alternative sites for the referenced project.
My credentials to provide this analysis are listed in Exhibit I of this letter.
Project Purpose
Verizon, using an existing radio frequency (RF) map, has disclosed to the
City that the purpose of this project is to significantly enhance its RF signal
level to provide "in building coverage" with the area generally described
by me as follows:
• North: generally extending to the general area of Margarita
Parkway and Mann Drive;
• Northeast: extending into the Bay;
• East: extending into the Bay;
ORRM
• South-southeast: To Shoreline Parkway, with additional lower
signal strength coverage to San Quentin State Prison;
• Southwest: To the ridgeline (Old Quarry Road N, for
Kramer.Firm Inc.
example);
Telecommum.d.usTechnobgy
• West-southwest: To the ridgeline (Bret Harte Road, for
Counsel for Government
example); and
Agencies and Private Institutions
Since 1964
• West: To about the intersection of US 101 and 1-580.
.,v.Krmne, Firrn.mm
Presently, portions of the areas described above have signal strength
Main Office:
suitable for in -car service, and in smaller areas signal strength suitable only
Krarner(E I(i amerFirm.mm
Tel +1 (310)4739900
for outdoors use of wireless telephones.
Fax + 1 (310) 473 5900
Suite 306
2001 S. Ban'ington Avenue
Los Angeles, California
900255379
EXHIBIT 6
Mr. RAI Boloyan
May 7, 2009
Page 2
The coverage enhancement area described above encompasses about 1.9
square miles of land, and additional water coverage in the Bay and San
Rafael Creek.
A 1.9 square mile service area is somewhat toward the larger end of the
range for suburban wireless sites.
The portion of the community to be benefited by this proposed project is
generally low-lying areas bounded to a half ring of hills reaching up to
between 350 feet and 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
The Siting Process
When a wireless carrier determines that a new site is needed to provide
enhanced service, the following general process steps occur;
1. A carrier's RF engineer determines the area to be served by the
proposed site and assesses the topography and major constructed
structures of the area;
2. The RF engineer evaluates the other on air and approved cell sites
in the area to determine what spacing and frequency requirements
will apply to the new cell site;
3. A target area, called a'search ring' is determined by the RF
engineer and transferred to a map, along with the criteria
regarding antenna height and other technical factors required for a
viable candidate site;
4. The search ring map is assigned to a real property specialist who
looks within the search ring for potentially viable candidate sites
based on the criteria established by the RF engineer. If no suitable
candidate site is found within the search ring, the real property
specialist will often expand the search area outside of the initial
ring;
S. For each potential candidate site, the real property specialist
determines the property owner and contacts the owner to
determine whether the owner is interested in leasing the
candidate site to the wireless carrier. Some candidate sites may
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Mr. Raffi Boloyan
May 7, 2009
Page 3
be lost at this stage due to owner unwillingness to enter in to a
lease option and lease;
6. When one or more viable candidate sites with willing owners are
located, the site or sites are secured by the carrier (usually by a
lease option) and then each is more carefully evaluated by carrier.
At this stage detailed RF engineering, utility engineering, and
physical site suitability studies (i.e., soils testing) are performed.
Some candidate sites will be determined at this stage to be
unsuitable for any number of engineering reasons. At the end of
this evaluation phase usually only one or two candidate sites
remain, and one is selected by the carrier as the best site to bring
forward for permitting. In some cases, only one viable candidate
site remains;
7. The candidate site is presented to the local planning agency for
permission to construct the site.
In the case of Verizon's project, the majority of the properties within and
adjacent to the search ring are residential uses. As I have already noted, a
1.9 square mile service area is somewhat toward the larger end of the
range for suburban wireless sites, and to achieve this level of wide -area
coverage typically requires a wireless site located within or just adjacent
to the search ring, and of a significant height to 'see over' the tops of the
structures within the service target area to prevent signal shadowing.
As for tall structures in the area, they include for example the industrial
structures generally to the west of the proposed project site; US 101
where it crosses over Bellam Boulevard; larger structures at Pickleweed
Park; the multi -story industrial and 3+ story commercial structures along
Francisco Boulevard; etc.
Proposed Method of Enhancing Signal Strength
I have reviewed the project proposed by Verizon Wireless for the PG&E
transmission tower in the 100 block of Windward Way. The project
antennas are to be located approximately 72 feet AGL on the power
transmission tower.
The proposed height of the antennas is consistent with the height
necessary to cover the large area described in Verizon's existing and
proposed coverage maps.
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Mr. Raffi Boloyan
May 7, 2009
Page 4
Alterative Sites
Having set the stage for the purpose of this project; the method of
selecting sites; and the proposed site, I now turn to my evaluation of
whether there are realistic alternatives to that proposed by Verizon.
In this evaluation, I have reviewed Verizon's limited alternative sites for
this project described to the City's Design Review Board, essentially three
PG&E power transmission towers and one private property. I have also
evaluated current topographic maps and of the area; as well Terraserver,
NAVTEQ maps, and Pictometry International Corp. low -altitude images.
The PG&E power transmission line, and specifically the transmission
towers along this north -south transmission line corridor are the highest
existing verticality within and adjacent to the search ring area.
As an FCC -licensed RF engineer working for the past 17 years for local,
state, and federal governments (but not for wireless carriers) my study of
RF engineering needs of Verizon and the physical area in and around the
search ring leads me to conclude that Verizon has but two realistic
alternatives. Those alternatives are:
1. For Verizon to proceed with the project currently proposed on
the existing PG&E transmission tower in the 100 block of
Windward Way; or
2. For Verizon to construct its own freestanding monopole tower
that would be approximately 75 to 80 feet AGL adjacent to the
proposed location, or just to the north of the search ring near
Pickleweed Park.
Option 2 presumes that Verizon can find a willing landlord (which has
already been ruled out adjacent to the Option I location), and that a new
very tall wireless structure would be compatible with the adjacent uses,
primary residential and park uses.
Having been involved in hundreds of planning cases in communities
throughout California, it has been my experience that city leaders and
planning agencies strive to avoid adding major new vertical elements,
specifically towers, for wireless sites when existing verticality can be used.
In this case, there is an existing and established power transmission tower
exceeding 100 feet in height at a location that is suitable, if not optimal, for
Kranner.Firm Inc.
Mr. Raffi Boloyan
May 7, 2009
Page 5
Verizon's intended use. Adding panel antennas to an existing and
established taller power transmission tower is most often a far more
preferable public policy option compared with permitting a new
telecommunications tower, especially one that is much more likely to be
visible to wider residential areas.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Having evaluated all of the radio frequency engineering data, the project
plans, the alternative sites considered by Verizon, and having conducted
my own analysis of alternative sites, it is my opinion that Verizon's
proposed site is the best choice balancing low visual impact on the City
(by not adding new verticality) against slightly the suboptimal location in
relation to Verizon's desired search ring.
If it is the pleasure of the City to approve this project, I recommend the
following conditions of approval be included to reduce the visibility of the
project now and in the future:
All 1 5/8" hardline coaxial cables shall at all times be run on and
affixed to the inside of the PG&E tower leg(s) to the approximate
level of the antennas. At the approximate level of the antennas the
Permittee shall use /2 inch coaxial jumper cables to interconnect
the 1 5/8" hardline coaxial cables to the antennas.
2. All panel -type antennas shall employ only rear -facing connectors.
3. All antenna mounting bracket pipes shall be of the minimum height
required to attach the antenna. No antenna bracket pipes shall
protrude more than six inches above and below the associated
panel antenna.
4. All portions of all cables on and adjacent to the tower from ground
level to the antenna connectors be completely painted a flat, non -
reflective gray that is selected to closely match the color of the
PG&E tower. The paint color is subject to the prior written
approval of the Director of the Community Development
Department.
5. All cable attachment hardware, antenna brackets, antenna
attachment hardware, and any other physical elements of the
project attached to the PG&E tower are to be completely painted
the same color as approved by the Director of the Community
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Mr. Raffi Boloyan
May 7, 2009
Page 6
Development Department in Condition 4.
6. All antenna radomes (panels, GPS antenna, etc.) are to be
completely painted the same color as approved by the Director of
the Community Development Department in Condition 4.
7. Permittee shall completely repaint all of the project elements
described in Conditions 4 through 6, inclusive, at an interval
specified by the City. The paint used shall be a non -reflective gray
that is selected to closely match the color of the PG&E tower as it
exists at the time of repainting. The paint color is subject to
approval of the prior written approval of the Director of the
Community Development Department.
8. It is an ongoing and material condition and obligation on the
Permittee to at all times adhere to Conditions I through 7,
inclusive.
Respectfully submitted,
Kramer.Firm, Inc.
by
athan L. Kramer, JD
Jo D
incipal
JK/08.003.45
ff
Kramer.Firm Inc.
EXHIBIT I
Resume of
Jonathan L. Kramer ESQ, FSCTE, BTS, BPS, BDS, CBT
Principal Attorney - Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C.
Principal Technologist - Kramer.Firm, Inc.
Kramer@TelecomLawFirm.com
Kramer@KramerFirm.com
Tel: (310) 473-9900 x 121
2001 S Barrington Avenue, Suite 306
Los Angeles, CA 90025
2006 - Present
Principal Attorney, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C.
1999 - Present
Principal Consultant, Kramer.Firm, Inc.
1987- 1999
President, Communications Support Corp.
1984- 1987
Owner, Communicable Consultants (EI Toro, CA)
1982- 1984
Technical Manager; later Regional Technical Manager,
Storer Communications (Southern California Region)
1982- 1982
Engineering Manager, Western Cable Services, Inc.
1979- 1982
System Engineer, Warner Cable of Malibu
1978- 1979
Self employed radio telecommunications engineer
1976- 1978
Field Technician, Motorola Communications & Electronics
Area F Project Management
1971 - 1972
Rovafone of Los Angeles
Admitted as an Attorney: State Bar of California (CA SBN 244074)
Admitted as an Attorney: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Attorney Member, Federal Communications Bar Association
Attorney Member, International Municipal Lawyers Association
Attorney Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association
Attorney Member, Beverly Hills Bar Association
Attorney Member, San Fernando Valley Bar Association
Attorney Member, Second Life Bar Association
Licensed by the Federal Communications Commission:
General Radiotelephone Operator License PG -1 1-35289, with Ship Radar and
Broadcast endorsements); previously licensed as a Second Class Radio Telephone
Operator, Sept. 1975; First Class Radiotelephone
,Operator, Nov. 1977; General Radiotelephone Operator License, June 1987;
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System Operator/ Maintainer License, with
Ship Radar Endorsement; Amateur radio operator since November 1970;
currently licensed as an Extra Class operator (W6JLK);
Licensed by the California Contractors State License Board for low voltage
communications (Class C7). License No. 433113. Licensed since 1982.
®e
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Life member of the American Radio Relay League; ARRL book article author and
review editor on cable television RF interference matters; Appointed Volunteer
Counsel of the ARRL.
Former wireless technology advisor to and testifying expert before the FCC State
& Local Government Advisory Committee
Co-author, co-editor of "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting
Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance", a
wireless technology advisory to local governments based on OET Bulletin 65
published by the FCC, Spring 2000 (see: http://www.FCC.gov/oet/rfsafety)
Former Chairperson, International Right of Way Association Wireless Committee
Former National Board of Directors member, National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), an affiliate of the National
League of Cities (Terms: 1997-2000, 1992-1994)
Former Co-chair of the Joint Task Force on Technical Standards Committee,
appointed by NATOA, National League of Cities, and US Conference of Mayors
to develop the national technical standards for cable television systems adopted
by the FCC in February 1992
NATOA's only twice -honored Member of the Year (1997 and 199 1)
Executive Committee Board Member, State Bar of California, Public Law Section
(2008-2011).
President -Elect and current Board of Directors member, States of California and
Nevada Chapter of NATOA (SCAN NATOA) (2006-2008); founding member of
that Chapter. Chapter President: 2009-2010.
Former Co-chair of National Technical Standards committee appointed by
NATOA, National League of Cities, and US Conference of Mayors to develop the
national technical standardized testing manual to determine compliance with the
FCC rules
Fellow Member of Society of Cable Telecommunication Engineers, United
Kingdom society (FSCTE designation).
Senior Member of Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, United States
society (SCTE-US).
SCTE-US Senior Member since April 1993; member since 1981.
Kramer.Firm Inc,
Certified as a Broadband Transport Specialist (BTS designation) by the SCTE-US.
Certified as a Broadband Distribution Specialist (BDS designation) by the SCTE-
US.
Certified as a Broadband Premises Specialist (BPS designation) by the SCTE-US.
Member, SCTE's Loyal Order of the 704 (Membership restricted to recognized
cable engineers with a minimum of 30 years in CAN engineering experience)
Co -Chair, SCTE's WG7 Committee developing standardized cable TV industry
interpretations to the National Electrical Code
Member, Society of Broadcast Engineers (member since 2008)
Awarded recognition as a "Certified Broadcast Technologist" by the Society of
Broadcast Engineers.
Awarded recognition as a "Public Safety Radio Technician" by the Association of
Public -Safety Communications Officials - International, Inc. (APCO)
Elected Life Member, American Radio Relay League (member since 197 1)
Witness before the FCC's State & Local Government Advisory Committee on
OET 65, March 2000
Witness before the FCC in Cable TV re -regulation hearings, March 1990,
representing NATOA, et al
Testifying expert witness in federal and state court cases regarding cable
television technology, and federal and state court cases regarding wireless
technology.
