Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-06-19 #3CITY OF e� Meeting Date: June 19, 2012 Case Numbers: UP11-020, ED1),24, EX12-002 - Project Planner: Kraig Tam born i (715) 485-3092 Community Development Department — Planning Division REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: Lucas Valley Area (ExteNet Systems DAS Network) — Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review and Exception for installation of 2'2" tall by 16" diameter omni -antenna on 4" by 4" by 6' tall post extensions attached to the top of existing 39' to 48' tall joint utility poles, and associated ground mounted equipment cabinets located within the public rights-of-way at five locations in north San Rafael, as part of a distributed antenna system ("DAS") public telephone infrastructure project implemented by ExteNet Systems; APN: n/a, site locations near 1959 Las Gallinas Ave, 873 Del Ganado Rd, 714 Penny Royal Ln, 7 Montevideo Way, and 459 Hibiscus Way; R5, R7.5, R10, R20, PD and R5 -EA Zone Districts; Rick Hirsch, Applicant; ExteNet Systems, LLC Owner; Terra Linda/Santa Margarita and Mont Marin/San Rafael Neighborhoods. PROPERTY FACTS The "DAS" antenna "nodes" being proposed as part of this project are located within public rights-of- way. Two of the five antenna nodes proposed in San Rafael are located within the Las Gallinas Avenue median strip in Mont Marin/San Rafael Park neighborhood. The remaining sites, located within the Terra Linda/Santa Margarita neighborhood area, include two nodes adjacent to residential lots at Penny Royal Lane and Hibiscus Way and one node within the Del Ganado Road median strip. These rights-of-way are all within residentially designated neighborhoods. The zoning classifications of adjacent properties include R5, R7.5, R10, R-20, PD and R5 -EA. Zoning district development standards (i.e., lot coverage, setbacks, etc.) would not apply to utility equipment placed in public rights-of-way. However, the standards in Chapter 14.16.360 (Site & Use regulations) would apply to installation of the wireless antenna facilities. Therefore, the 30 -foot height limit established for the area pursuant to the General Plan 2020 Exhibit 8 would also be applicable to the project. SUMMARY The use of public rights-of-way for public utility infrastructure is permitted by the California Public Utility Codes through its grant of a state franchise agreement to telephone corporations. City review is typically limited to the review and issuance of a ministerial encroachment permit by the Department of Public Works; which exercises control over use and access to City rights-of-way. However, installation of new utility infrastructure and equipment also may be subject to additional local ordinances and policies. This includes local requirements for under -grounding, design, placement and maintenance. The City has requirements that apply to both wireless facilities and public utilities, including criteria and policies that promote utility under -grounding. It is increasingly important for these policies to be implemented routinely and consistently, particularly as the use of existing public rights-of-way by existing and new public utility companies continues to increase. The City Planning Division has determined that the distributed antenna system infrastructure project proposed within City owned public rights-of-way by ExteNet (a telephone corporation) would be subject to SRMC Section 14.16.360 (Wireless communication facilities), in addition to the City's encroachment permit process. Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review permit applications have been required for the antenna system, which is proposed as a single utility project. This would allow the City to expedite its review of future additions or modifications that were consistent with its approved design concepts. The project is being referred to the Design Review Board for its review pursuant to SRMC Section's 14.25.050.A.6 (New major wireless. facilities as prescribed by Section 14.16.360) and 14.25.040. B. 1.h (Structures over the height limit). The project also includes a major Exception request in order for the wireless antenna structures to extend more than 5 -feet above the 30 -foot height limit prescribed for the area that applies to wireless antenna installations. The recommendation of the Design Review Board would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The City's discretionary zoning review applies to design and placement of the omni -antennas and the related mechanical equipment cabinets that are required to support each of the wireless antennas at each node location. Zoning discretion does not apply to the pole-to-pole installation of fiber-optic telephone communications wires that are needed to connect the communication equipment; which would be placed on the existing utility pole infrastructure within the right-of-way. City review of the manner of placement and the method of concealment for the antenna and the associated mechanical equipment cabinets is being required in order to assure that stealth design opportunities are utilized to the maximum extent feasible, in compliance with local criteria and standards. The applicable access, design and maintenance requirements of the City would be implemented through the subsequent issuance of an encroachment permit by the Department of Public Works. As part of its review and consideration of this project, it is appropriate for the City to consider each of the specific node locations, and request a change in manner or location of placement where an alternative placement or location would be feasible and reduce visual design impacts on an established neighborhood. The RF emissions of each node have also been evaluated, consistent with FCC requirements. Peer review has been required to confirm that the project both i) adheres to minimum technical requirements for placement, and ii) complies with RF emission standards. Based on the review requirements that apply to this project, and the analysis contained in this report, staff is requesting that the Board provide its recommendations on the following items: ® That the 6' pole extensions need to be redesigned, or concealed within a stealth screen, in a manner that would blend with the existing utility pole aesthetic and minimize visual affects on the neighborhoods. Undergrounding of ground mounted mechanical equipment should be required. Alternatively, if equipment is permitted above -ground, it must be in least visually obtrusive locations and should screened with a decorative/stealth enclosure and incorporated into existing landscaping. © The sites at 459 Hibiscus and Penny Royal Lane should be relocated into less visibly obtrusive right-of-way locations; such as a sidewalk landscape strip, residential street side yard, or center median strip right-of-way location. Alternatively, at a minimum, the site at Hibiscus Way should be placed underground and at Penny Royal Lane should be bunkered into the existing sloped embankment. ® Assurances should be provided that future efforts to underground utility lines in the area would not be opposed and that the JPA would be responsible for maintenance or removal of obsolete equipment would occur in the event ExteNet cannot fulfill its obligations. At a minimum, staff recommends that the project should be revised to conceal all antenna and support pole structures within a stealth pole enclosure, paint out equipment and appurtenances to blend in with the background, propose landscape and irrigation plans for each node, obtain agreement from the primary utility pole owner regarding future undergrounding and maintenance issues, underground the cabinet proposed at 459 Hibiscus Way, and bunker the cabinet proposed at Penny Royal Lane. 2 BACKGROUND ExteNet Systems, LLC is a telephone corporation that installs enhanced wireless antenna telephone infrastructure (aka, distributed antenna systems, "DAS") within public rights-of-way, under the provisions of Ca Codes CPUC 7901-7912. "DAS" infrastructure is proposed to be installed in existing public rights-of-way running from north San Rafael through Marin County and into the City of Novato, to provide infrastructure for wireless service providers that would serve residential properties in the Lucas Valley area, west of Highway 101. Wireless telephone service providers could utilize the "DAS" telecommunications infrastructure to extend or enhance their services in these areas. The company does not provide wireless services itself, therefore, does not require an FCC or PUC license to operate. Site Description & Setting: The proposed telecommunications facility equipment would be placed on existing utility poles within existing rights-of-way throughout north San Rafael. Starting from the north and moving south and east, the five antenna "nodes" proposed in San Rafael are as follows: LUC-014A located at 38' utility pole in the center median of Las Gallinas at Twelve Oak Hill Drive • LUC-009A located at 43' utility pole in the center median of Las Gallinas at Montevideo Drive • LUC-004A located at 39' pole on Hibiscus Way adjacent to a residential front yard • LUC-003A located at 37' pole on Penny Royal land adjacent to a residential side yard • LUC-017A located at 36' utility pole in the center median of Del Ganado at Duran Drive The sites would provide the potential for wireless telephone coverage and services to the surrounding neighborhoods along Las Gallinas Ave and Del Ganado Road. These areas are surrounded by hills and valleys that limit wireless service coverage provided by conventional antennas (see Project Plans - Coverage Map). All the utility infrastructure improvements are identified within the dedicated public rights-of-way of Terra Linda Subdivision's No.2 and No.5, recorded 1954. History: On December 22, 2010 the City completed pre -application review (PA10-004) for the project, which included review by the Department of Public Works and City Attorney's office. Applicable City permit requirements and preliminary project issues were identified as a result of this preliminary review. A formal application was filed on March 25, 2011, and referred internally for review. As a result of the pre -application review, ExteNet eliminated a proposed new utility pole installation that was proposed at the end of Cedar Hill Drive off Lucas Valley Road, and an antenna detail placed on the side of a pole in Las Gallinas Ave. Pole -top installations were viewed as less obtrusive solutions. The