Technology speaker at every NATOA National Conference from 1988 to 2000,
and 2002 to 2004; Technology speaker at many regional and local NATOA and
SCAN NATOA meetings
Communications technology speaker at Society of Cable Telecommunications
Engineers conferences, and cable industry conferences
Published author of book and magazine articles on communications technology,
plant safety, construction and administration
Cable system engineering and technical management experience six years before
forming Kramer.Firm, Inc.;
�Q
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Chief Technician, Technical Manager, Regional Engineer.
Former Field Engineering Representative for Motorola Communications and
Electronics, Area F Program Management team - Areas of experience include
microwave radio; baseband RF and audio; digital signaling; UHF and VHF two-
way radio (including high stability Simulcast® radio operations); telephony; and
command and control communications.
Juris Doctor Degree cum laude, Abraham Lincoln University School of Law, Los
Angeles (2001). Undergraduate education at CSUN, UCLA, LATTC, and WLAC;
AS Degree in Radio Communications (with honors), Los Angeles Trade Technical
College.
The following is a partial list of the nearly 600 governments and agencies which
have relied upon Mr. Kramer's broadband and/or radio communi-cations advice
as a telecommunications technology advisor/inspector since 1984, and as an
attorney since 2006:
Selected Federal Agencies - National Associations - States
Federal Communications Commission
U.S. Department of Justice
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
Soc. of Cable Telecom. Engineers
United States Army, Ft. Irwin, CA
U.S. Marine Corps, Twentynine Palms, CA
U.S. Marine Corps, San Diego, CA
U.S. Navy; Monterey, CA
U.S. Navy, San Diego, CA
United States Conference of Mayors
National Association of Counties
National League of Cities
State of Michigan PUC
State of Connecticut DPUC
Connecticut Siting Council
League of California Cities
<Balance of page intentionally left blank>
�a
Kranner.Firm Inc.
Selected Local Governments and Government Associations
Addison, IL
Cerritos, CA
Elburn, IL
Aiken County, SC
Chelan, WA
Elk Grove Village, IL
Albany, CA
Cheshire, CT
Elmhurst, IL
Alcoa, TN
Chester, CT
Encinitas, CA
Aliso Viejo, CA
Chico, CA
Enfield, CT
Anaheim, CA
Chino Hills, CA
Escondido, CA
Apache Jct., AZ
Chino, CA
Essex, CT
Arcadia, CA
Chula Vista, CA
Fairfax, CA
Aurora, IL
Clarendon Hills, IL
Federal Way, WA
Austin, Texas
Cleveland Heights, OH
Flora, Illinois
Avon, OH
Clinton, CT
Fort Wayne, IN
Azusa, CA
Colchester, CT
Franklin, CT
Baldwin Park, CA
Colton, CA
Franklin, KY
Barrington, IL
Columbia Heights, MN
Fremont, CA
Bartlett, IL
Commerce, CA
Fullerton, CA
Bellbrook, OH
Concord, CA
Galena, IL
Bellflower, CA
Cornwall, CT
Garden Grove, CA
Berkeley, CA
Corona, CA
Gardena, CA
Beverly Hills, CA
Culver City, CA
Germantown, OH
Big Bear Lake, CA
Cypress, CA
Glen Ellyn, IL
Big Cypress Resv., FL
Darien, CT
Glendale Heights, IL
Birmingham, AL
Darien, IL
Glendale, CA
Bloomingdale, IL
Davis, CA
Glenwood, IL
Blount County, TN
Decatur, AL
Goshen, CT
Bolingbrook, IL
Deep River, CT
Granby, CT
Bozrah, CT
Deerfield Beach, FL
Greenville, IL
Branford, CT
Denver, CO
Greenwich, CT
Brentwood, CA
Diamond Bar, CA
Griffith, IN
Brighton Resv., FL
Downers Grove, IL
Guilford, CT
Bronxville, NY
Duarte, CA
Haddam, CT
Buena Park, CA
Dublin, CA
Half Moon Bay, CA
Buffalo Grove, IL
Dubuque, IA
Hanover Park, IL
Burr Ridge, IL
DuPage County, IL
Hartland, CT
Butte County, CA
Durango, CO
Hermosa Beach, CA
Calabasas, CA
Durham,.CT
Hesperia, CA
Calimesa, CA
Dyer, IN
Hidden Hills, CA
Canandaigua, NY
E. Haven, CT
Highland Park, IL
Canton, MN
Eagan, MN
Highland, CA
Capitola, CA
East Granby, CT
Highland, IN
Carol Stream, IL
East Windsor, CT
Hillsborough, CA
Carson, CA
Eastchester, NY
Hinsdale, IL
Cedar Lake, IN
Easton, CT
Hobart, IL
Centerville, OH
EI Monte, CA
Hoffman Estates, IL
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Hollywood, FL
Homewood, AL
Homewood, IL
Huntington Beach, CA
Immokale Resv., FL
Indian Wells, CA
Irvine, CA
Itasca, IL
Kettering, OH
Killingworth, CT
King Co., WA
La Canada Flintridge, CA
La Grange, IL
La Mesa, CA
La Puente, CA
La Quinta, CA
Lacy, WA
Laguna Beach, CA
Laguna Niguel, CA
Lake County, IL
Lake County, IN
Lake Station, IN
Lemont, IL
Lisbon, CT
Lisle, IL
Litchfield, CT
Live Oak, TX
Livermore, CA
Lombard, IL
Lompoc, CA
Lone Tree, CO
Longmont, CO
Long Beach, CA
Los Alamos, CA
Los Altos, CA
Los Angeles Co., CA
Los Angeles, CA
Louisville, CO
Loveland, CO
Lowell, IN
Lynchburg, VA
Madison, CT
Malibu, CA
Manhattan Beach, CA
Maryville, TN
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Mentor, OH
Merced, CA
Meriden, CT
Merrillville, IN
Miamisburg, OH
Middlebury; CT
Milpitas, CA
Minooka, IL
Mission Viejo, CA
Modesto, CA
Monterey CO., CA
Moreno Valley, CA
Morris, CT
Mount Carmel, IL
Mount Orab, OH
Mount Prospect, IL
Mountain View, CA
Munster, IN
Naperville, IL
New Canaan, CT
New Martinsville, WV
New Orleans, LA
Newport Beach, CA
Newton Falls, OH
Niles, IL
No. Aurora, IL
No. Branford, CT
No. Haven, CT
Norfolk, VA
North Aurora, IL
Norwalk, CT
Norwich, CT
Oak Brook, IL
Oak Park, IL
Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Oakwood, OH
Ojai, CA
Old Saybrook, CT
Olean, New York
Olympia, WA
Opelika, AL
Orange CO., CA
Orange, CA
Oxnard, CA
Paducah, KY
Palm Springs, CA
Paris, IL
Park Forest, IL
Pasadena, CA
Peoria County, IL
Philadelphia, PA
Piqua, OH
Placentia, CA
Plymouth, CT
Plymouth, MI
Port Townsend, WA
Portland, OR
Poway, CA
Preston, CT
Prospect, CT
Redding, CT
Redondo Beach, CA
Rialto, CA
Richmond, CA
Riverside, CA
Rochester, MN
Rolling Hills Estates, CA
Rolling Meadows, IL
Roselle, IL
Roseville, MN
Salem, IL
San Antonio, TX
San Bernardino, CA
San Bernardino Co., CA
San Clemente, CA
San Diego County, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Juan Capistrano, CA
San Luis Obispo Co., CA
San Luis Obispo, CA
San Marcos, CA
San Rafael, CA
Santa Ana, CA
Santa Barbara Co., CA
Santa Clara, CA
Santa Clarita, CA
Santa Cruz Co., CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Maria, CA
Santa Monica, CA
Schaumburg, IL
Schererville, IN
Seattle, WA
Simi Valley, CA
Sistersville, WV
Solon, OH
Somers, CT
Southington, CT
Spokane, WA
Sprague, CT
Springboro, OH
St. Charles, IL
St. John, IN
St. Louis, MO
Stafford, CT
Stamford, CT
Sterling Heights, MI
Suffield, CT
Sugar Grove, IL
Sunnyvale, CA
Sutter Co., CA
Temecula, CA
Thomaston. CT
KramerArm Inc.
Thousand Oaks, CA
Thurston County, WA
Tipp City, OH
Torrance, CA
Torrington, CT
Troy, OH
Tuckahoe, NY
Tucson, AZ
Tumwater, WA
Tustin, CA
Union, CT
Ventura County, CA
Victoria, TX
Villa Park, CA
Villa Park, IL
Virginia Beach, VA
Wallingford, CT
Walnut Creek, CA
Walnut, CA
Warren, CT
Warrenville, IL
Waterbury, CT
Waterford, MI
Watertown, CT
Wayne, IL
West Allis, WI
West Carrollton, OH
West Chicago, IL
West Covina, CA
West Frankfort, IL
West Hollywood, CA
West Milton, OH
West Palm Beach, FL
Westbrook, CT
Westmont, IL
Weston, CT
Westport, CT
Wheaton, IL
White Plains, NY
Willowbrook, IL
Wilmette, IL
Wilton, CT
Windsor Locks, CT
Winfield, IL
Wolcott, CT
Wood Dale, IL
Woodridge, IL
Yorba Linda, CA
Litigation Where Jonathan Kramer Served as a
Testifying or Non -Testifying Expert or as a Trial Consultant
(Wireless Communications)
NextG Networks v. City of Huntington Beach
Newpath Networks v. City of Irvine
Armstrong/McEachron v. Cazcom
MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco
Bay Area Cellular v. City and County of San Francisco
Sprint v. City of Palos Verdes Estates
Sprint v. City of La Canada Flintridge
AT&T Wireless v. City of San Diego
Sprint v. City of Palos Verdes Estates
Nextel v. City of San Diego
AT&T Wireless v. City of Carlsbad
Omnipoint v. Garden City, Michigan
GTE Mobilenet v. City and County of San Francisco
Illinois RSA 3 v. Peoria County
(Wired Communications)
Adelphia Cable v. City of Thousand Oaks
Malencon v. Cox Communications
Schaff Dev. Group v. S.E. Fla. Cable, Inc., dba Adelphia Cable
Qwest v. City of Berkeley
Playboy Enterprises v. United States
Jones Intercable v. City of Chula Vista
Sierra East Television v. Westar Cable
Booth American v. United States
D.B. Cable v. Kalma Busk
Selected Lectures - Universities Colleges School Districts
USC Annenberg School of Communications
University of Alabama
Pepperdine University
Orange Coast College
Rancho Santiago College
Centralia School District
Oxnard Union School District
Selected Relevant Lectures- Legal Industrv, and Professional Organizations
Format:
Speaking Engagement Name
Conference
Year
Wireless Siting Update (MCLE Lecture)
SCAN NATOA
2009
Telecommunications Law Update (MCLE Lecture)
City Attorneys Association of San Diego County
2004
Current Issues in Cell Tower Leases (MCLE Lecture)
Lerman Education Services
2009
Telecom 101: What Every Practioner Should Know (MCLE Lecture)
State Bar of California Section Education Institute
2009
Kramer.Firm Inc. -
Wireless Telecom Siting: Legal and Practical Considerations
"Tower Siting: Getting to Win/Win for Localities and for Carriers"
2008
Wireless Telecommunications Law Update: Current Issues in Cell Tower
Regulation (MCLE Lecture)
Lorman Education Services
2008
"Surfin' Telecommunication Choices: A New World, A New Direction"
SCAN NATOA Annual Conference
2008
"I'm From the Government (Planning Department) and I'm Here to Help You"
ARRL Southwest Division Conference
2007
Right of Way Furniture
SCAN NATOA Annual Conference
2007
Wild Wired (and Wireless) West (MCLE Lecture)
State Bar of California Annual Conference
2007
Wireless telecommunications planning
APA National Conference
2006
Wireless and Wired Telecommunications Law Update (MCLE Lecture)
League of California Cities City Attorneys Section Conference
2006
Wireless Case Mock Hearing
PCIA Annual Conference
2006
Wireless Siting 101
Association of Environmental Professionals - Orange County Chapter
2005
A Sea Change in Wireless Siting
California APA Conference
2005
Kranner.Firm Inc. -
Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update
Florida Cable and Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop
2005
Wireless Siting Planning: A Government Perspective
APA - Regional Planning Conference
2004
Telecommunications Law Update (MCLE Lecture)
City Attorneys Association of San Diego County
2004
Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update
Florida Cable and Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop
2004
Cable TV and Wireless Regulation and Law Update
Florida Cable and Telecommunications Law Local Government Workshop
2003
How to Get A Wireless Tower Siting Permit Application Denied!
IRWA Chapter I Conference
2003
Maximizing Wireless Resources
NATOA Annual Conference
2003
Right of Way Considerations for Local Governments (MCLE Lecture)
Law Seminars International - Early Stage Due Diligence Technology
Considerations
2002
Hiding Cell Phone Sites In Plain Sight
Now you see'um... now you don't
NATOA 2001 Annual Conference
2001
Wireless Siting: Policy Issues and Practical Solutions - A Municipal View
(MCLE Lecture)
Law Seminars International - The Third Annual Conference on Local
Telecommunications Infrastructure
2001
Kramer.Firm Inc.
Page 1 of 1
Sarjit Dhaliwal
From: Joan Ripple [purrycomo@jps.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 200911:34 AM
To: Sarjit Dhaliwal
Subject: FW: For your attorney
Dear Dr. Dhaliwal:
Would you please forward the following citation to the San Rafael city attorney for review on the Ecology House
Windward Way issue?
The following has come to my attention:
Section 601(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states:
> "601(c) FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW-
* (1) NO IMPLIED EFFECT- This Act and the amendments made by this Act
> shall not be construed to modify, impair, or supersede Federal, State,
> or local law unless expressly so provided in such Act or amendments."
> I have been informed that this means that the City has to comply with the
Americans with
> Disabilities Act, even if that means paying attention to health.
The Windward Way site will put electromagnetic fields onto the power grid and into
Ecology House electrical system destroying the purpose for which Ecology House was
built - for a people with a specific disability, a class of which 50% of the
residents will be further disabled by electrical hypersensitivity.
EXHIBIT 7
5/12/2009
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
City Attorney's Office
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 20, 2009
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney
Lisa A. Goldfien, Deputy City Attorney II
RE: Federal Preemption of City Regulation of Personal Wireless Systems Facilities
During the Planning Commission's consideration of the Verizon Wireless antenna
application on January 13, 2009, members of the public objected to approval of the application on
the ground that the facility's Radio Frequency (RF) emissions would adversely affect the health of
persons with environmental and chemical sensitivities residing at nearby Ecology House. Since the
meeting, we have reviewed the scope of the City's ability to regulate Personal Wireless Services
(PWS) facilities on the basis of impacts of RF emissions to determine whether the City may deny
Verizon's application on the basis of these alleged health effects.
Federal law has generally preempted local regulation of PWS facilities. While local
agencies retain limited authority to regulate the "placement, construction, and modification" of
PWS facilities (47 U.S.Code §332(c)(7)), local agencies are expressly prohibited from regulating
PWS facilities "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communication Commission's] regulations
concerning such emissions." 47 U.S.Code §332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
It has been suggested that the "health effects" of radio frequency emissions are distinct from
the "environmental effects" of such emissions, and that the City is therefore not prohibited from
regulating on the basis of such "health effects." Our research indicates that most courts consider the
two to be one and the same problem. For example, in a 2003 federal district court decision, the
Court stated as follows:
Significantly, the conference report on the [Telecommunications Act], adopted by
Congress, makes clear that local government may not indirectly base its decision to
deny an application to place a cell site upon concern over the environmental effects
of RF emissions (citing 47 U.S.Code §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). Given this legislative
history, the court concludes that concern over the decrease in property values may
EXHIBIT 8
Planning Commission
May 20, 2009
Page 2
not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is
based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions. Thus, direct or
indirect concerns over the health effects of RF emissions may not serve as
substantial evidence to support the denial of an application. Accordingly, when
public testimony in the record "is almost exclusively directed to health effects, there
must be substantial evidence of some legitimate reason for rejecting the applications
to avoid the conclusion that the denials were based on the impermissible health
effects ground. [Citations.]
While the city may undoubtedly hear residents' concerns over the health effects of
RF emissions, such concerns do not constitute a legitimate basis to deny an
application.
AT&T Wireless Services of California, LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159-1160
(S.D. California 2003). See also, Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 494
n.3 (2d Cir. 1999) [concluding that the term `environmental effects' includes `health concerns'].
A question also arose at the Planning Commission meeting about how the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) might impact the City's ability to act on the Verizon application if there are
allegations of adverse impacts on persons protected under the ADA. We do not see the
applicability of the ADA in this case. Generally, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability in the services, programs or activities of state and local governments, or in services,
facilities and accommodations provided by places of public accommodation, such as hotels,
restaurants and theaters. Neither a City -owned or sponsored facility nor a privately -owned place of
public accommodation are involved in the Verizon application.
In summary, it is our opinion that the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act
preclude the City from denying the Verizon application solely or substantially on the basis of
alleged health impacts from RF emissions where those emissions comply with applicable federal
standards, and that the ADA does not require the City to deny the application on the basis of such
impacts.
cc: Paul Jensen, Planning Manager
Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 26, 2009
ROLL
Commissioners Present: Chair Pick, Vice Chair Lang
Colin, Kirchmann, Sonnet, Wise
Commissioners Absent: Paul
Community Development: Paul Jensen, Planning Manager
Caron Parker, Associate Planner
Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner
Lisa Goldfien, Deputy City Attorney
UNAPPROVED
3. 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a
Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the
installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN:
009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MM2) District; Universal Portfolio
LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File No.:
AP08-007.
Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt
Commissioner Sonnet recused himselffrom the next agenda item in order to avoid the
appearance of a conflict.
PUBLIC HEARING
100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of a Zoning Administrator approval of a
Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the
installation of six panel antennas on an existing, PG&E lattice tower with
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN:
009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio
LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker, appellant; File No.:
AP08-007.
Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt
Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended that
the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and upholding
ATTACHMENT 6
SR -PC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
the ZA action conditionally approving the Use Permit (UP08-001) and Environmental
and Design Review Permit (ED08-002) for the new wireless communication facility.
Lisa Goldfien, Deputy City Attorney, provided the Commission with a memo as part of
their packet and explained that she reviewed the scope of the City's ability to regulate
cell towers based on the RF effects. The Federal Telecommunications Act itself prohibits
the City from regulating based on the environmental impacts of the RF emissions, if they
comply with the FCC regulations, which they do in this case. In conclusion, the City
cannot deny this application based of health effects of the RF emission since that would
be unlawful regulations of environmental effects that is precluded by the
Telecommunications Act. She also reviewed the impact on the Americans with
Disabilities Act, which is not applicable in the City's ability to act on the proposed
project.
Clarence Chavis, Verizon Wireless representative, noted that Consultant Hammett is
present to address health concerns and Verizon RF Engineer is present to answer
questions as well. Per the last meeting it was continued in order to provide a revised
alterative analysis to what was submitted and a great identification of the coverage
objective or search ring and to provide coverage maps to provide the area of coverage
Verizon is concerned with. The area of coverage is as follows: the northern most point
along Canal just south of Pickelweed Park; east of Spinnaker Point Drive out to the Bay;
south along Vista Del Mar; and west on Kerner Boulevard. It is all residential area inside
the search ring with the exception of the elementary school. They did additional searchers
and identified two possible locations, which are PG&E towers. However, they are
between the school on the east side and in between the apartment complex. One has trees
and the other has accessibility issues, and does not address any distance requirements the
current residents are speaking of now. They also looked at areas outside of the search
ring, but it is currently in a marsh area and there are equipment and environmental issues,
so that was ruled out. They received from the City 37 additional sites of co -location
opportunities within the City of San Rafael. Of those sites four sites Verizon is currently
on so that brings the total down to 33. Out of 33, there were 17 that are west of Highway
101. Anything west of Highway 101 will not meet any coverage requirements for the
search ring in question. That brings it down to 16 and out of 16, ten are too far north,
meaning north of Pickelweed Park, which will not provide coverage. Out of six, four are
too far south, further south than the proposal they currently have now that would not
provide adequate coverage. Now at two, out of those one is too far west and too low and
the last is the PG&E tower south of the proposal that Metro PCS is located on and there is
no additional ground space for their tower. They tried to work with the landlord, but they
were not interested. This leaves Verizon with the current site in front of the Commission
today. An independent consultant reviewed the site and area, and provided options; either
the option represented today or build a new monopole in the area. Additional conditions
were provided to their proposal, which Verizon agreed and had no objection. They have
heard and understood neighborhood concerns. This particular site is 422 feet away from
Ecology House. That is an entire football field in between the tower and houses plus
additional room. They worked with residents during design review and staff review. They
agreed to relocate the temporary generator pad away from the residences. They agreed to
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
use environmental friendly paint to screen the antennas and equipment to match the
towers. They agreed to notify residents 30 days before construction. All those conditions
are included with the rest of the conditions of approval. Also, no information was
provided from Ecology House in regard to power ratings or usage of microwave ovens,
cell phones, and cordless phones within the units themselves. They were asked to turn the
power off, but they cannot turn off the power because coverage would not be provided.
There were questions in regard to the emergency generator, which will be used in case of
an emergency with noise levels at 63 decibels. 60 decibels is considered a conversation
between 2 people; 70 decibels is a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet away; and 90 decibels is a
lawnmower. Being there are no residential uses on this area whatsoever, it should not
create a noise impact in the event the emergency generator is used. The ZA and staff have
agreed to approve this project. He asked that the appeal be overturned and that the
Commission approve the project. In the likelihood of an appeal, they will be prepared for
City Council.
Bill Hammett, consultant, agreed with Deputy City Attorney Goldfien's summation of
the prevailing preemption by the act of congress on the consideration of health effects.
The key is that the Commission is preempted so long as it meets the federal standards.
There is no question that in this case this facility will comply with the federal standard by
factors of hundreds of times. That is the threshold showing easily made in this case with
this height and distance from any facilities.
Chair Pick opened the public hearing on this item.
Ivaldo Lenci, Summers Avenue resident, expressed concern for the many health effects
he has from these telecommunication facilities and asked the Commission to sincerely
consider this application and vote in good conscious.
Barbara Wientques, Woodacre resident, is electro magnetically sensitive. She explained
that an antenna near an electrical wire carry electricity. The electrical wire acts as a
conduit, as an antenna, and takes those radio frequencies into the businesses and homes
adjacent or quite far from that facility. This is called "electro smog" or "dirty
electricity. " Capacitors can be purchased to mitigate, but at times it is very difficult if not
impossible to do so, which she found in her search for a home. The Commission must
know that whether the letter of the law in the Telecommunications Act says
environmental or means something else, do they really think the men and women and
framers of this law and President Clinton were deciding in 1996 that there would never
be shown in the science health effects from wireless technologies. The technology and
science have changed. The proliferation has become unprecedented and applications of
wireless at the time were never anticipated. Do they except that the wireless facilities
have been given a free pass on any possible health effects ever being discovered? Did the
US government really intend that "at risk" population should be put at risk for those that
claim environmental effects cannot be considered? Does this mean that welfare cannot be
considered? She asked the Commission to consider what is being proposed and those that
will suffer. These people have nowhere to go and they must care for their most "at risk"
population. She asked the Commission to vote in their conscious because RE levels in the
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
H
atmosphere are constantly increasing. She further believed there is a better location than
just 422 feet away from Ecology House.
Marty Brenneis, San Rafael resident, supported the cell tower. His coverage at his home
and office is terrible and desired better service. He supported a new cell tower to support
health and wellness campus as well as the film studio that relies heavily on the use of
phones.
Roy Smith, San Rafael resident/former manager of Ecology House, noted that Ecology
House went through extreme measures to be constructed in regard to EMF sensitivities.
In terms of the generator, there is an issue of fumes as well as noise sensitivity. He
understands the legal issue of the Telecommunications Act, but believes there is a
conflict between that Act and the Americans Disability Act. ADA applies to public
facilities and housing and Ecology House is technically federally owned housing. It has
been maintained through federal funding and owned by HUD. ADA law concerns
barriers to access and there has been some ADA recognition of EMF's as a barrier to
access. Therefore allowing the tower in the proposed location would represent a de facto
barrier to access for the residents and guests with environmental illnesses. In regard to the
Use Permit on Exhibit No. 2 under Finding No. 2 that statement is incorrect because it
will be grievously injurious to both the health and safety of residents. Some will move
out and have no place else to go and will suffer physical harm and the loss of safety,
security and stability that have been carefully built at Ecology House. It operates on a
tight budget and Ecology House can fail financial if too many residents move out.
Telecommunications serve a greater common good and part of that common good would
not be served. The general intent of FCC applies and the ADA law applies. This is a
unique situation and not an ordinary cell tower. There is only one place like Ecology
House in the State, if not the world. It is good public policy and it has put San Rafael and
Marin County on the map and it would be a shame to spoil that effort.
Sara Reilly, Nutritionist/Fairfax resident, has electro hypersensitivity and cell towers
have impacted her life greatly. There is voluminous scientific evidence that these
frequencies have the potential to harm biological systems even within the FCC
regulations. The FCC regulations are old science, not based on current technology. 3% of
the population is hypersensitive. Connecticut and Colorado declared May the official
"Electro Magnetic Sensitivity" month. Portland City Council just established a nationally
recognized resolution, so they are taking a stand against the FCC recognizing it is
outdated science. Internationally they are taking a stand as well: France, Belgium,
Germany, Russia, Sweden, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, England and Canada. The
Commission has a moral and legal obligation. San Rafael and Marin County should be at
the forefront of correcting the potential injustice done to these people. Marin County is
the most forward thinking County and asked that Marin take a stand against an outdated
federal act that threatens the welfare of disabled citizens in the only housing structure of
its kind in the country built for their unique disability needs. This issue magnifies the
urgency of FCC to re-evaluate the Telecommunications Act in 1996. If the tower is
approved, innocent and disabled citizens will be pushed from their homes.