side placement may be used to lower height, but would affect coverage and pole locations. An example of this installation type is included as Exhibit 2. Formal review of the project submittal was suspended in order for ExteNet to conduct a public informational meeting, which was concluded on October 12, 2011. Application materials were resubmitted April 10, 2012, and the application remains incomplete pending conclusion of peer review of the facilities that are in process of being completed. Utility Transmission Infrastructure Overview The utility poles within the City rights-of-way are generally used for electrical transmission, telephone communications and cable television infrastructure. PG&E and AT&T are the primary owners of the poles and transmission systems for electrical and telephone, and have rights under franchise agreements to use the rights-of-way. Cable television providers require a local franchise agreement. Ownership and maintenance of the poles are primarily controlled by PG&E and AT&T, and shared use by other providers is managed through agreement by a Joint Poles Authority collaborative group. ATg.i maintained WvVil Iship of its telephone diStribution line inifra.L vLui foiiovving dcr c'g:J tion, and must make its infrastructure available to other telephone service providers (as is also the case with the PG&E power lines, which must provide distribution for Marin Energy Authority and other energy providers). Thus, for decades cities have had long-term working relationships with the utility transmission companies that maintain the primary distribution infrastructure. The advent of new telephone technologies has opened the doors for new corporations to install infrastructure in the rights- of-way, under the Ca PUC regulations. Local authority is discussed further below, but generally is limited to issuance of an encroachment permit for installation of utility infrastructure in public rights-of- way. Additional local, state and federal permit requirements apply to telephone service providers (e.g., carriers), including wireless telephone providers. Typically, the initial installation of utility infrastructure is addressed at time of a subdivision approval, and the cost for things such as undergrounding can be placed on the developer. PG&E and AT&T routinely underground their transmission lines and equipment in new developments. Undergrounding of existing lines can be accomplished in older neighborhoods when funded through local programs. In order to maintain the character of its neighborhoods and implement its design objectives, the City must diligently promote its policies for undergrounding of infrastructure where practical, particularly as smaller utility corporations propose use of existing public rights-of-way for new technologies. State Regulatory Authority The State Public Utilities Commission has concluded that installation of advanced telecommunications infrastructure is of statewide concern. Pursuant to CPUC 1001-1013 the state maintains the authority for issuance of a certificate of convenience and necessity (CPNC) and franchise agreement authorizing telephone corporations to construct infrastructure in rights-of-way. CPUC 7901-7912 establish that telephone corporations "may construct telephone lines along and upon any public road, highway, waters or lanes within the state, may erect poles,o� sts, piers or abutments for supporting insulators, wires and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of waters." CPUC Section 234(a) defines "telephone line" to include all equipment in connection with or facilitating communication by telephone, with or without use of transmission wires. Local Review Authority The City may exercise reasonable control as to time, place, and manner in which roads, highways and waterways are accessed. To be reasonable, "local controls shall be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." Typically, a telephone corporation must only obtain ministerial level excavation, encroachment and/or building permits for infrastructure construction. Public Works maintains primary responsibility for authorizing work in rights-of-way.' The City reserves its local authority to regulate cable or telecommunications services provided by telephone corporations and cellular service carriers2,3 and maintains control over access to and placement of new utility equipment in its public rights-of-way. The General Plan 2020 Infrastructure Element contains local policy guidance regarding installation and maintenance of public infrastructure. Based on its review of all of applicable local and state codes and City General Plan 2020, staff has determined that installation of "DAS" wireless facility infrastructure in City rights-of-way remain subject to the discretionary zoning provisions of SRMC 14.16.360; in addition to obtaining encroachment permits for telephone infrastructure work. This would include review of RF emission thresholds and stealth design requirements, to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, staff has required a Master Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit for the ExteNet DAS wireless antenna system network; in -lieu of requiring separate zoning permits for each antenna node location. The following minimum information has been required for the "DAS" network application: 1 Responsibilities for underlying property owners and City for the use, maintenance and improvements in public rights-of-way are established in the Ca Streets and Highways Code. (Ca Codes 5610-5618 & Ca Codes 8300-8309). 2 The PUC defers to the local government for review of cellular telecommunication service providers. 3 Cable/video providers remain subject local franchise agreements, managed by Marin Telecommunications Agency (MTA) joint powers authority. 51 ➢ RFR report for each node ➢ Plans for each node (site, elevation and details) ➢ Photographs for each node ➢ Coverage Map showing areas that could be served by system infrastructure ➢ Photo -simulation for each node ➢ Peer review of the project design requirements and RF emissions ➢ Structural calculations for the subject utility poles ➢ Joint Poles Authority agreement ➢ State CPNC granted for the subject telephone company If a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination was made by the CPUC for the project a copy of this would also need to be submitted. Additional information could be requested, as necessary, to confirm work is within a dedicated public right-of-way; such as a survey of the properties and respective rights-of-way, title report confirming dedication of right-of-way in fee for public use, as well as map(s) showing location of AT&T and PG&E transformer and related equipment that were installed to serve the subdivision. This additional information has not needed as the facilities have been clearly established to fall within dedicated public rights-of-way. Further, the environmental determination will be made by the City. The application materials provided confirm that ExteNet is a telephone corporation and received a state franchise agreement per the Ca PUC requirements, and has obtained membership in the public utility pole infrastructure providers' Joint Pole Authority. Therefore, the following general criteria should apply to this project in order to determine whether the facility design and placement would maximize stealth opportunities in compliance with local standards and policies: • Existing pole dimensions should not be materially altered for placement of new antenna (e.g., maintaining existing pole heights and/or respecting the height limit of the zoning district) • Existing utility pole infrastructure should be utilized to the maximum extent possible • Undergrounding of related ancillary equipment should be proposed to the maximum extent possible (consistent with GP 2020 Policy 1-4 and existing subdivision characteristics) and/or new equipment should be collocated near the existing utility cabinets in the subdivision • RF emission standards should not cause General Public exposure thresholds to be exceeded • Any infrastructure proposed on private property would be subject to all discretionary provisions of SRMC 14.16.360 • The use of existing public utility poles should not preclude future undergrounding of the shared facility infrastructure, including overhead utility lines and any related equipment • The joint pole authority owners should provide assurance for removal should equipment become obsolete or abandoned PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overview ExteNet Systems (California) LLC proposes to install a Distributed Antenna System ("DAS") telecommunications network within the County of Marin (aka, Lucas Valley Network). "DAS" networks provide telecommunications transmission services to wireless service providers (aka, carriers). "DAS" infrastructure services allow wireless service providers to establish or expand their network coverage and capacity. A "DAS" network consists of a series of telecommunications antennas and associated equipment boxes, typically mounted on existing wooden utility poles within the public rights-of-way. The antennas and equipment boxes are mounted on the same pole. These pole -mounted antennas and equipment boxes are referred to as "nodes". Five such nodes within the Lucas Valley system are proposed to be located within the City of San Rafael. (The other nodes within the system are proposed to be located in the unincorporated County and City of Novato; which are also processing zoning entitlements for system segments within their jurisdictions.) The nodes are linked by fiber-optic cable that is typically routed aerially from pole-to-pole. In some cases, "micro -trenching" is needed to route fiber-optic cable where there is no overhead infrastructure available. The fiber-optic cable is typically connected to the intended wireless service client's equipment hub. Design & Components of Use: The 5 "DAS" nodes proposed within the City of San Rafael include the following equipment components: a. Omni -antennas measuring 2'-2" tall by 16" diameter mounted on 4" by 4" by 6' post extensions to the existing utility poles (at 44' to 54'3" overall heights above grade); capable of supporting 1900 — 2100 MHz bands of service. Note: LUC-009A would not require the 6' extension as the pole is sufficiently tall to provide required spacing from the power lines. b. Equipment cabinet measuring 5'-2" tall by 2'-1" wide by Z-1" deep and electric meter placed at ground level, approximately 