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
Connie Barker, appellant/VP of Ecology House/President of Environmental Health
Network, discussed the executive summary and stated that neither the legal opinion that
was rendered nor the consultant that was brought in is the source for that statement. There
is no information to speak to that situation which was the basis of the appeal. The
character of this neighborhood is that for 15 years now it has been the place in the
country and if that is no longer provided the character of the neighborhood would change.
The cell towers and antennas must not be located in a way to impact the public or change
the character of the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to review the letters
submitted about health effects and those regularly attending events at Ecology House.
Most residents of Ecology House do not have microwave ovens and there are numerous
rules to protect residents. If due to the legal situation the City cannot do other than what
staff recommends, they understand, but they would respectfully ask the Commission to
carefully consider whether that is a good idea.
David Winches, Woodacre resident, quoted a past president, "a nation is judged by how
it treats its most vulnerable citizens. " Ecology House are the most vulnerable citizens.
His wife has lived most of her life with chemical sensitivities. He has been afflicted
tragically with it in the last 5 years and it has not been fun. Due to their financial situation
they have found a means to live away from cell towers and to properly mitigate the
negative effects. He understands the suffering of those at Ecology House and for most
this is their last refuge. There is a growing body of evidence that EMF can compromise
health in children and those immune compromised. He asked if there is such a need for
further convenience that they can potentially destroy the integrity of Ecology House. He
asked Verizon to find another site. Convenience is not justification to hurt San Rafael's
most vulnerable citizens.
Steven Scott, magnetic field consultant, was an original adviser that counseled the
architect and electrical contractor on building Ecology House with the lowest possible
magnetic field effects. He has advised Ecology House on various points over the years.
He is a Verizon customer, but this antenna is too close to Ecology House. His company,
EMF Services, provided a before and after RF survey for the City of Berkeley in
connection with a series of cellular towers for Sprint. Due to the urgency of this situation
with Ecology House, they have volunteered to do a workup at Ecology House to see what
might change with the antennas. He strongly encouraged that they be placed as far away
as possible. It is about compassion, not expedience. The humane consideration and the
placemat of people over profit is what matters.
Gayle Thearel, San Rafael resident/Coordinator for Health Council, supported Ecology
House. This is not an ideal location for a cell tower and other areas must be considered.
She has lived in the Canal area for 6 years and understands where the power lines run and
placing extra burdens on Ecology House is not appropriate. This is the last refuge for
these residents and that must be carefully considered by the Commission.
Joan Ripple, Health & Disability Researcher/Secretary & Treasurer of the Council on
Wireless Technology Impacts, noted that she is a former staff person for the California
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the rights of the disabled. Since the last review of the
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
Windward Way tower siting the Commission have been provided with an additional
option by the consultant in regard to page 4 under item 2 as follows: "The second
alternative is for Verizon to construct its own freestanding monopole tower that would be
approximately 75 to 80 feet above ground level adjacent to the proposed location, or just
to the north of the search ring near Pickelweed Park. " This placement would be
preferable to the Windward Way site, as she understands it would not be on a utility
electric pole. Research shows that placing communication panel antenna on a utility
electric pole generates high frequency currents on the wiring system. This placement of
six Verizon panel antennas so close to Ecology House will charge the internal wiring of
Ecology House with high frequency dirty electricity. Further, the issue is not merely
these six proposed Verizon panel antenna, but the fact that the law prohibits the
Commission from denying other providers the right to place additional antenna on the
same tower compounding exponentially the harm that can be done. In addition, research
shows that this dirty electricity has negative health impacts, which in this case, impacts a
protected disabled population — a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990. This additional exposure of high frequency electromagnetic radiation to this
vulnerable population essentially renders Ecology House unsafe for the purpose it was
built with federal tax dollars. It is the only facility of its kind in the United States. The
Americans Disability Act of 1990 and California State laws guarantee people with
disabilities reasonable accommodations for access to public facilities, housing, education,
employment and transportation. Further the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from
Section 601 (c) (1) states, "Federal, State and Local Law — (1) No Implied Effect — This
Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be construed to modify, impair, or
superseded Federal, State or local law unless expressly so provided in such Act or
amendments. " It is her understanding that the residents of Ecology House, persons with
disabilities, are a protected population under the ADA, and that therefore, Section 704 of
the Telecommunications Act does not apply in this case, as it would modify, impair or
supersede the ADA which grants reasonable accommodations for housing. In 2000 the
California Department of Health issued a reporting showing that 50% of persons with
chemical sensitivities also have developed electrical hypersensitivity, another disability.
She is sure that neither Verizon, PG&E, the Commission, nor the City Council would
want to be party to increasing the disability of those already disabled when there is an
alternate choice. Therefore, she recommends that the Commission select Pickelweed Park
site for the antenna, where it will not deteriorate the purpose of Ecology House
apartments and the subsequently the health of a very vulnerable population, not to
mention the waste of millions of taxpayers dollars that have gone into this special
housing project.
Louise Yost, Ecology House resident, explained that she is the events coordinator at
Ecology House and hosts support groups for those with electro sensitivity and without
Ecology House they would not have a safe place to meet. Many people from throughout
the Bay Area attend their events. It is a very important service provided by Ecology
House. She encouraged the Commission to support the spirit and purpose of ADA and
move the cell tower at least one block away, which will provide enough space for safety
for residents and those attending Ecology House events.
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
7
Christy Sloan, San Rafael resident, is chemically sensitive and opposed any and all cell
towers. She further asked the Commission to carefully consider the location of this cell
tower.
Commissioner Kirchmann asked Mr. Chavis if the equipment could be located on the
currently proposed site and put the antennas on the tower that currently houses Metro
PCS. Mr. Chavis noted that it would require running 400 feet of underground coax cable,
which would be a terrible loss of signal. Verizon RF Engineer explained that there is
approximately 400 feet between the two towers. They must transmit frequency from
antennas and to further lengthen the cable would cause more signal loss. 400 feet is an
extremely long distance and the power would be next to nothing. He further noted that it
is practically impossible to use 400 feet of cable. Commissioner Kirchmann asked if there
is any other location within a radius close enough to make that run from the equipment to
the antennas and the tower. Mr. Chavis explained that additional distance would provide
a loss of signal. There is no other area except under the footprint of the tower.
Commissioner Kirchmann discussed the coverage map of existing sites of the City and
asked staff if 2175 East Francisco Boulevard is a Verizon site. Planning Manager Jensen
agreed to pull the file and investigate.
Commissioner Kirchmann clarified that it is not feasible to get coverage desired from any
location north of the Canal even up on the hillside. Verizon RF Engineer responded in the
affirmative. Water from RF is like mirror to light and it will reflect RF and go into the
Bay causing interference with other sites. It would bleed over to other cells if to high.
Commissioner Colin reviewed the January staff report and coverage was never discussed
and clarified that there is coverage now, but this is about providing stronger coverage.
Verizon RF Engineer responded that coverage is defined as if a call can be made.
Technically, there is enough coverage to make a call, but as adjacent to the water there is
too much signal from across the Bay and it is difficult to make a call. If there are several
sites coming at one location it is hard to make a call. There must be one strong signal or
two, but not many. They do not have one strong server where mobile can latch on and
make a call, so there are several drop calls in the area.
Commissioner Wise referred to the analysis done by the City's hired engineer and asked
if the 1.9 square mile radius could be 1.7 square miles to allow placing antennas at other
alternative sites and still make it worthwhile economically to install these antennas. She
noted that 1.9 square miles is towards the larger range. Mr. Chavis explain that whether at
1.9 or 1.7 square miles this is the design area that Verizon needs particular coverage.
They are trying to cover a particular area with one particular site. Based on the analysis
reviewed, this is the best location for coverage.
Commissioner Kirchmann asked if a monopole at Pickelweed Park would serve the
objectives. Mr. Chavis noted that another location would require another study and
review with property owners. The current site is least impacting as opposed to a site at
Pickelweed Park. They are over 400 feet from existing residents and they are across from
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
industrial and commercial areas. They feel the current location is the best location.
Development of a new monopole, especially in a residential area, is not looked upon
favorably in the City code.
Commissioner Wise desired an explanation on "dirty electricity. " Consultant Hammett
explained that the concept does not hold. The allegation is that radio energy moves down
PG&E lines and into residents using PG&E power. That is an open transmission line. RF
lines are coaxial. They have a single cooper wire down the middle surrounded by another
cooper wire and the voltage between those transmits energy. It is a closed system. For RF
energy to transmit down an open transmission line is highly inefficient. If will not work
and not a viable complaint about a system like this. There are cellular antennas located all
over the place and it is not a reported problem.
Chair Pick asked for an explanation of how one would characterize EMF coming from
PG&E towers and transmission wires versus this EMF resulting from cell phone.
Consultant Hammett explained that there is a dramatic difference in frequency. The
frequency and energy carried down the PG&E lines is 60 htz. A waive length at 60 htz is
about 5000 kilometers. A waive length of RF is on the order of feet. The interaction with
human body is entirely different and the standards set for RF are distinct for standards for
ELF or extremely low frequency. Also, shielding from magnetic fields is considered the
near field effect when in an area of extremely low frequencies, so they are very different.
Commissioner Kirchmann asked if it is feasible to shield from higher frequencies.
Consultant Hammett responded that it is feasible to shield, but not normally done.
Intensity follows the line of site and a room without windows will have poor service.
Commissioner Kirchmann understands that they have preemption issues that would
prevent the Commission as a matter of federal law denying an application that otherwise
satisfies criteria due to health effects, but asked staff if they can minimize the adverse
effects to reduce adverse health effects. Deputy City Attorney Goldfren believed it is
possible, but the main issue is whether it provides the scope of service that they are trying
to obtain and whether that is the only way that it can be obtained. Commissioner
Kirchmann stated to the extent that powering up the proposed facility would increase the
exposure to Ecology House, could they provide additional shielding to that receptor.
Deputy City Attorney Goldfien did not know what type of shielding that might be and
whether that is feasible.
Planning Manager Jensen pulled the City's inventory of antennas gathered by the City
consultant several years ago and 2175 Francisco near the Richmond San Rafael Bridge
has two servers using that antenna: Verizon and Sprint.
Chair Pick desired an explanation as to the analysis on the monopole. Planning Manager
Jensen responded that the consultant was asked to not only analyze the alternative sites
proposed, but also to provide ideas of other options. Like the proposed site, the
Pickelweed Park property is considered the less preferable site for selection of antenna
location so it would go through the same process. It would require site alternatives
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
9
analysis. The one difference is the fact that what is proposed is truly a co -location versus
a monopole, which is less preferable because it is a single new tower facility and it is
encouraged to co -locate.
Commissioner Colin discussed General Plan Policy NH -2 and the staff concluded that it
is not inconsistent, but in her view it is not just physical character. Associate Planner
Dhaliwal explained that it is not only the physical character, but it does not make any
changes to the character of the neighborhood. They are precluded to consider health
effects, so it will not change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Colin
stated in reality it does change the character of the neighborhoods regardless. In her view,
it comes to interpretation of what they are trying to do with the General Plan and trying to
maintain neighborhoods. Ecology House is very distinct and unique to Marin County and
unique to the nation.
Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff if they have any information on the difference of
impact on Ecology House of the proposed facility as opposed to the alternative monopole
at Pickelweed Park proposed by the consultant. Planning Manager Jensen did not have
that information.
There being no further public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public hearing
and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action.
Commissioner Colin stated that the purview of the Commission is to implement the
General Plan and land use issues. It does not meet General Plan Policy NH -2 and it does
not maintain the residential character of the neighborhood.
Planning Manager Jensen stated that this site is zoned residential with the exception to
the north is pretty much light industrial office. This site happens to be zoned residential,
but is mostly surrounded by non-residential zoning districts.
Commissioner Kirchmann stated that they try to balance competing policies. At the
federal level, congress enacted the Telecommunications Act and they wanted to promote
this technology. Back at a local level, they have a number of General Plan policies and
some policies are satisfied and some are in conflict. They must weigh competing policies
and in this case, they are balancing interests of residents who desired improved coverage
against interests of others concerned about potential health impacts. If they accept a
proposition, there is a General Plan policy that speaks to embracing the technology and
they would prefer to see enhanced coverage and in this particular neighborhood they do
not find any good sites that do not have impacts on some residential structure. He
suggested that those lobby their representatives in Washington in regard to health effects.
The City Council cannot dictate to Washington what the result would be. His sense is that
the applicant has satisfied the criteria that exist in the City regulations and balancing all
competing factors, he would be hard pressed to uphold the appeal and turn back the
application.
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
10
Commissioner Wise discussed Policy NH -2 and asked staff what are the character
defining features of that neighborhood and are they being changed from this proposal.
Planning Manager Jensen responded that this site is the only property on Windward Way
residentially zone. Most properties are industrial. There is a larger commercial structure,
light industrial office and east of the property is marshland: The character of the
neighborhood is a mixture. There are facilities in this neighborhood that include antennas,
so collectively that is the character.
Commissioner Lang noted that the focus is on change in terms of Commissioner Colin's
concerns and this is a transmission corridor that forms part of the character of the
neighborhood. As far as magnetic frequencies, a cell phone call can be made now. The
status quo is that these frequencies are already present. If the tower is installed, cell
phone calls will still be made just with a stronger connection.
Commissioner Wise believed Commissioner Colin felt that the particular land use of
Ecology House is a very unique use to that neighborhood and if that use is no longer able
to exist that fundamentally changes the character of that neighborhood since that use is so
integral. It is a question of whether Ecology House defines that neighborhood.
Commissioner Lang noted that right now cell phone calls can be made. If this application
moves forward the call could be made with a better signal. Commissioner Kirchmann
noted that intensity of the radiation would be greater. Commissioner Lang asked if they
meant to capture that level of change, and if so, how will they measure it and what kind
of standard will be set. The level of intensity will increase, but what is the actual change
that results; it is a health change.
Commissioner Colin stated that the General Plan talks about active partnerships among
residents and felt there is a disconnect. Commissioner Lang does not understand how
more bars or a better signal will change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner
Colin believed it changes the unique identity.
Commissioner Mrchmann suggested that the community explain to City Council that the
unique needs of this community are such that no cell towers should be installed within a
certain radius as well as certain chemicals. They could plan to push outwards.
Planning Manager Jensen noted that the policy has always focused on the physical
character. In reviewing Loch Lomond, it all went back to physical change and physical
characteristics. To interrupt in a more broad way then changes might need to be made to
that policy. Commissioner Colin believed this is a unique project and unique issue.
Commissioner Wise appreciated staff's clarification and as much as it pains her, the letter
of the law is clear and Deputy City Attorney Goldfien's advise is clear. She thanked all
for making comments on this appeal, but she is in a position to deny the appeal.
Chair Pick agreed it is a troubling issue to consider when their hands are tied by the
federal mandate. The Commission is not in a position to strike out and start a revolution.
Chair Pick asked for a motion
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
11
Commissioner Lang moved and Commissioner Kirchmann seconded, to deny the
appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval of the Use Permit and Environmental
and Design Review permit for the installation of six (6) panel antennas at the
existing PG&E tower.
Commissioner Colin will vote against the motion due to General Plan Policy NH -2.
Motion carried 4-1-2. Colin opposed. Sonnet/Paul absent.
AYES: Commissioners: Lang, Kirchmann, Chair Pick, Wise
NOES: Commissioners: Colin
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Sonnet, Paul
SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 5/26/09
STUDY OF RF LEVELS AT THE ECOLOGY HOUSE TO BE DISTRIBUTED
TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN A SEPARATE PACKAGE PRIOR TO THE
HEARING
ATTACHMENT 7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL
✓ 7i You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project:
PROJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator
approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E
lattice tower with associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium Density Residential (MR2)
District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant; Connie Barker and Louise Yost, appellants; File No.; AP09-003.
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends that this project will not have a significant
effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 (New
Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of less than 10,000 square feet, if the project
is located in an area that is served by all available public utilities and in an area that is not environmentally sensitive). If the City Council determines that this project
is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required.
MEETING DATE/TIMEILOCATION: Monday, July 20, 2009, 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also
come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at
http://www. cityofsanrafael.org/Government/City_Clerk/City_Council_Redevelopment_Agency_Agendas. htm.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or
deny the application.
IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box
151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting.
:.
t t'e above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising
6i film lose issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing
QG65ernment Code Section 65009 (b) (2)).
1adiidr91 review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be I led with the Court not later than the 90" day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6) -
..
S+gn, Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices maybe requested by catling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of
gocuments are available in accessible formats upon request.
P.uhli9 transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964.
Ta211ow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project:
PROJECT: 100 Block of Windward Way — Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal and
uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review
Permit to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas on an existing PG&E lattice tower with
associated equipment cabinets located in a shed at the base of the tower; APN: 009-330-01; Medium
Density Residential (MR2) District; Universal Portfolio LTD, owner; Verizon Wireless, applicant;
Connie Barker and Louise Yost, appellants; File No.: APO -003.
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. It has been determined
that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts
additions to existing private structures that result in an increase of less than 10,000 square feet, if the project is
located in an area that is served by all available public utilities and in an area that is not environmentally
sensitive)
HEARING DATE: Monday, July 20, 2009 at 8:00 P.M.
LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street
San Rafael, California
WHAT WILL You can comment on the proposed project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and
HAPPEN: decide whether to approve the appeal or deny the appeal and approve the project application.
IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Office of the City Clerk, Room 209, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560,
ATTEND: San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting.
FOR MORE Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner at (415) 485-3397 or
INFORMATION: sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in
City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30
AM to 5:00 PM, weekdays.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Esther C. Beime
Esther C. Beime
CITY CLERK
At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at,
or prior to, the above referenced public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)).
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90°i day following the date of the Council's
decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6)
Sign language interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours
in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request.
Public transportation to City [fall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 20 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (41
454-0964.
To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from
wearing. scented products.
Please publish in the Marin Independent Journal on Saturday, July 4, 2009
000==00 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V O
W moi' V V V W V V d' d' d' d' d' V V V V d' d' -�t d' V
� rn rn o) rn rn o) rn rn w rn rn rn o rn o) rn 0) rn rn o) rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn D) o) rn
a V V
N O O
w
h
WW W W W W W W j } J
Q �_ �_ Q Q Q Q Q a) Z Q Q a m Q m m m � a a 6) m 4 w Q
LL J J W W Q Q w W g W vm- w W LL 2� 2� LL w w f2� W w w 3 m 4 4 LL
Q Q p p m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
} (n (� Z Z LY Cr a J
Z Z Z C Z C C Z Z C C C C Z C C C C C C C C C C C c c C J Z
U) to co (n (/) O O
Q Q m Q m m Q Q mm m m Q m m m m m m m m m m m m m m- Q
U
D
W
K 0_ Wry U)
* }}��H Fw- a Qp Q=mY �Z<OLL2 o OM�op
U)<<UU W W J it:J zit W Y�O_Yk7��kItItIk*kik�k�k it it tit J
�ppm�ZZ ac "O�oo a-o�p o�LU �-0����-o������m
J m O 0 (Do m m m W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n W
a'a'��I-I- Z
p OOa a m m W Z 4) (D z v) Q) a) (D Q) a`) a`) a`) a) a)` � � a) a) � m � � �� Z
�QzzLLLLWW r�EWEE�rEEEEvE�EE��EEEEiEEEOa
W p Q Q 0 0 [Y af 0 0 Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
oma~)(~naa0000m °0000m0000m0000000000000020
O N W L� n W I� r r t` r r W W W W (o W 00 O
p *� W W 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q s W W p p (D (D IL 0_ M M M M M m M M co M (0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r M
W W
Cc
G W
WW
00 c Q
a� a) U) °a
o W
zzLQ -h ¢ )<Qa C) N a 5
w Z Z a a N g Q O- o m w
O Q Q Q Q Z m Z H L O Q Q Y- a m u o a
}o o _Q E �QZ ~ c.fZ o m o o 'C -c= m '� O
0w co b)QQ`yr (ry—W c ELLQ O c cr m mi) mmG (n p d
J W U) J J Z Z (�A O a O O J J N O Z a) p C Q N W C' co 0 _m W Z
W}}w W UU7� ��OU�Lu aw ami W c mL �p cp o D-Ow2
LL W W w W = w w LL ° W Z m m� E o m 'c 17L cum Z
uj
wa�aa`dQazz �w W om E(D ° a) (D EZo N� c oiivjw
QQQQQQYYQQ Opp a°)ipZ m 3K' s> co Y~- o ,EU
Z U) U C) U) 0 Un Un 2E2 U) Z coZ(p m co C) 0- co l-h->�m2d K(n(n(n �:2
W N V t0 N M V 'V N N N M CD W 000 W M W W W M W W M O O M M m m m m O
p r N N M M 0 0 0 0 0 (y
i i r r i i i r r r i i r i i i i r i r r i r r r r r i i i r i
U W d) W W W CI> O) O O (T O) O) O O (fl m O m m O Cn m O) C11 C11 W O) O) O) B O O d) CA (A O)
d
r OJ M m µ)
Cn W a) O O O d) W O) O W W t O W O O D O D O d) O D) O O d) d) Q) d) W d) O M CA d)
CA
aa¢Qaaa¢aaa¢a¢a¢a¢as¢a¢aaaa¢aaaaaa¢aa
UUUUUUUUUUc.�000UUUUUUUUUUUUVUUUUUUUU�U
W www I}- U ¢W W w
� a)
mmm LL m m m LL LL LL m m U m Q m m m m m m m m m LL LL m LL m m m m m m m m
v- �'-�-w 4" Z v-LLCC 4-� 7v-4-� 'Eu V -.v -
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J m m m m m m m m m
mmmQmmmQQQmQmmmmmmmmmWQZQmQmmmmmmmm
cncncncn<nu�<nuicncnu�cncnu�cncncncncncncncn<nrnacnu�cncncnu�<n<nu�u>cncn
p
U p LU
W p Q p a a Z -o p J
�t xk k JYk JQQmmmm mmmmmmm � UIt�� U#amu
aa�m �a�m o 0Q o -0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mU)-0m-a'n-o -a -a
> > > > > > Z Z 00' m U_ 0 M > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > > > > > > > >
W W¢a' u)mm��.N`�NN�'r�=m�mmmmmmmm
U U m e LL' c c c c c c c c 0) W I- W