5 -feet from poles, to house battery backups and a delta node. c. Cable runs underground from the cabinet through 4" conduit on the pole to the antenna. Overhead fiber-optic line runs along existing poles on the Las Gallinas Ave and Del Ganado segments, with short underground "micro -trenching" runs on Las Pavadas, Duran Road and Penny Royal/Pine Lane.' (See Project Plans - Lucas Valley Construction Map) (Note: this component is not subject to City discretionary review.) The nodes would provide service coverage to the residential neighborhoods in the Terra Linda, Santa Margarita and Mont Marin/San Rafael Park neighborhoods. The pole locations presented for consideration are stated as maximizing the coverage objectives for the wireless service provider clients, without "holes" or un -served areas of wireless coverage (see Project Plans - Coverage map). ExteNet previously had proposed an alternate antenna design for Node LUC 014A, with the omni - antenna extended from the side of the pole below the existing transmission lines. This concept was revised to match the other nodes with pole -top installation. Additionally, another node was considered on a new utility pole at the end of Cedar Hill Drive in the Mont Marin neighborhood, but eliminated due to neighborhood objection over placement of a new utility pole in their area. RF Emissions: An RF study has been required for each antenna node and confirmed to comply with FCC rules, as required by the City regulations. The FCC establishes signage and RF intensity requirements for both service workers and general public exposure from telecommunications antenna. Emissions that do not exceed 5% of the maximum recommended general exposure limit are considered to be safe without requiring any special mitigation (e.g., safety barriers, signage). Peer review has been initiated by Kramer Firm, the City's RF consultant (this review has been completed for 2 of 5 nodes). 4 City zoning review does not apply to the overhead telecommunications lines extended between existing utility poles. ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The pertinent San Rafael General Plan 2020 Infrastructure Element policies include Policy 1-2 (adequacy of infrastructure), 1-4 (utility undergrounding), and 1-15 (access to reliable, modern and cost- effective telecommunications). Policy 1-4 encourages undergrounding of existing transmission lines. No specific policy has been developed recommending undergrounding of new infrastructure, as this is already the standard for new development and implicit of Policy 1-4. The City typically exercises its control over the design and placement of new utility infrastructure during review and approval of subdivision improvements (State Subdivision Map Act Section 66410-65852.2). This usually is accomplished at the expense of the developer, pursuant to SRMC Sections 15.06.130 (Undergrounding Utilities) and Section 15.11.050 (Subdivision Improvement Agreements). This case is unique in that it involves new technologies that were not considered when the utility infrastructure was designed and installed in the rights-of-way for the subject areas. The project would be in substantial compliance with City policies, provided that assurances are made to require relocation of the omni -antenna at such time as the other electric, cable and telephone utility infrastructure is relocated underground rendering the utility pole obsolete, and to assure that the joint pole authority would remove any equipment associated with the DAS project should it become obsolete. Furthermore, the antenna, its supports and equipment cabinets should be designed to minimize visual impacts, including screening and undergrounding of cabinets, to be compatible with the existing neighborhood and other utility infrastructure improvements in the neighborhoods. Staff asks the Board provide comments on the project compliance with the General Plan policies, particularly: • That the utility infrastructure should be installed below grade to the maximum extent feasible That the JPA should provide assurances that the equipment shall not preclude opportunities for future undergrounding of transmission lines, that obsolete utility poles or equipment would be removed and that equipment would be maintained. That stealth design solutions should be required for the antenna supports and associated equipment. The design issues are further discussed in the zoning ordinance consistency section below. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The proposed omni -antenna and equipment cabinets have been deemed to be subject to design review pursuant to Chapter 14.25 and SRMC 14.16.360, and require a major exception pursuant to SRMC Chapter 14.24 to exceed the 30 -foot height limit that applies to the area; in addition to obtaining an encroachment permit for work. The project nodes are all proposed in least preferred residential locations, which are discouraged locations due to concerns with aesthetics and perceived health risks. Further, given the technology associated with this utility infrastructure, which requires supporting ground or pole -mounted equipment at each node location in order to provide enhanced services, and given that utility companies typically do not provide routine landscape maintenance for their equipment, it is important that the City fully implement policies promoting screening and undergrounding of utility equipment in City rights-of-way in order to preserve the character and aesthetic of its neighborhoods; consistent with the General Plan 2020 Neighborhood and Community Design Elements. Based on this discussion, it is important Ll the need for each node location be demonstrated, that the number of nodes be minimized, that stealth design be maximized, and that FCC limits on RF emissions be maintained at the lowest recommended levels for general population (e.g., public) exposure. A peer review of the RF emissions analysis provided for each node has been required to confirm that each node would be designed to comply with minimum technical standards, and comply with minimum RF emissions thresholds. In general, staff has concluded that the project may be supported with a few design changes, and requests the recommendation of the Design Review Board. Analysis of pertinent requirements and recommended design changes are provided below. Chapter 16 — Site and Use Regulations Section 14.16.360 requires an RFR study, photo -simulations, coverage maps, landscape plans for ground mounted equipment, and alternative site analysis be provided for wireless communications facilities that are subject to major review, including those proposed within residential areas. Local review of this equipment is required to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community, preserve the visual character of the city and to ensure public health and safety, consistent with federal law and Federal Communication Commissions (FCC) regulations, acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communication services within the city, and encourage the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option rather than construction of additional single -use towers. The pertinent design requirements to achieve these objectives are discussed as follows: ➢ Co -Location. Service providers are encouraged to co -locate with other existing facilities to minimize the overall visual impact of the new facility. Co -location is preferred over new monopoles or other towers erected. Sited to be screened by existing development, topography or vegetation to the extent consistent with proper operation of the wireless communication facility. Additional new, irrigated vegetation, or other screening, may be required as a condition of approval ➢ Stealth Design. All wireless communication facilities shall have a stealth design to screen or reduce visual impacts and blend the facility into the existing environment. Examples of stealth design are facade -mounted antennas located within architectural features so they are screened from view, or an antenna design that mimics architectural features so they appear to be a part of the building design, or facilities with colors and materials to minimize visibility such as a non -reflective finish in a color compatible with the surrounding area. ➢ Locations. New monopoles or towers shall not be located within residential, designated open space or conservation areas unless sufficient technical and other information is provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning commission or zoning administrator that location in such areas is appropriate, subject to the findings that the location of the proposed facility site is essential to meet the service demands of the carrier and no other alternative co -location, existing development or utility facility site, or type of antenna support structure is feasible. This shall be documented by the applicant providing a list of the locations of preferred technically feasible sites, the good faith efforts and measures taken by the applicant to secure these preferred sites, and the specific reasons why these efforts and measures were unsuccessful. and that the use of a monopole for the proposed facility by itself or in combination with other existing, approved, and proposed facilities will avoid or minimize adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources and public safety. ➢ Height. The maximum height of building -mounted antennas shall be in compliance with the height limitations for the zoning district in which they are located. An exception to antenna height may be granted by the planning commission or zoning administrator if the RFR exposures and aesthetic quality of the proposed facility are found to be acceptable. Antenna structures, including towers and monopoles, and mechanical screening features related to wireless communication facilities, shall be regulated subject to Section 14.16.120 of this chapter. ➢ Setbacks. Towers, guy wires, and accessory structures, including equipment cabinets, shall comply 'FL, 44, I•M 1. Fl. F EL, applicable .Jst_;n To d .-F ! 'a" V✓ILII (Ile setback requ,rements of (Ile applll�d0 G'onlllg UIJU IC. t. I UVVels a%IU SUppl%II sUU (.II eJ Jlldll be located a minimum of two hundred feet (200') or at least three (3) times the height of the tower, whichever is greater, from existing residential units or vacant residentially zoned property. ➢ Landscaping. Wireless communication facilities shall be installed in a manner that maintains and enhances existing vegetation and provides new landscape material to screen proposed facilities. The emphasis of the landscape design shall -be to visually screen the proposed facility and stabilize soils on sloping sites. Introduced vegetation shall be native, drought tolerant species compatible with the predominant natural setting of the adjacent area. Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed facility shall be protected from damage both during and after construction. Submission of a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist may be required. All vegetation disturbed during project construction shall be replanted with compatible vegetation and soils disturbed by development shall be reseeded to control erosion. Appropriate provisions for irrigation and maintenance shall be identified in the landscape plan. The city may impose a requirement for a landscape maintenance agreement as a condition of approval. ➢ Noise. Wireless communication facilities shall be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Wireless communication facilities shall operate in compliance with the noise exposure standards in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13, Noise. Normal testing and maintenance activities shall occurbetween eight a.m. (8:00 a.m.) and six p.m. (6:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, excluding emergency repairs. ➢ Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). Wireless communication facilities operating alone and in conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC. Applications for wireless communication facilities shall include a RFR report, prepared by a qualified expert, which identifies the predicted and actual (if available) levels of RFR emitted by the proposed facility operating by itself and in combination with other existing or approved facilities which can be measured at the proposed facility site. Measurements for RFR shall be based on all proposed, approved, and existing facilities operating at maximum power densities and frequencies. ➢ Post -Approval Requirements. The following requirements apply to wireless antenna facilities: • Within forty-five (45) days of commencement of operations, the applicant for the wireless communication facility shall provide the community development department with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating that the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest point of public access and in the direction of maximum radiation from each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR. The city will contract to perform the testing with a qualified expert and the owners or operators shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for its facility. ® The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall remove any abandoned facilities or restore the existing approved use of a facility within ninety (90) days of termination of use. • Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within forty-five (45) days of notification. e Owner or operators of all approved wireless communication facilities shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. Upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed. RF Emissions Review A confirmation that the facility would comply with the FCC's RF safety standards is sufficient for purposes of design review. This discussion is provided for the benefit of the Board and public to confirm that the applicable requirements have been met. Pursuant to the FCC Bulletin 65 Supplemental C, harmful biological effects can occur from an exposure level from wireless antenna facilities of 4.0 W/kg; i.e., specific absorption rate (SAR) as 9 averaged over the whole-body. After applying additional safety factors, the FCC established its limits for whole-body exposure at 0.4 W/kg for "controlled/occupational" exposure and 0.08 W/kg for "uncontrolled/general population" exposure, respectively. The FCC further establishes special mitigation requirements for any facility that would generate an exposure level at or above 5% (.004W/kg) of the general population exposure limit. A peer review of the RF studies prepared for each of the 5 antenna nodes has been initiated. The City's RF consultant, Kramer Firm, has completed its review for two of the five antenna nodes. The following conclusions are provided based on the RF studies prepared for each site, and peer reviews completed to date: Node LUC-014A - ROW in median of Las Gallinas at Twelve Oak Hill Drive - This node would result in an overall height of 46'3" with antenna mounted at 44' above grade, equipment cabinet 5 - feet south of the pole toward Twelve Oak Hill Drive intersection, at 5 -feet above grade. The nearest residence is approximately 63 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold falls below 5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21 -feet from the antenna, which is worst case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure limit. Node LUC-009A - ROW in the median of Las Gallinas at Montevideo Drive - This node would result in an overall height of 54'3" with antenna mounted at 52' above grade, equipment cabinet 5 -feet west of the pole toward Parkridge Rd intersection, at 5 -feet above grade. The nearest residence is approximately 107 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold falls below 5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21 -feet from the antenna, at the height of the antenna which is worst case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure limit. Node LUC-004A - ROW adjacent to 459 Hibiscus Way residential front yard - This node would result in an overall height of 47'4" with antenna mounted at 45' above grade, equipment cabinet 5 - feet east of the pole along the residential properties street frontage, at 5 -feet above grade and 8' from the curb. The nearest residence is 25 feet from the antenna and exposure level falls below 5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21 -feet from the antenna, which is worst case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure limit. Node LUC-003A - ROW on Penny Royal land adjacent to a residential side yard - This node would result in an overall height of 45' with the antenna mounted at 43' above grade, equipment cabinet 5 -feet north of the pole along the residential property frontage, at 5 -feet above grade and 5 feet from the curb. The nearest residence is approximately 50 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold falls below 5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21 -feet from the antenna, which is worst case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed the FCC 5% general public exposure limit. Node LUC-017A - ROW in median of Del Ganado at Duran Drive - The subject node would result in an overall height of 44' with the antenna mounted 42' above grade, equipment cabinet 5 -feet east toward the intersection at Duran Drive, at 5 -feet above grade. The nearest residence is approximately 48 feet from the facility. The general exposure limit threshold falls below 5% of the General Public Exposure limit at a distance of 21 -feet from the antenna, which is worst case. No accessible area is predicted to exceed 5% of the FCC general public exposure limit. Based on the RF reports and reviews completed by Kramer Firm, staff has determined that each node would comply with FCC OET Bulletin 65 rules regarding safety, with the following recommended condition: RF Condition "ExteNet and or its client(s) shall place and maintain an 8" wide by 12" high permanent RF caution sign in English and Spanish at the base of the 6' tall utility pole extension just 10 above the cross arm. The sign shall be complaint with FCC OET Bulletin 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol and content conventions. The sign shall provide at all times a working local or toll free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall reach a live person who can exert transmitter power -down control over this site as required by the FCC. The location of the sign must be visible immediately prior to climbing above the base of the utility pole extension." Kramer Firm notes that if the utility, or carrier(s), agree to this condition there will be no basis to deny or further condition the project based on its RF emissions. For informational purposes, staff further notes that concerns with environmental health risks associated with both low frequencies (power lines) and high frequencies (radio wave) transmissions which generate non -ionizing radiation are primarily related to the potential thermal effects on tissue. Radiation from low frequency electrical transmission is typically calculated using milligaus (mG), which measures electro -magnetic field intensity. High frequency transmissions use more power and have a shorter wave length and are calculated based on power density. The RF exposure levels drop off exponentially as distance from the source increases, and health effects are dependent on both the amount of time and intensity of exposure to the source. Stealth Design The pole extension design details with the unconcealed square post bolted to pole -tops are not considered to be harmoniously integrated with the existing utility pole. In order to comply with the City zoning standards and policies related to wireless antenna as well as for new utility equipment infrastructure placed in its rights-of-way, staff recommends that the antenna and equipment should be further modified to minimize its visual impacts; particularly where proposed in rights-of-way that abut residential yards. Additionally, staff notes that the photo -simulations appear to show equipment cabinets that are wider than indicated on plans, and that the plans shall take precedence. The following minimal and relatively simple modifications are recommended in order to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the proposed antenna and equipment, with high-quality stealth design solutions that would integrate into the context of the surrounding neighborhood and structures: Omni -antenna pole extensions must be concealed within a stealth enclosure designed to blend with the existing pole and/or equipment placed on the pole, with all equipment and appurtenances painted to match the pole and setting context. Staff has provided an example of this type of stealth enclosure as Exhibit 3. (Note: The applicant has indicated that solutions to conceal both the omni - antenna and support equipment with a cylindrical