C C C C C C Z Z (` (6 (6 N C C (` (6 (6 (` l6 N (6 V 0 z o 0 o C 0 0 0 C
a`) a) a�w a) a) m W g�LLLLQLLX m m W LL LL LL LL LL LL X W O a�W
Y Y Y Y Y Y s' Y O O W W W p Y Y W W WWW W W O Y LL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
O O O N N (0 m L0 p p M U l m 4) 10 M M M M co co co CO 10 O (O LC) N N m Lo U) N N LL)
N N N d' <Y d' r r (D�- W> r a. MM O O M M M Co Co M M O M O 0) 0) 0) W 0) O 0) 0) 0) 0)
O O O M M M M M (O aJ r r LL r r r r r 0 OM 0 OM M O OM M MO 0M M MO OM M O
r> �- r r d M M
N
m
O
C
O F m
p a J W O N G 06 E- C
N W a � m U J LL W O
o06 o 0 W m m 0 0 ro O Z a o
s N Kxf y> Q Et CD 0- OZ� c~'LL c a
~ W o m�S= (D W a) Cl `m > 0 LL o `0 0
co _j
w OUQp� 2OmJFW cU a)d on
'n a) Cf) 0CL -- 0 m o dUr
0 v= c E W W a Z 0 Z D o m c E 0- J W W_ �, E
y 0- C U O O N -- N U` O C W E O) p a) �, a) ._ O C a Z CO Co W G A C C
o yZU»�K� 0 LL LL 0 0U otn o m m-� m and mmZOmZ.rn 0 0aj
u, o g m¢ a U' U c c Z m Q= in 0 o E) c w K oti Q n 0 a U m y c o
0 c 0>-'5.m �ZZ mE U-) 0 E >w(D m mU:: m 5)p
E� 'O W 0 a - p (`v m a o g `m m m o `m Z U W `m Q M H o m aa)) o E U
n(n>��0_�� �2mow2 2m(nmmo2:2 :2232i3:m2Fam000W
0 ON 0 d' V (O O O M M M d' V V0 (0 (0 O 0 0 0 (0 r W N N N N N N N
N N N O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M co Cl) M co co
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
r N N W Lo D M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O M O O V O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co
d) O O W W D) O O O O) O d) O f a1 CA W O m D) D) O Q) O d1 W W D) O) D1 d) D) O d) W d) O
O O D) O m W 0) O O m O O O W d) O O W O D) Cn O) O)
d
U U U U U U U U U U U U Q U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
W. __ W W W W W
W
'(62
W ��Xzv�-O � M�dZw W 0 N M W 42 N¢LL¢ LLLLLLLQLL
Q WX cu HO_QYQfw 0dQ �a ' �a'a'KKK
z C C C C C C C Z C C LU T Z) C>C C G C C C C Z C C G C C Z C C C Z Z Z
OZ
2 2 2 2
ry
LU w w �
'j d'JzXQf -i m (O D_ m
a. co dd
Oak k �*Xt Ohm W sk F} ItF � f F
To m m m m m m� m I- V J> Lo m m m 7) m _> w m m m m m w m m W W¢
w w c O)o m tt m a m � F
z w o o `m m o o z a`) C m rn} U an d a� a� an d a� to
� E E E E E E E� E d N d E <n E E E E Y E E a E E E E E a a)° a)° °' Q
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y LL W X X a: E LU U` o R o o O o o 0 O o Y 0,1:
O=
O OU a� v Y Y a� Y Q Y p Y Y Y Y Y p Y m Y 0 0
LO (n��u�(n�����mmomU)mLOMm(O-gym U UUF-
O O O) m 0 0) W O) 0 O N O O M N N O (O (O O V 't V dt dt V dt dt
O O O O O m O O M o 0') a a 0 (b N V N N 00 N O N W o N N N N N o N N N o o
r r r� r M M r M r M r U M M (") M o) U M M co U U W
N
(6
W �
Q L Q ¢ 0
F a) U -6 c W of 06
W "30 o N W J Of
J C U) o C o 0
C N U O O .N N w (D0 C) N LO 4J
p c o Q'� Q c~� W cm w oUS(v CL mn `mom wa.c o °� O��
a o cY 5 caWUU) c a Z0 coQ cQ QL o w
Z O N ((D o LL Q 2 z ¢ (D z m m Li N E c w} F 0 o_ } N¢ H}} W
¢ o m m p` xt o� Q E m w�-� 2� N ¢� o m w o o o a, E Lij W w Y
O i U o E c.N O c m>= O W a c> E w N-� Q E `o o O Q s Q Q Lo
Q m ._ f6 W o '- a� Q o o z m O as m e t a) > w a3 � c w o .m o w w r
2� vJF D iq>>Q==mJaad(n>}_¢¢¢UU2Z _=M
N N N N N N N M M M (0 O r- m (O O of w W W of W 00 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (0
N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N M W M M m m m W m 0 0 m m 0 m M M 0 0 m M m m M
i i i i r r i r r r i r r i i i i r r r
O O 0O WO WO OO OO) O OO) W O) W @ 0 O) O m OO) @ 0i i0 .0 . iOrO i
000000000O0 00 0000000000000o o
0oooooooooo0Ooo000000000000i
O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O N O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 (MD O O O O O O O O V N O O
O O O W W m OJ O d) 0) m O O O 01 (D D) O O O O d) O) LD D) O O O O O O W Ln W O
It IT
U O D U O O O U O D U O D U O O O U O O U O O O O O D U U U O U O D U U O
J tJ
W I j W W J J J J J J
_--___ ¢ W W W Q O w W
a a Q m m Q W a m —0 0 a m 0 a 0 a K a m¢ <<>z<<
2 12 42 � (�4 (�6 v�-Q l�6 v�-LL� � � @ W w R �w� �«c6-Qm c�6 m l�E I�6 LL LL LL �LL LL
(6 N (6 (6 @ N W (6 (6 (6 f6 (6 N (6 0 Z (6 Z t4 N �' LL
KKK �K�2Q�K a Kofz_� ly0'of0'12 W W WLUfid' �-
m m m Q m m m m O m m Q m m m> m Q m m m m m m LLImLU
� (co m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
0
K
0 _ Y '0
-o0� W 2 w
>mmmm mm m
Ofmmmm 0
�-��m 0 0 0 0Q0 0 0 0Ln <-a J 0 0 0 0�az�a��-0>>>Or>-j
_ J-1 4k CO
mmm W'U'U U UK'U'Lon }mm UW 00w U -Lo U'Umm0UmUmmmmm>'Qm�
c c m m m m Z m (a 0 c c m W Q m m m (a c � Q c a c c g Q Q Z Q
N N 0 W LLLLll li a'LL LL U N a) NQLL Ii LLIi a) I W Z�Z J J J< aJ W
Y Y Y Y W W W w a W W Q Y Y W 00 Y W W W W Y Y a 0 Y O Y Y W W W Q W Y
Ln m LD LD l!') 0 U) —' o LD r N M M M O O i� m p m p p m m m � J m O
I- t` N LO O 0 0 0 0 O r LO W m r M O N N N N N V V n O t` Ln t` 0 M tD N
M M CO M r r r LN M M -,T�' N N O O O O7 p M
r M M O M M M N N N r N M
G
a)
C
M
a a
m Q J J 06
05 a�
W W
�° °6 v YW
z z Qr '6 IL
C
o co
a.� a 3 zw w Y
cQ -' t m c -0 Z2c)U J Z(IfO
coi 0 z O- m Q CD 0 F p
2 U)
> a0 a0 CL C3) 'c Lon— O N d (n c) ZQZQ E wotSw
a0i �a > aQ N �K E c� W w o JQa�a� m OaQ}vaf
F- p W Z o 0�Za0QQ c c(7 �S c E 0 C-0 7�0 Co -0 m �°tSU�QFwZLU
F-
m Ew 0 rnmOJ ���� �� m~>.Q as D-w� 0-� a -W �zW LL wU)OD
m a z a¢ .c c O o F- L O F z 0 N U (n 0 O 0 O c Q a =Www �
>.z E a���� O w -m o��U) E c mo cF-Z cZ c TOQQ2aZ0
c m W 0 CU Ln Q m = Co a) .= J 0 0 m Y 0 a`) Y O " 0 a� o 2= U O w C9
F _=O0J2a�¢(DY2� ¢mcDa>LLY(nmYmYaJaa0c9=Z
(D 0 n r O m OW 0 m N N N N N M M M 0 Ln N N O (D O I-- I'- W M W N M V' W (0 t`
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M (h M C? M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O) 0 0) O O) W d) O) W O) D) O) 0 0) O) d) O) d) OJ D) O d) W O W Q) O) OJ OJ Q) O) O W O) O) W
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Z U U U U
v
J J J J J J J J W J J J J J J J J J w J J J L J J J J} J J} J
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Q W W W OW W W W W Y W W W W
¢LLLLQZLLLLLLLLLLLLQ�LLLLQLLLLLLQLLLLLLLL�LLLLQLLQ ZZLL�QLLQLLLLJoQLLQLL-1LL
Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z Z W Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z o > m Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z ZZ Z Z
QnQoaaa0aaaaaU)az=aanzaanauniau0U)cnUiviniU):(f) iiuua00:Euu2w
rn
rn
W J
W Q W K w' W' d' W W W' K m
>� >aaaQ>oaQ Z ZZZ
J Z �' J J J J Z Z �p Z Z J Z
CO Z> m J J J J m J J Q Q Q Q Q J U J F' I- J J m J D
WJmwoncow(DOorn(O��_��_�_rnFQ-UHUQ�F-)FQ-W la -U` I- w00 W
wU C z<<Q Q,QQ Q NCif
a(na>a. >Q > d
W< N W (i (n (n (n W U U U x U U U (n U U O J W J Q O J (6 J Y W Q U o (n
Y QY Y----�'---0
N J V' N>>>> N>>> m m U W U Q -� LL N U N Wo > > Co >
N d' N V O N d' (D N O N V' d' N O 00 (O V l0 - J N O N ( I�
(M') V CO M N N N N M ll� N N d .�- cam- O O O O Lo o = O M of (O (O M N U 0 0 't O LO
= I d N 0 N=� W e � = M, (O , N N d N
O
Q Q
06 H
_ Q w
06
OW > Zp a a ��WQ
� z
a
W LLJ QS �2}F-°t%=ZZK C� LLJ 0)w .6 F- ~ W Z~
xs060W-Uc� aWOWWpzzCl Z)¢wcDgnwg� _ _� aW gaoZ
OZawY nU2U` �Z OCO
� X= QO =UOus� cw z oQ
z CO J W W z� m w m q� } o o 0� W H z w O z w LU �¢= d Imo- O W 0 W W
O� C o >a_> - W O Q J F- 7 I.0 (n Z) J (n Z) -J O 2 S 5 cC m. Z _
ZJ> a- >E W J d Q M U� OY Z oU U F O m af O 2 U S(/JJJ F- -j LU OS 0 J(nQU
OOO NNNNNNMMMMMMM MMMqV 17 IT V UJ u?L9N Ln NOT (O(O OO
r
N N N N C'7 V V C'C'C' V C' 1' V V V V d'd' V V NNN NNNNNNNNNNNN
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
D) D1 d) W W W d) 01 01 m 01 d) 01 W 01 01 d) d) 0) 01 W W d) 01 D) Q) m 01 01 6) D) 01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W co M = I Ln = n W O M <y N N Ln M M M = W
O O O C, It V O OOOOO N O d' O M OO ct 00000 V d' OOOOOO O
O 01 O W W W O m W O W W m O O W O W O O /T m O m to 0 0 /A 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
IT V V V V V V
lT m m� W O m O W m T O O W 6J W m m O O m W O O O OJ OJ 01 OJ 01 m m m O O m O
a¢a¢¢¢a¢¢a¢aQ¢Q¢QQ¢Qaa¢¢¢a¢¢¢aQaQQ¢aa
UUVUc..>UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUc>UUc>UU
J J J J} J J J J J J O J J J J J J J J J} J J J J J J J J
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W U W W W W W W W W W W W W U W
LLLLLLQLLLLQOLLLLLQQLLLL QLLQLLaLLL¢LLLQOLLQdLLLLQLLLL0LLL LLLLQLLQLLLLLLJLLLLQOLLLLLLQLLLLQLLaU- LLa
2'KKR'>Q�K�KKKFW-KQK�KT~��KK�2'>K~�K�KK��K
¢ ¢
Z Z Z Z j> Z Z Z Z Z Z K Z> Z� Z Z> Z Z Z Z Z Z -jj Z> Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
(n UJ n n�OZCnnu�°U n°Z ng n n°Z n ncn n n �5�wzzcnw(ncnww(0w
K
LU w ❑
KK K � Lli
KKcoKK KjK KK ZO >- <�KK�❑K K
¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ a ¢ ¢ Q ¢ R F ❑ ❑ a ¢ U K ¢ Q
ww wUw�wwZww�wKw°ww�w0mom ❑W�Z-j-1w❑�� -i
❑❑ K❑ Q Z00<0000 0 ❑ ❑❑ Q x 2 2 m O m Q Ow 0 0 w w 0 w Q
¢a❑awLu Jg¢¢ a¢n¢ ¢ aa��Oa�g��r°K¢¢wRa¢¢
��¢�o¢o��g��o���>DL/)z:=ow>wpLUaQLLu)(~_n¢Q nu)
>>
N > HU a>> rn>> M> > 2>> Q L KM fjo Cif 0 w>w>
MO W �OOOm rn>
O n 0 0 n M LCOOMnLOMnOn (O � M Ln W OLn
NN N n NrRr n M LO MLr) MCl) (O(OO VnN n
rr
M N m N N N R (O R N M dt V r r IT n v
06
K
F-
`3' 06 K
w 0 U a ? o($
xsxsw QOCwCa¢ x wpm F� o
a zZ KU Z06 K -i~ wZ W Q �xSZ
06 F- L W a❑ R Z a a W 0 x O K K K K a¢ � W Z K z Q U W g= z
>5Q W°¢wOt(n W UOZSW ~Jww r)>K 06 QKJQO W WZ❑❑ZfQ-w xZ Op U2
~ a Q Z� W �=I-Z��U W O WO°pW 2F -W K aZKZMYx Y � W
WZ�Z W OQp?�ZW LLQ Wp zZ��QCO QZZ>YY QZiQ wza W WZW UQ7IZ--
>- M J❑Z�Z�xJ2Z>p¢Z¢ZF=�ZWZR'�QUZDDN¢WKK
(7 > > Z W O K.g Q} D K a N (7 x¢ O K x Q x F- Z¢
Z x J❑ Q❑ K (an ❑ J U (f) ❑ U Y:2 C) J (7 F- R J x m>�3 Z 02 2 F- R Z F- w D 2
NM7N W n W OOn NM V 0Wn W 00 N Mt 0 W n W 0 N Md' LJLJn W W w W W rn T W T W co W rn rn rn rn rn rn p(� T 9 9 9 0 9999
vvvv�tvvvvvvvvZtvv vt TvvIvvvvvvvvLn-Ln0—L0 ninLn
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
V
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
U LU
J U) J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 0 J J J } J J J J J} J} J
W U W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
LLZ ILL LLLL LL LL LL LLL LL LL ILL LL LLL U ILL LL LL LL LLL 2 LL LL LL�J LL LL LL LL LLLLLJ U LLJ �LL
EL
¢¢QQ¢¢Q¢¢Q¢Q¢QOQQQQQOQQQw�=1Q¢¢Q¢=1o¢;� mQ
u�c�cgc�[qcq(�cnu�(�v�v�cncgZu�u�cgv�c4U(�u�tna(nu�u7cntn�7rncn�n�n
>
D �
0
m OQ
} } } } } } } W K K (if Z
W W W W W W W 0 0 00 0 O Y O Q Q ¢¢¢ F O 0
K K K > > > > > > Z > 2 2 22 2 U > > > 3:0 m > O} >
0 F 0 0 0 0 WO ui
OW m 2i 2 2F m m m m m Q m¢ m W N W p �y W W W F z m Q m O U m d' mLLJ O
¢ m
Q m Q Q¢ Q Q¢ Q Q ¢ a❑ 0 0 Op 0 0 0 w J 2 w 2i O m
} W }} }}}}} J J J J J J L Q} L O Q Q Z Q O E
JZ-1JJJ�J W W W W W W m W ��� W ���D W W 0 W FQOU W ��
a- OC) aaaaammmmmm co m>>>�QmmmU) nm mm
m m I- M N f` M m I� O r m m O V O N V M 2 m O> O m m M m m 1l_
O r- p O 00 W W V N N N O N 0 m l,- m m