radome-type enclosure results in a "canister" appearance that does not blend with the pole, particularly when designed to cover the omni - antenna in addition to the support post. They are looking into an option to place a "skirt" around the support structure that could be approved by PG&E.) All nodes and equipment should be placed in less visibly obtrusive locations such as a sidewalk landscape strip, residential street side yard, or center median strip right-of-way location, and screened. Ideally, equipment cabinets should be placed underground or redesigned with a smaller, stealth or concealed enclosure. ® The equipment cabinet and node proposed at 459 Hibiscus should ideally be relocated to a less visible location, or placed underground and/or in a smaller stealth enclosure. Similarly, Penny Royal site should be relocated or the cabinet bunkered into the sloped sideyard location or placed below grade. (Note: The applicant has indicated that it may be possible to relocate Hibiscus to a Freitas Parkway median strip, with increased height or some loss of coverage.) ® Site appropriate landscaping and irrigation for each antenna node location should be considered, with recommendations on type and requirement for a plan for irrigation and long-term maintenance 11 program by the utility with oversight by the JPA. (Note: the City cannot assume any responsibility for additional landscaping in its rights-of-way. Further, the utility company has indicated that it may install self -watering landscaping, but would not be able to routinely maintain landscaping in rights- of-way). Noise Concern has been raised with the potential for electronic noise to result from the cabinets. The facility does not require a transformer or generator thus is not anticipated to generate significant audible noise that would violate residential noise thresholds of 40dBA at the property line. The applicant has stated that a fan would trigger when the battery backups are in use. If placed below grade, A/C and sump pump equipment could generate some residential noise. Post approval requirements The post approval requirements identified above would be required as a condition of issuance of encroachment permits for the project. Public Works (DPW) is supportive of assuring that the project would be designed to minimize its visual impacts and maintained in perpetuity. DPW further recommends that a single contractor should be selected to perform the work to help assure it is completed in compliance with all City requirements and as efficiently as possible. Chapter 24 — Administrative Regulations Pursuant to SRMC Section's 14.24.020.E, 14.24.060, and 14.16.360 the Planning Commission may approve height exceptions of more than 5 feet above the base height limit for antenna facilities; where special circumstances warrant the increase and would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare. The increased pole height appears justified in order to provide the desired service coverage, and reduce the number of antenna nodes that would be required for the project. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit Design review criteria encourage equipment to be placed underground or concealed within stealth enclosures, with colors and materials that would harmoniously integrate with the surroundings. Staff has recommended screening and alternative design solutions in its discussion of Chapter 16 above; which, if implemented would satisfy the pertinent design criteria of Chapter 25. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The State PUC may act as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for issuance of a state franchise and all related work for construction of telephone corporation infrastructure. Generally, installation of utility infrastructure may qualify as exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects), 15301(b) (Existing public utility facilities, and/or 15303(d) (New utility extensions); where work is not within an environmentally sensitive area, as defined under CEQA. The PUC has not made its determination for this facility. Thus, the City must make its own environmental determination for the project. City staff concludes that the Categorical Exemptions 15301(b) and 15303(d) would apply to the scope of work proposed. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE On June 1, 2012, notices were posted and mailed to all residents, property owners and identified homeowner and neighborhood associations within 300 feet of each of the five antenna node locations. A letter from the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents was received during the review of this project. After the public hearing notices were mailed, the property owner at 459 Hibiscus called staff on June 4. This neighbor indicated no concern with the raised pole height but did not support placement of arlrlitinnal aniiinmant in the racirlantial front vnrcll A latter was also reneri%ierl from residents at 446 N y - Hickory Lane expressing health and safety, noise and design concerns. Any additional comments received on this project will be forwarded to the Board prior to or at the meeting. 12 CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the project should be revised to incorporate the following changes: • Conceal proposed antenna support post within a stealth screen that would blend with the existing utility pole, and paint all equipment to match the pole and setting. ® Underground equipment cabinets and relocate the PG&E electric meter to the pole. In particular, the sites adjacent to residential front and side yards at LUC 004 (459 Hibiscus Way) must be placed underground, if not relocated to a less obtrusive right-of-way location, and LUC 003 (Penny Royal Lane) must be bunkered into the existing upslope embankment adjacent to the sidewalk. Use of smaller or stealth equipment enclosures should also be considered, as deemed feasible and appropriate by the City. ® Should undergrounding not be deemed necessary for all sites, particularly sites LUC 017, LUC 009 and LUC 014 proposed in median landscape areas, these equipment cabinet locations must be relocated into the center of the median strip. The cabinet placement shall be sited as far from the terminus of the median as possible, behind the existing utility pole and in-line with the existing landscaping; for aesthetic as well as safety to maximize vehicle and pedestrian visibility. Landscape enhancement and decorative/stealth cabinets should be considered additional stealth design solutions. PG&E/JPA should provide a letter of agreement to maintain equipment and landscaping and remove obsolete equipment in the event ExteNet is unable to fulfill its obligations and/or a bond for this work may be required. If the Board concur that the above changes are necessary and sufficient to approve the project, revised plans and details should be provided for review on consent, prior to the project proceeding to the Planning Commission. EXHIBITS 1. Applicant letter, responses and justification statements 2. Omni -Antenna Side Mount Installation 3. Stealth Pole Antenna Enclosure Example 4. Public Comments Full-sized and reduced plans including the Photo -Simulations, Coverage Areas and Construction Maps have been provided to the DRB members only cc: Patti Ringo, ExteNet, 3030 Warrenville Rd, Ste 340, Lisle, IL 60532 Rick Hirsch, AICP, 5957 Keith Avenue, Oakland, CA 94618 NSR Coalition of Residents, PO Box 6642, San Rafael, CA 94903 Mont Marin/San Rafael Park Neighborhood Assn, PO Box 6662, San Rafael, CA 94903 Santa Margarita NA, PO Box 6449, San Rafael, CA 94903 Terra Linda HOA, P.O. Box 6405, San Rafael, CA 94903 Property Owner, 459 Hibiscus Way, San Rafael, CA 94903 Property Owner, 455 Hibiscus Way, San Rafael, CA 94903 Property Owner, 720 Pine Lane, San Rafael, CA 94903 Property Owner, 739 Penny Royal Lane, San Rafael, CA 94903 Neal Osborne, Marin County Planning Stephen Marshall, City of Novato Planning 13 1�e .i SYSTEMS Kraig Tamboraini City Of San Rafael PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Marcli 17, 2011 PX4: ExteNet Systems DAS Project Dear Mr. Tambornini, Thank you for taking the time to talk with me by phone this week. As I discussed with you, ExteNet Systems desires to work closely with the City of San Rafael to ensure a timely and successful outcome to the applications we are submitting. These applications are for the portions of our Lucas Valley DAS network that fall into the City of San Rafael's limits. As we discussed, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") recently issued a 90 -day extension to the implementation of the General Order 170 ("GO -170") they had issued December 16, 2010. The extension is effective from the date of March 10, 2011 and is expected to end on June 10, 2011. This has had the effect of putting several of our projects into a difficult situation in regards to how to proceed with permit applications and approvals; including the San Rafael portion of our Lucas Valley network. I conveyed to you that ExteNet Systems would have worked closely with the City of San Rafael under the GO -170 ruling and we will do so outside of that, as well. Under GO -170 we would have been going to the Department of Public Works to acquire encroachment and excavation permits. In the situation we have before us we have decided to move forward with the Planning and Zoning Department as opposed to waiting to see what will transpire with the CPUC on the GO -170 issue, as that resolution could end up taking much longer than anticipated, costing us much more time in getting the network operational than we are able to accommodate. The encroachment permitting process is typically a standard evaluation process that takes not much more than two to six weeks. While we understand that the planning process is not expected to be quite as condensed as a DPW process, this piece of the network is critical to our overall system performance. We are, therefore, asking for the City of San Rafael Planning Department to work closely with us in moving the planning process forward in a timely manner so we will be able to acquire our planning approvals, move to the DPW encroachment process to acquire those permits and get the network on -air as soon as possible. . _..:... _...._ 3030 Warrenville Rd Suite 340 - Lisle, Illinois 60532 a T: 630 505 3800 - F: 6" EXHIBIT 1 Kraig Tambornini — City of San Rafael, CA RE: ExteNet Systems Lucas Valley Project rRe SYSTEMS Should 01 17W conte back into play during the planning process we will, together with the City of San Rafael, decide the best course of action at that time. We are hoping, however, that by .Arorking together in this effort, the approvals will be received before that eventuality even becomes a question. One final note for your consideration. As you are aware, I met with several of the residents in the city a few weeks ago over one particular node that was causing concern among that neighborhood. That node has since been relocated outside of the city limits and into the County of Marin. The consensus from that meeting was that if that one node was able to be relocated, the residents could support the remaining nodes. Should any other resident(s) questions arise during the planning process about these other nodes, please do let me know. We are always happy to meet with residents and discuss their concerns. With the remaining nodes being on existing infrastructure, however, I do not anticipate further issues. Please also let me know if there are any unanswered questions in regards to GO -170 and ExteNet Systems' position in regards to GO -170. I will be happy to discuss further. Respectfully,,? Patti Ringo ` Director, Municipal Relations/West Region Y ■e " SYSTEMS DYAWS Network A Distributed Antenna System (DAS) network is a group of multiple transceivers all interconnected to provide wireless service into a target area. In effect, a DAS network is a much smaller of a traditional (macro) cellular network. A DAS network has three major components: o Node — a transceiver serving a small (0.25 mile radius) typically located on electrical poles, light poles, or other outside plant (OSP) o Hub — a centralized location that interfaces with the node and Wireless Service Provider (WSP — e.g. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc) equipment to deliver functioning wireless signals o Interconnection — a medium, typically fiber optics, that interconnects the node equipment with the hub equipment lesign Process for Lucas Valley Similar to the design of a macro cellular network, a WSP will provide requirements that a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) network must fulfill. There are three general classifications of requirements: ® Coverage — delivering adequate wireless signal in an area where signal is either not present or not usable (e.g. interference) a Capacity — providing additional wireless signal and bandwidth resources from many sources (versus one source) to segment traffic and increase the overall capacity of the area being served ® Performance — providing both coverage and capacity to reduce congestion, better facilitate mobility, and improve the overall network performance in that specific area The requirements for a DAS design could be either any one of the classifications or could be a combination of any or all of them. In the case of the Lucas Valley network, the primary requirement was to provide coverage in the specified area. In a coverage design, there are three major goals: o Contiguous coverage — design a network that provides seamless coverage throughout the area ofinterest o Interface with the macro network — ensure coverage and performance continuity between the DAS and the macro network ® Aesthetics — minimizing the number of nodes and equipment per node location required to serve the area of interest Because the goals can somewhat conflict (e.g, providing seamless coverage `,r✓hile minimizing the number of nodes within the design), combined with the small effective coverage radius of each individual node, the design process is very iterative. It is not uncommon to modify designs three to four times before reaching an optimal balance between the three goals. Likewise, the designs become rather n eT SM SYSTEMS rigid, in that modifications to them after the design can produce unwanted outcomes that negate the initial goals. As an example, Figure 1 represents a prediction of the coverage the Lucas Valley DAS network. Figure 1 —Predicted Coverage for Designed Lucas Voliey Network Figure 2 shows the same prediction with three of the nodes moved approximately 100 feet from their originally designed location, producing a coverage "hole," or unserved area of wireless coverage. Figure 2 —Predicted Coverage for Lucas Valley Aletwork whit' Node Locations Moved " 100 feet' The result of this situation would negate the initial goals. Specifically, the network would not provide contiguous coverage within the designed area, so additional node and head end equipment would be necessary, impacting aesthetics and/or node counts. SM1I SYSTEMS Summary The designed node placement for the Lucas Valley network is the optimal balance among the three main goals for a coverage -based DAS network. Even the slightest deviation in node locations, distance between modes, antenna heights, etc. would have adverse effects for both the WSP and for the community. 14.22.080 Use Permit Findings The zoning administrator or planning commission may issue a use pen -nit if the following findings can be made: A. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed facilities would be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the respective zoning districts that are located adjacent to the facilities, which would be placed within the public rights -of -ways. The facilities would enhance the quality of residential and commercial phone coverage in the area of the DAS system. The facilities would be very small in relative scale, would be placed upon existing wood utility poles, designed to blend with the existing surroundings, and would be compatible with residential and commercial uses. Existing housing and neighborhood character would not be adversely affected. The proposed facilities would not reduce the City's affordable housing supply nor would they impede any fiiture construction of affordable housing. The proposed project does not involve commercial office development and will not result in a negative impact to industry, services, or residential uses or activities. F. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, 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. The proposed facilities will help provide essential communications to improve public safety. The presence of a telecommunications network and service will increase the capability of emergency communications in the event that land-based telephone systems become nonfunctional due to natural disaster. It is widely recognized that emergency service personnel rely heavily on wireless communications for fast and dependable communications at all times, especially during times of disaster events. Furthermore, the proposed facility will comply with FCC established radio frequency emission guidelines, as shown in the attached RF Report. C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. 14.15.090 Environmental and Design review Permit Findings The community development director, zoning administrator or planning commission may approve an application for an environmental and design review permit. The following findings must be made by the hearing body: A. That the project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of this chapter. The proposed facilities would be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the respective zoning districts that are located adjacent to the facilities, which are located in the public Rights of Way. The facilities would enhance the quality of residential and commercial phone coverage in the area of the DAS system. The facilities would be very small in relative scale, would be placed upon existing wood utility poles and designed to blend with the existing surroundings, and would be compatible with residential and commercial uses. Existing housing and neighborhood character would not be adverse!,,, affected. The roosed facil;6.'✓^upps.ld not reduce the City's affordable housing supply nor would they impede any future construction of affordable housing. The proposed project does not involve commercial office development and will not result in a negative impact to industry, services, or residential uses or activities. B. That the project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located. The equipment will be mounted to existing wood utility poles and would be painted to match the existing poles. They will be of a size and scope that will blend in well with the surrounding residential settings and are expected to be visually unobtrusive. The proposed project would be designed to minimize the visual appearance of the node installations. The facilities would be very small in relative scale, would be designed to blend with the existing surroundings, and would be compatible with neighboring residential uses. Existing housing and neighborhood character would not be adversely affected. In addition, the DAS infrastucture is designed to support collocation of up to four telecommunications carriers, so installation of this system will help to reduce visual clutter overall by allowing multiple carriers to use the same equipment. C. That the project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts. The project will not result in any negative environmental impacts. It will not generate traffic, nor would it overburden or impact street circulation. There will be no impact to neighborhood parking resources. The proposed facilities would be installed on existing wood utility poles, none of which are defined as local, state or national historic landmarks or strictures. The proposed antennas would be placed within small cylinders that are painted to match the existing poles and would thus reduce aesthetic and visual impact. The addition of the antennas is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to views or vistas, as the subject poles are not part of recognized view sheds. The project sites are not located within or near parks, nor would the project impede access to sunlight, views or vistas. As for health impacts, please see the attached Radio Frequency Emissions Report for an analysis of the anticipated EMF emissions and their compliance with established FCC standards for such emissions. D— That the project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safer, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed facilities will help provide essential communications to improve public safety. The presence of a telecommunications network and service will increase the capability of emergency communications in the event that land-based telephone systems become non*functional due to natural disaster. It is widely recognized that emergency service personnel rely heavily on wireless communications for fast and dependable communications at all times, especially during times of disaster events. Furthermore, the proposed facility will comply with FCC established radio fiequency emission guidelines, as shown in the attached RF Report. MEMO TO: (Craig Tambornini, Lyase Planner RE: ExteNe((��t Systems Incomplete Letter of 4/20/11® RESPONSE MEMO �A�E. 4/.L67/S2 1. CEQA Determination. Environmental Assessment is currently being processed by CPUC. This document will be available from CPUC mid-September. 