N
U_
J
¢ Q05 -j Lij
t�
�w LLJ xtxs �06� x J °� E
¢ x xs w
Ca_j W LL Lr K0L w w Q } w �a�� v
oW�WOmz00 xED z~ ���}�aW�mQ06
ZCwN =z
LLJ¢ Q O D U O W Q Z) U 2 m w 2 W Z O= Q Wm Q g W W J z 0? Q OZ j = x0
0 U)wUC-Zcrwwz¢w<Ez<ZF-DO< W 0- �}�0aww�Z 0CO
z��Q 0QwZofFft?wzFZwzz��xzmQOU0Wwwzozza¢
� Q CO U �� Z LL J U K O� Z x Q 0 0 0 x 1 0 J Y jo<D_Z LLJWco Z W K J O m Z
OW W MLLmi->UmU OUQ�UxJd ZZ000Z(gJ����(��m�UU W d
O O � N m o I� M N M V m o 1- W O O N M V m o I- W O O N M V m o r M W O
O -- c- c-- m m m If) Ln Ln T 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 (O 9 T I� t;
m to m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N try m to In m m m m m m m LO m m M m to m m m
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
OOO) OOO0) 00000 W OO) OO OOO OOW OOOOOO W OO) O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
LO M W M t` m d' dt r . r r W N Lf) to m N
OOO W OOOOO.O M(OOOOO LO000000 OOOOOOLOIOOMMM O
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn+ rn rn
W Ln
m rn rn rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn+ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
d' V It V d' "Y V V V' V V V 't 't V' V' W V V
rn rn rn rn rn O rn rn O rn rn rn rn O rn rn O rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
rn �
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
v
J J J J J J J J J J W J J J J) J J J J J
W WOW W W W W W W W ¢ W W W W W U W W W W¢¢ a a L W
N LL QLL JLQLL LL LL LLL Z LLLLL m LLLL Lq¢L LLLL �� LLLL LLLLLLLLL NZZL Lq¢L LQ¢L LQQL qLL �� ����LL
wLL LL � LC. LL LL LL J LL � QKE LL LL LL W J LL LL LC LL LL O LL O LL I.L L LL Q Q L Q Q
c 0 Q a a a a 0 0 0 a O Q Q L Q DfW Q Q Q L Q c a a m m Q L Q Q W W c 6 W W W a
cn�cncn�cncncno��d�<n�(7a�<n<n�cncncncncn�cncn�aa<naLLn.cn
-j WLLI > >
U)
� W �_ �af w r !n (n (n N m
-O J J J J d' 0 Z U J J F J J -O W W W W
>mm W W W WAN n'w W W �LL. W W (q Wm
m g Z W l- mp O mp cOOc°)o rn rn rn❑
E�JO}}QZZmvwaQQQZQQZQQEhccv vv3'00'00
Q Q 0PPP�-QrrLU �z Qaa a
N W W W g g = o o �_ K J g J J W� 0 Y Y OO m O m O O c 0 0 0
ED m m (� d d Q d M m m o>>>> O LL D- a LL CO m: O O m m m m m m m m m m
LOO 0) (O co� M< O m o o V N O O Lo W t- t- O O d' r O
Nmm LOOOmtoo (Od'd'LONNO* * * 000000*
Cl)M M Md' coLLn. LO V It V Lf)c-rrrc-MM(OMMLL + aa�n.aLL:
rr
>0
U
J �
00 000
m
- o LL Z
w a g z J w z00 00 000
Q O J J J
J a oef Kta waaS�� < WW
F0000.20000
w 6p LL LL C LL LL LL
OOQ ZSmF-tJQ~t-jQ 06D W O}Q F W W L W ��
vOWZW<v.mom0F�>-ZZc��a,QUx wv��wwQwadOaaaW
Z o Q ZWZOO a p W w E m O Q z w o w O K m Q
mQmwg�oww¢¢Wwooai�=a�wooz??Q¢-QazzLL
mzzzQ
Y Z¢= m m 2 O.. m U LL Y3: Q 2 a m U m o 2 m LL m m m 2 W O O D D O 7 D n 0
O O N M It LO W n W M O N Md' W (O t` W O) N N (O t` n t- W O .-- N M M 1` N O
� W W 00 W W W W W W W� d) d) m 0) O) W O)O)� � 000000 Or r 0000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO Ln LO 10 N Ct m N W N m N N N N m N N W W W W W W W W W W M M M M M M M
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M co
d) d) d) 0) d) CY) d
d) d) d) d) d) d) d) 0) d) ) D
000000000000000 1 d) d) d) d) C6 d) m d) 6 d) d) d) d) m d) d) m O)
C6 d)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O Lo r O) N N n n M In O O O O O O O O O) O O) W O) O) r
[Y O V V d' O
O O W W O) W D) O O O W O) O) O) O O d) O O) 0) O O O) O) 0 0) O) 0 0) O) O) O) W D) d) W O)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU_UUUUUQUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
J W W W W W W W W
< < W UJ Elf a�WaW¢W¢ >a
mZ:):DLma000
0��0m0m0m ��0m0mm @�m0m
000�000
Jm00am��co
M (0ww mQ¢¢ m m m<<<00<O mF i H IE ml 1- m1-1-000 (0 000
U) U) d 0_ CO U) 0 J U) U) U) (7 (n U) z z U Z 0 0 0 w 0 w w w w w 0 Z z Z w z z z 0
no
W C11 (N C\l C\lN.N-
F-
CL 000U) Q
Q LU »>�»>
4k>>W it zv9ww W W JMS J z MMMOmmm UO
m m m m z� > 2 Q (D m� � Q Q Q� Q Q Q
a'ornrnm W W Ommm 1--�ZZhZE f1.1 m UUU C -0d65
m m `m Z Z 2-�-� m N O O m 0 � r. � t� r K K X��
M ca W— o.rr 0rrr Orr W W w owW W d
3 3 C W cc
a' h c c i N N W lY lY ` N 4 ` N 0 i Lo M
-
oaXX a) W W a) (D Q)UU))XXaa0a a)XXX a)XXX QXX222 �22� a)
G G 0 0 Y Y Y a Y Y Y� 0 O W 2 Y 0 0 0 Y O O 0 `Y O O O O O Y O O O Y
m m o 0 0 2 0 0 0 m m in u� rn o m m m o m m m o m m U UU o U U U o
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N O
0))rnaa mmm �MMP")�dd=�N� 000O00000U
v M a a a M a a a M a a M Cl)
00 c
J J a E
00 C Q
D:3 JUa a) aa00LL LL <J
>-
F -l- UJB c a) 0' 0 06 O -i Z .6 X0606
JQ•K--ate Qin 0606 JJ W O Kofw of Kof
J 0 0 0 a z E 2 w W W K w 2 h h h ~~ h(0 h h U U U 000
mad'ESUO o 0 0���00 h U)W(0 rnm°�U) EU)U)000 000
rn
0,2JJ N()�F-O<-<aa— UZ C W W c U)U)U) U)U)U)
C-UU))(i m��� ° c o� ncn�� W 000 �aa0 E00aaa aaa
�0 aE T00l Ou) v) 0000
(n W W O Z S W E (9 m W q�Q--— o Y Y Y Y Y Y W Y Y W W W U W W W
J E C' ~(�RZZ WZ UUU NUUU (pUU
CL
`»._— na azzz n zzz o
U Z Z `m a z o om a N N 0 0 0 0 0 g g—o _5- g Q a- W W W 2 W W W U
(7YDD��2OU- 2���mmmmii00U)UwU)0a00YYYUYYY2
0 0 0 r N N M V w LO to N M r M O) O r r N M V M M CO I- M M W O N M M V U0 I�
r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N
0 0 m 0 w 0 m m 0 Z 0 0 M m w m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m
M M M M N 0 m m m N m m m m U) m In N In U) l0 m l0 m W N try N m N N N m N N N l0
M M M M co M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
d) 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O) 0 0 0 m 0 0 m CA (0 0 0 0 CA m m Cn m O) O m O) O O CA O) O 6) m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O m CP O O � 01 CA m 0 W O O OJ O O O O O CA O O W lT 61 W W O 01 O) LT CA O CP 01 O O
aQQaaQ¢QaaQQQ¢QaQ¢QaQ¢¢¢aaaaQaQ¢Q¢QQQ
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
0
2J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
J W W W W w w w w w w w w W w W w w w W w W w W W W W W
o (1) QLLQ NLQQQL LLL QLLQ w LLL LL LLL QLLQ LL LLLLa LL¢ LLQ LLL LLLL¢ LL LL LL LL¢ LLL LL �LLLL ZL¢L QLLQ LL¢LL¢LL
oma¢m¢m¢ama¢aa¢¢¢¢m¢c�aaaaaa¢ma¢maaa¢a
N
J J J J
-O Co 'O ca -O m 'O m
jm 0�m0�m coF-I-I-F wQ?Q I- W
O Ooz OZ a) I-I-I-C)'o} UZUUUUUUU L J mZ001-Q
` (p ` Of L U U U U U Q f- F W Z Z Z Z C J
(7 a)X W mw mZZ �ZZZZZ�zZ �O�OOOOZZZU�< u H W WUH
Y Y O Y Y Y Y UJ W m W W W W W W w R 2 it U` W W W W�� of 0— L m Q U U > LL
—
Qom00Oo0o W WFFHHF-E-0LU W N W W 222SW W W m W UUU>>QLL
O O FI-�N Dorn LO It 22 Dov o�2222o vvmLQ o
M M M M V W N LA M N N @ Ln M N N N Ln W O� O
W Q
W
m }
Q a o
S LL LL '6
a
��a J Z �z C z
ma� F W Z Uln (n a� W Co
0 o�� oavwz 06 i < <� Qtg� 2z �- zwzw
Inco W JZ odZ '� F- w ASF Cl) E oW-
3 wQ� LJQ zi?zo, Z owl- t$5; -}�� 00 �FSJUO
w E S> � Y } �- a Q C a J J U' o Z Q w a Q W K � (D o U) I- C' - 0
oOi�o �z ��� aNiC�Qcn wzQ OQK<a�LED �QF- `mQQ Www<mm<
Z V Z W =O U O J .0 w w 2 w N= Q 2 m- < ()f w w !] J Z a. F- 5? Z 6 U U�
D �SZ ami W p=Z 0i 0 W OQ W:,E in ��U` � W WO L2 y0 i%K W ��O
LOUw O��
(6(n C �i-Q—J JQ-JJ H N=Z W =� Z0'N J.N a.z ` W d w 2 d
W'>O Zo Oi
W V V d' V V V
W V
aaa¢aa¢aa¢a>aa¢a¢aaaaaaa¢aaa¢aa¢aa¢aa
UUUUUUUUUUc>z�UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU�UUUUUUU
J J J J J J J J Y J J J J ~ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
wwwww Z)Ww w0wwWwJwrj� www wWWWww wwwww<<
LLLLLLLLLLLL SLLLL¢LLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLS wLLLLL NLLLLLLLLLLLLL NLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
999���099 z�����Yeu)>
z z Z Z Z Ctl� z Z z z w z z Z z Z w'(n J Z Z C Z Z Z Z Z Z C Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
(n(n(n(i(n(1) J(n(n O(n00 w 0 w 0 J W'm w0 w w w 0 0 0 0 w w w 0 0 0 w0
_ O cr- C'4 CO V `
U)I-
>waawan.
0 Ja¢aa¢¢
¢ Q a¢ aaaa� 0000000
cc > , > > > U » » »
> >>> U J J J J J J
m m o o
i -
f-LLw wI-h l-rn F -I -W F-wz �w�www W mw Fa aUaLL¢LL
UUJJZ O`M ZZ(n�NZZ S ZS W v02U mUUUU=a (pZZZZZZZ
W WIL—< �cOaa�r'NaaFaF�I..rFI_yF----LLS Fu LL <<aa
00c cai} °aa9:00 a�Q�o00�0 90000°TOMO`caic<<<
>> a m m m m m m m m O m 0 n m m O o 0 0 0 0 o w
L L v v m m O* m c O O m m m no ro O O m r r m O M r` w o LO (O LD LO LO M O LO
(ONNNI�I�wrrrnwdMMMeI'(O _raar�rrrrNN0 W MNMMMMMM
LL
} j
L {
LL €
w
W Z
z
Baa ¢ �xsa06 Q xs� ¢Z
06 LU a m��o� FaoC� �� z� z z
ZOf
0_ QY� m _� 00 Q Z J m m a O _� J a S �_ O
Sa Z c w> (nZ W C�¢w Lt��ZKOOmO €
w w Y W a� F W 2 a¢¢ Zp > 12 W I- a Z¢ W m 2
f F 2 (n N Z w LL > m G U LL Z (6 U C C C G C C
Hz �n aOWmYQ00Za=wLauaz ¢OLW a- onaaQaa
�Oa� o K W D� ¢LOO - w 02w�0� 3: ::i 0 0 0 0 0 f
COD (n�Y>J �-JKJ2�-�0-j �(nCl)n- M W 000000 I
N M 7 LO CO CO W W O N (O 0 O O N M 'V LO CO W O N M CO r M N N M M M M M M
r r r r r r N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M V �' �' ch V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i r r i i i i i i i i i
N CV (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N
co CO O m (O CO CO O O (O (O (O (O O co O (O (O (O O O O CO CO CO CO (O co O r r n n
M M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn+ rn
W V V
rn rn� rn rn� rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn� rn� rn rn
V
asaaa¢aa¢aaaQa¢aaa¢¢¢aa¢aaaa¢¢a¢¢aa¢¢
UUc..�UUUUUUUc.>000UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
O
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J_i J J J J J J W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J W W W W W W
aaaaaas¢aaaaa¢¢a¢¢aaQQQQQac-)¢¢W¢¢Qaa¢g
LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL L- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL @ LL LL (n LL LL LL LL LL LL Co
zZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzczzzzzzzzzw
<<<<<<<<<.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<cn<<<<<<<<<D�
(n O1� co O O N M V (n O r W 0 ` f
F- F- F- F- E- F- F- F-
a-F-
n.aaLLaLLaaaLLLLaLLn.aaaaLLLLLLLL
aaaa¢a¢a¢¢aaaaa¢¢aa¢¢¢a } f
p p p O p p p p p p p O p p p p p O p p p w 00 C p O a
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J a J J J J J w Q
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmF�� pppmmmmmW�
aa¢¢aQaa¢Qaa¢¢a¢a¢¢aQa¢(QQ FFW¢a¢a¢20
z z z z z z z Z z z Z Z z Z z Z z z z z Z z z Z I -F- - Z Z LL Z Z Z Z Z U Q
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J- Z Z J J J J J F-
la -IQ -la -fa -F Fa-Fa-¢fa-HFa-Fa-IQ-Fa-Ia-HFa-FQ-<H<<a-la-�OO p -p dd W fa -<a --Fa--la-�w
aa¢aaa¢¢a¢QaQaQ¢aaQaaa¢-aLL(Z>>W¢¢aaaOW
>.a ¢� U U U U U p m
(n In M 0 N N (!J LO LO (() O LO to M LO In t() (n M to LO Lo COLO � m m m m CJ 00 N (0 O' V N O
V' d' d' It d' V d' It d' V d' d' dt V d' It V d' It V V d' 'I N (O O O N N r V
M M co M M M M M M M M (Y) M M M CO M M M M M M M W V 00 W
U U
Z c 06
i06 U a
C) o 2 C«Sa
N 0� z�aC
O Q a a)� w > p U Z
a
-1 .2 zZw pW
��ZQ W ZF-Z aJJ
W zaO2J}Z::)(npo�Z?