2. Signed Application. Please see enclosed application form signed by Patti Ringo, ExteNet Western Division Municipal Relations Manager. She is authorized to sign on behalf of the company. 3. Zoning Exception Required. Please accept this statement as a request for Height Exception in order to increase the height of the selected poles for installation of wireless communications facility equipment and antennas in residential zones. The $889 processing fee is enclosed. 4. Revised Plans and Materials. A) Contextual Map. Please find enclosed the Fiber Route Map for the Lucas Valley DAS system. v please send me a poster size color version of this. B) Contextual Diagram. Please find enclosed a simplified map showing all proposed and existing nodes. C) Plan Set reorganization. We will respectfully decline this request as it would entail a significant amount of work to reorganize the drawing sets. D) Coverage Diagram. Please find enclosed a blow up diagram showing the intended coverage of the DAS system. 5. RFR analysis. We respectfully suggest that the City request comments from peer review consultant Jonathan Kramer on the existing report previously submitted, prior to requiring additional reports or further analysis. 6. Stealth Design. ExteNet is complying with this item by re -designing the proposed nodes with its equipment cabinets mounted at grade with landscape screening. 7. General Plan Compliance. Fiber Optic cable can typically be undergrounded. Equipment boxes have been redesigned to be mounted at grade. The equipment boxes can be vaulted in certain unique cases if absolutely necessary, provided that the City can agree to a cost-sharing agreement. DAS antennas cannot be placed underground, therefore, in the circumstance that utility poles are to be undergrounded, ExteNet systems would need to install single -purpose poles for ExteNet's exclusive use, or alternatively, concerned parties including the City and PG&E may arrange to leave the existing wood utility poles in place for ExteNet use. 8. Further DAS Network Description. DECEIVED Basic description: APR 1 O '1012 PLP " !ING ExteNet is a pro '?r of advanced telecommunications rvices, which it offers through a relath,y new wireless distribution technology called a distributed antenna system or DAS. DAS networks are configured using multiple low powered antenna nodes usually installed on existing utility poles in public rights of way and linked together by fiber optic cables that are also attached to additional utility poles in public rights of way. This combination of antenna nodes and fiber is then connected to a base station or hub. The hub typically consists of a set of equipment racks containing optrcal convertern and amplifiers that ;s connected to a wireless carrier's separate equipment racks and ultimately interconnected to that carrier's network and the public switched telephone network. Wireless carriers, such as ATT and T -Mobile, use DAS not only to address difficult to serve areas such as canyons, tunnels and other areas where terrain or large structures impede service, they also rely on DAS to provide advanced data services on a variety of platforms in commercial and residential areas. ExteNet's DAS can accommodate any 3G platforms including UMTA and WCDMA, WiMax (802.11g), and any 4G, platforms such as HSPA+ and LTE. There are several benefits to DAS including better coverage and capacity, spectrum efficiency, reduced interference, increased backhaul, scalability and adaptability. DAS also has the ability to host multiple wireless network providers, thereby making it unnecessary to construct separate facilities for each carrier, improved in -building coverage, increased battery life for phones that can operate on less power because of greater proximity to antennas, higher data speeds and faster Internet access. These benefits enable smart mobile phone technologies and the technologies necessary to drive other hand-held devices such as laptop computers, notebooks and think pads. In addition, DAS provides an indispensable benefit to the public in regards to improved public safety. Wireless -only households as a percentage of overall households is increasing steadily, and will eventually be the predominate means of telephone communication. a. CPUC regulations that apply to the DAS system network and purpose for installing the utility infrastructure ExteNet, formerly Clearlinx Network Corporation, is authorized to provide advanced telecommunications services as a facilities based local exchange carrier ("LEC") authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to its Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") under Utility No. U -6595-C. The CPUC granted ExteNet its second modified CPCN in Decision No. 06-04-063 on April 27, 2006. As a 'facilities -based" LEC, ExteNet is authorized to use public rights-of-way to install its fiber optic lines and antenna nodes subject only to a site-specific determination by the CPUC as Lead Agency that its project qualifies as categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Although it is ExteNet's policy that it will work with local jurisdictions on location and design issues, it is also ExteNet's position that local jurisdictions cannot take actions that are contrary to this grant of authority or that erre otherwise inconsistent with the CPUC's exercise of its jurisdiction in determiningthat DAS networks and the advanced telecommunications services that they provide are in the state's interest in ubiquitous deployment of such services. The prima` -PUC regulation that applies to teleco unications installations on wood u,ility poles in the public ROW is General Order 95. This order regulates precisely where on poles new telecom equipment is allowed to be placed. All equipment is subject to compliance with the dimensional regulations stated in G095, Section 111, Requirements for All Lines, Subsection 34, Foreign Attachments. Subsection C. (2) Energized Apparatus. which states: "All energized apparatus (decorations, wire, cable, lights, etc.) shall n—taintain the some (.tear anaes from condi.Il.tor s as those r equir ed for Q - 75Q volt service drops (Table 2, Column D, and Rule 54.8)." Then, referring to Table 2, Column D, which states: Antennas and associated elements on the same support structure, 72 inch clearance required. b. Basis to support local demand for the network including primary customers served by ExteNet ExteNet is a DAS provider, meaning that they provide telecommunications signal infrastructure for lease and use by the major cell phone service providers. In the case of the "Lucas Valley Network', the intended carrier leasee is T -Mobile. Therefore, the proposed DAS system would provide new coverage to the T -Mobile network customers within the area of the DAS system. Please see below map for a visual depiction of the areas that are expected to receive new or improved coverage: c. How coverage areas are determined The need for coverage is determined through the intersection of spatial concentrations of network customers, the volume of customer complaints, and assessment of the degree of strength of network signal propagation in a targeted c }. The carrier clien't's network engines nterface with ExteNet's engineers determine areas of specific need in designing the overall network and siting individual antenna nodes. RF engineers attempt to provide maximum coverage to the greatest number of network customers by strategically siting nodes in dense clustered areas of development. The goals are threefold: 1) design a network that provides contiguous, seamless coverage throughout the area of interest,- ter est, 2) ensure coverage and performance continuity by establishing an interface between the DAS and the macro facility network; and 3) attempt to have the least aesthetic and visual impact on a neighborhood as is possible through minimizing the overall number of nodes in a DAS system and the volume of equipment per each node. Because so much effort has been expended to precisely and deliberately locate the nodes, in most cases, moving nodes to neighboring utility poles results in the need to install two nodes to provide the equivalent level of service (coverage + capacity). d. Future anticipated growth/demand for additional nodes within the City. ExteNet Systems provides infrastructure to its clients. As it does not provide signal, there is no network plan that we generate. We respond to wireless service providers' needs as they request. e. Whether other DAS systems or wireless cellular carriers (e.g., micro -cells) would be permitted to collocate on the poles Although it is sometimes technically feasible to collocate two antenna installations on one utility pole, it is not practical to have more than one carrier or DAS provider occupy one pole due to the logistics of design and access, and also due to pole engineering, structural integrity and windloading limitations. In addition, PG&E does not allow multiple antenna installations to be installed on one single pole. However, a DAS system is capable of hosting as many as four separate telecommunications carriers' networks on a single DAS network infrastructure. In the sense of the capabilities of DAS systems to host multiple carriers, collocation is possible and encouraged. In addition, DAS systems are deemed by the CPUC to be collocations in California. f. Alternative design solutions that would meet coverage objectives and decrease node and equipment visibility, height, number, placement, etc. Explain why alternatives that decrease visibility are not pursued. ExteNet has worked diligently with Staff to develop a node design that is unobtrusive, low -profile and concealed to the greatest degree possible in order to reduce any perception of visual or aesthetic impact. To that end, the designs have evolved from the initial design indicating all equipment cabinets individually