C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C G C C— O O W (� Q O M W O
m m m m m m m m m m m m o m m m m o (a (o co m m a F- z .> Lu Z LL) > U) F Z p (�
Z= U O O Z U) W Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o LL Q xll--- 2 S D O Q W¢ Y
00000000000000000000000
cn W W Y g U m 2} z (7 J Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� r
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
n--- n-,--nr----comcomnnncococomCY)m`titiV)rcom
M M M M M M M M. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co co M M co co M
m (n 0) 0) O) m@ (n 01) @@ (n 0) O O) 0) O) co m m O) O) W m O d) m m 6 O O m& O O m O)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (00 O d' O O O O VO' O O O O N O o 0 0 0
d) O O W d) D) D) O O W D) O) W O) O) O) Q) W O O) W O) O) Q) d) O O m W O) O) d) W d) O) O O
a1 O) O) d) O O W O O W O O W m d) d) O) OJ O d1 OJ O O O) 0) O O) O) W O O) O W O) 0) O) O)
aaQa¢¢aQQ¢aaQaQ¢Qaaaa¢a¢QQQaa¢aaaQa¢a
O
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J -J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J WW W WW W W WWW W WW
¢a¢QQ¢Qaa�,Qa¢QaQa¢aw¢ QQQQ <Z<Za¢QaQ¢
LL LL LLLQ LL LLL LLL¢ LL QLLQLL �p LLLLQ QLLQ LL LLLLLL LLLL LLLQ U)¢0 LLQLLQ QLLQLL 0LLLLQ cu LL QLLaLL LL LLQLL LL
z Z z z z Z Z Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z z Z z Z Z Z> z z z Z> Z c Z c Z Z z Z Z z
Qa¢aaaa¢a m¢aaaaa¢¢a¢aO¢¢¢QO¢ m¢ m¢a¢aQQ
p
� y
¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ }Q } } } } } m } } p Q Q Q
a¢QQ>-a a
[if ofWof YZl>T�T�
OOOOOw w w w W p p p p p p p p W W- K O LL' a � J x x x
Z~~F-p`~~~'~>zZOO�=zxxxxK=�x�D>>UUO
��FFF„ZZzz �ZzzzaOO�� W UODUUUQa oU 0a-
0000-OOOOSF F-zz Z3:3:�LLxx---
00000LL>LL>LLra}r�iLLzz��m�Q����w� �3O�LL000
p p p p p a a¢ a m a a Q a LL z Z ::):D O U O O O O m 0 0 0 o f- LLLLO O O
O v m ,r o m m m m m m m m m o D D F- F- o p o p p p p u) p p p p LL o o h h LO
N N N 0 0 0 (O N W
J
06021 w °d a W CO lZ
w xs� aarca -6 z J� a a awa�z as ¢a
<<T- C z Wz06 o� z�C JUW i� (0 U)
U) 0-O)aOQ W Q
(� Oz(q x rnW WmOU F- J W Z W~Z W aa
x -a W¢ W x c Z W O 2 > a- Y N L O O m J
pKF-���ZULLI N�pzY U' Q W' p¢ aF-2Um�a cQ U(D(D x
Q W W �OZQ.F-_—J— �� U) W LL—J¢U�O J Q W' LL
>z(L xQ-v��pLLq�} Ov�Qzj �o w�a2(n op �wg- ¢
D�JU�I-'xcn nwW Q¢I-=O2a-� }pl-U, w c.�-QF-1-U (�
¢Q W- w w -1 3: OX(D yY cW _j U) wC) (a �LLzZO �Z
0(D 0 � JQ�E>ZN-jdazF- W U aW LLKZ(xjZq OZ ��ddz cu
a2
nWLL=x�xzQ mOxQJ> �Owp� o pxz�-DLC
Ja�OU¢Q¢x wn-QQJQ¢OD W DW o�w(nDD¢LLY W Naa¢ W U¢
O7i-K(gLLUF-UO(nYC7C7m(gpJ(if -j0w W 0U' Y(np>-1:2 2 0 m
M d' N M O O N M M d' N CO h N N M d' 0 (O (O h W r d' Uf w m 0 M N M M M d'
i
i `-
� N N N N N N N N N N O i O O O O O O O O r r r r r r N N 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r
N N N N N N N N Nr r N
h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h O) D) O) O)
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
d) O) O O) 01 O) a) m O) O) D) O) O d) W O) 01 W d) d) D) W W O) d) 01 O) 01 O W O) O) O) O) O) 0) 01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn�rn�rnrn�rn�rnrnrnrnrnrn�rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn
,It
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn� rn rn rn rn rn� rn rn� rn� rn rn rn rn rn rn
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
Q¢a¢aQQaQQa�QaQ�,Q¢Q¢¢aQQ¢Q�,QQ¢aQ¢000¢
LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL N LL LL LL N LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL2 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
Z Z z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z c Z Z Z c Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z G Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z
O D O 000000 w w 0 O 0 0
}}W W W W W W W W W 00 W W W W
�0W0, a��J¢J�JgaJ�g aJJ�gaJ���waa¢
W W
��rD Z
w K
SSF-EF-F-F-F--F-I->>>> >>>>
U U z Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z __ ZZ _
FO OOOOOO ZZZ ZZZZZZF-F-F-Z> ZZ__
Oc---c------ ZzZ---Z--0aa -ooa-OOOODUU
oo°0ma-m00 a00c-LL���
OOaQ¢Q¢a a.a���
oom—mmmmmmmmaaama¢¢¢aQrr}QcuaQ¢mmmm000
N V (O N 00 It M m m m m m m m m m m m Q Q Q m m m m mrnin rnu� 000
N N M� r r M N r Cl) M m m m N (O (O O O M N �- O I- LLo In
M M M N N �- O L V d' 'V LO In �- LO to M
(6
E
N
d
c6
p06 a5
a o F a
Qat J �>2 otS �O Q� aQ9�Z wOz in
��FW �aQ 7I= --O clot} a�Sotig LL' mC�Ld Q mK �}� SQ
z¢ W ww (D (Sj w 0 J Q W Q¢_ E Q W< p O W
05
DYLL ? J��ZZ mZO�¢ �OJZO d' �0�2 �Z z W W-�JD
E
z J o Of Z �j m j W w> Z U¢ LLI U c z W Q c
OWJF- -Z_JF- =-�Jr2F.. U` �WO�QC� p.W UWZZW o_¢ZWSLLWN Q
aZo��z0 ��w��LL' (moi 0 (nY� �m V=LLI W
O w o g o Q w 0 m¢ a o O¢Q a Y U S a 2 (o Q U W S J? 2 Q 2
��2YOLLF-200(822(02 �SNN2Q0 cA��U' 2w OKU U` (q 0d20
N O r W of O O r r N M V d' (n (O 0 c'- O O N N M <t In (O n M M O O d' (cJ (O (O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O 61 W 01 O O W m O O O O O W O W 01 0 0 0 W m W m 0 0 0 0 0 m m m 0 m O O
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
01 01 01 01 W 61 O1 m m W 01 01 01 Ol 01 m)060.)
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
t0 M W N O t0 N M W
O(O OO ll') 0000 OOO 000000 N 000000 OOO t0 aDm OOOO
m O m m
co Vm Vm m Vm Wt d
It
0) 0) 0) 0) m mm 0)0)0) mm 0) 0m) 0m) 7mm 0m) 0) 0m) 0m) OmV 0m) 0m) 0m) mVm 0m) mOV 0) 0m) 0m) 0m) mmV 0) 0) 0m) mmV 0m) 0m)
QaQa_QQa¢¢¢¢a¢aaa¢as¢aa¢¢a¢aaaaa¢aa¢a
UUc.�Uxc.>UUUUUUUUUUUUUODUUUUUUUUUUUUUODU
r_
U J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Y J J J
p LL LL LQL O a Q¢ Q a¢ a Q a¢ a a a¢¢ Z a¢ a¢ Q p a ¢ Q
(�6 Q (mob LL w LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Z LL LL LL LL N LL LL N LL LL LL LL LL cu
g 4C
cow¢a=acu¢cu¢¢a¢¢¢¢a¢¢ma¢¢am¢aMa¢wmm¢a¢m
wwu)u) �n�nA4gnn(n7nnFu�nnnnnv nnna n�nv�nn
I� M
O
¢ a m - O
¢Yk
m} LL d LL D D o D D
00 D O D w DDD D 00 O > -6-6
I-rwFI-I-(_n CO _ W > >
UU20 EO S(nOOv00¢000DO000�00-¢u)� N00"a m m
..=U..}�=�=YLL aLL a��-amaaxLLn.a�LLaan. naa o_� X X o ax c c
3 ¢ ¢ m ¢ m xp ¢ ¢ p ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q a ¢ Q ¢ ¢ m Q ¢ m LL o o ¢ Y LL m m
o�ooammmmcoM00MmmLLmmm mmmmmmmMI-L M LL co
O ice. m m I- M M O LO N (O d' d' 07 N LO LO O O) O p p (O W J O (n t0
m N m M N CO CO M O O Cl) O p M (O (O V (O (O I� (O CO CO (O O O N h. O I�
V t0 d').O M�-��rLL�rLL r� �-N W O)MM
N
U Z o 0
O 1 c
F o N m
U J m
06 U c D >1
a �Z a U) as °�-io �Z
r to EaEo—F 06 a CC ¢ ooE¢
J
N d J O E
Z a m F- z J m z 06 I- Y J Fx- w z � LL rn.� o Z
J= J O- N U Z
cu W Ix_-MMW co -7Q�wO<00d LmLJDO¢_� Q O y��> (60
J DDZ zYCOQxzx¢CD JU2F W ZD ¢ J : U( ¢O!�v m�
}°Q Up�O °)O'aW OQ>� V axZ<�pQZ�� �ZJ dQ matLO¢ Y
a0U
LL F- cm Q LL mu) J Fa- ZZD0W
_�K�a cKFQ
.3 U m of N
s a W W H t U c� Q w p W to O Q D z x O w} U LL m O p N 0} m
¢ v O w Q° mw o Z K LL w of¢>- O> K Z K(-1 m C O m °� > 0) a LL N c
>w oD EaaoQa>Qxa W}azx0 ox¢ oa mz � a) o¢ o 0
U' ZOawmm-100 7UJx W ml-DxJm WOxmFmNm(gDULLFmJU
f�nrO NMMMmrm NMcr tO NM V l0 (O MMtO (OO
M M M M V V I <} d' 1 (O N (O 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
OOOOO OOOO OOO 00000 �.�
mm m m m m m m O m m m m O m m m
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V
T r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
0000900000000000000000000000000 m o) 0 m m m 0 m m m m m m m m 0 m m o) m m m m m m m m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000000000000000000000000000
I 0 0 o o m v o 0 0 0
rnrnrnornrnrnrnrnrn
rnmrnrno�irnrnrnrnrn
U U U U U U U U U U
O
J J J -J} J J J J
w w— w J w w w w w
aaaa0J¢aaa
LLLLLL LL(nJLLLLLLLL
9 9 8 9 Q i 9
Z Z Z Z Z J Z Z Z Z
O
Q
O
M
M
>
U00
'K -j Q� -w c
0
o c Q w w U OO CL
�LLIREF—
U"'Da<<m`°
to m o o ts= U <} r
.--
W
Z
M_
_
U)
w
LU
o rr
w w
� z
<n w
p Y O
3 O F- (j)w w
C)W oz d
c o O O Q 0
s o m�OzcnwJ
m °>cgLLww�:¢�
O M _Z g= Z J J o
OK —w JZZ
Y
0 2 Y u 0 0 0 U
O
U)
Y O
O p
w 2Z
U)
0
LU Ow
Z)�-
2 S7
Control Map - 100 Block Windward Way
SCALE 1 :7,459
500 0 500 1,000 1,500
FEET
N
A
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:51 AM