side -mounted on the poles, to a modified solution enclosing all cabinets into one consolidated streamlined, pole -mounted box, painted matte brown to blend in with the surrounding setting, and now has evolved to ground -mounted boxes, softened by landscaping. ExteNet believes that this latest soli r will decrease the visibility of the it dations to the greatest extent poss,ole, and we continue to work with Staff to perfect the design to suit the needs and interests of all concerned parties, including the neighbors, the City and ExteNet's client. FiirthPY as mentinnPd ahnVP� rho nVPra11 DAS not;A,inrr` is i/ery ;ntrirato and has been designed with precise coverage objectives in mind. Each node has been sited to provide maximum effectiveness while attempting to minimize aesthetic impacts to the greatest possible degree. At this point in the system's development, moving the location of a proposed node to an alternate pole would in almost all cases, result in the need for two nodes in its place to achieve the some effectiveness in coverage. Likewise, a reduction in the number of nodes would also erode the intended coverage objectives of ExteNet's clients, and the number of nodes has already been reduced to the least possible to achieve the greatest coverage. As regards height, ExteNet is required to maintain a minimum distance of 72 inches between its equipment and power lines, in accordance with CPUC General Order 95, as mentioned above. As an alternative design solution, antennas can sometimes be side -mounted to the pole between primary and secondary power lines, however, General Order 95 then requires antennas to then be attached to the end of a stand-off support arm at least 4 feet from the pole. This solution is generally avoided because it is considered visually more impacting than the streamlined poletop design, and also because it generally achieves less effective signal propagation. 9. Peer Review. Agreed. 10. Pole Loading Analysis. Please find enclosed the Windloading analysis sheers as prepared by ExteNet revised to remove the equipment boxes as they will be ground -mounted. DPW Comment 1. Guy supports on private property. Please see the enclosed "AT&T Agreement to access ROW Structures." DPW Comment 2. Pole loading analyses. Please see enclosed new Windloading analyses for antennas only, as all equipment boxes have been redesigned to be mounted at grade level. DPW Comment 3. Signed PGE agreement. Please see enclosed Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Joint Pole Association paperwork. DPW Comment 4. Agreement to remove improvements. ExteNet is willing to post a surety bond satisfactory to the City in form and amount, to ensure the restoration of the light standards to a condition absent ExteNet's DAS equipment in the event that ExteNet cannot sustain activities or the improvement are deemed no longer needed. Please confirm this is the a►rection and the amount of the surety bona. DPW Comment 5. Equipment unsightly and sight line risk. Not applicable as nodes have been redesigned with equipment boxes mounted at grade level. DPW Comment E 'hy are there multiple applicants? Tf !anning processing and. permitting for the ,lode equipment including the antennas and equipment boxes, is being handled by ExteNet Municipal Relations Division and their permitting consultants, who are familiar with municipal permitting and entitlement procedures. The permit processing for the fiberoptic runs is a ministerial process that is being handled by E tCIVe s cons tructiUn contracting 'vendor, AG Direct, as trey are most familiar with the technical requirements and engineering of such improvements. DPW Comment 7. Encroachment Permits required. Understood. Following Planning decision on the nodes, ExteNet will submit the required encroachment permit applications. Open House Summary: ExteNet held its first community Open House in October to help educate communities about the use of distributed networks and address any concerns residents may have about DAS installation. The two-hour Open House was held at a Sheraton Hotel in San Rafael. More than 100 area residents attended. The Open House strategy was designed by Laura Altschul and Patti Ringo, Director of Municipal Relations for the West and Western Canada. ExteNet brought in both outside experts and company employees to staff five topic - specific "stations" where attendees could review information and get questions answered. Every 15 minutes a bell was rung and groups of attendees moved from one station to the next. The structure and style of the Open House, which keeps conversation flowing in a non -confrontational way, will serve as a model for other events that can be held anywhere in the country. "We want to show jurisdictions that the company is committed to working with communities to make sure they understand all aspects of a DAS installation, particularly as the regulatory approval gets underway," said Laura. The company brought informational boards and maps that attendees could review. Topics covered were: © How DAS Works, Distributed Networks Are Critical and DAS Advantages & Disadvantages with Mike Alt and Jeff Frye a Overview of Proposed DAS Aesthetics with Patti Ringo and Terry Ray Public Approval Process with Rick Hirsch o Detail of Proposed DAS, Photo -Simulations, Installation and Operations and Construction Schedule with Jim Sullivan and i<en Booker ® Electromagnetic Spectrum and Typical Radio Frequency Exposure in Our Lives with Drew Thatcher, a wireless health effect expert. Attendees also could submit comment cards to Patti Ringo, who then answered all those additional questions in the days following the Open House. "Most people simply want to be heard, and they appreciated that we took the time to listen," said Patti. All of the utility lines in this particular community are underground. With no streetlights, residents expressed concern on where and how the nodes would be installed. A number of residents asked ExteNet to move the location of several nodes, which the company is looking into right now. In addition to teaching the community about the installation of DAS, the Open House served to educate residents on the many wireless applications that will benefit a community, such as better communications with first responders, mobile healthcare monitoring devices and automatic auto diagnostics that alert owners to mechanical issues. Also, please note that none of the comments submitted concerned any of the nodes that are currently planned for the City of San Rafael. All comments pertained to proposed node locations within the jurisdiction of the County. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Rick Hirsch 415-377-7526 ricl<aicp@gmail.com Community Development Department Planning Department, City of San Rafael PO Box 151560 San Rafael, California 94915-1560 We would like to report our strong objection to the proposed 6' extension and antenna placement at 459 Hibiscus Way, Terra Linda. Our neighborhood fought long and hard to have special design review status, due to the design of our homes and their close proximity to one another. This status should preserve the views and privacy of our homes. The proposed location is on a pole in the middle of residences.... not along the public walkways or main streets, where the poles are already higher. It would stand out and be obtrusive. We are also concerned about the nature of such antennae in general, and the health questions raised by this close proximity to people's homes.....just above a bedroom, in this case. If this extension is made, we will see it from all the clerestory windows of our home, as well as from our kitchen table. It will take away our only slice of a view of the hills, and we will no longer have our view of a tiny slice of the sky..we would be looking at electronic equipment that is put there to benefit private enterprise/profits. Are we not protected from this by our special architectural area status? That is certainly what we all intended when, as a neighborhood, we fought so hard for that status... San Rafael has already allowed ATT to place ugly electronic boxes, with NO planting or screening, along Freitas Parkway. These boxes produce an electronic "hum" 24 hours a day, and have service people there on a regular basis, with the attendant noise and disruption. It seems that Terra Linda does not get the same consideration that other areas of San Rafael receive... it seems that the City allows things here , for profit, that might not be allowed in other parts of San Rafael. Please do not do this to us .... there are a lot of ways to hide these antenna and a lot of places to put them besides adjacent to our homes. Thank you, R r, A IVE- Van and Carolyn Jarv's 446 Hickory Lane HIM 2012 San Rafael EXHIBIT 4 travel which is completely unacceptable. In other locations ---especially at wide intersections ---the steel cable -wrapping around the fiber optics has failed. There were lengthy delays until this could be repaired. Most of Terra Linda and parts of Lucas Valley experiences high winds and deferred maintenance is not acceptable. J. Age/Condition of Poles. Our community has 50+ year old wood poles. The additional weight of above -ground fiber optic cabling is causing the poles to lean and/or fail. The staking or "tie -downs" on private property are further blight and may create public safety issues that Applicant should mitigate. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We appreciate your attention to detail and prompt clear communication on this issue. Respectfully submitted, NORTH SAN RAFAEL COALITION OF RESIDENTS* SANTA MARGARITA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION** Carolyn S. Lenert cc: City of Novato Telecommunication Specialist *Post Office Box 6442, San Rafael, CA 94903 **Post Office Box 6449, San Rafael, CA 94903 April 30, 2012 Mr. Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner Community Development Department -Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue, Post Office Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Mr. Neil Osborne Community Development Agency County of Marin 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: ExteNet Systems (California) LLC -Telecom DAS Network -Terra Linda/Lucas Valley Gentlemen: Thank you for transmitting the above project referral to Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association and the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents. The following represents a joint response on our behalf. A. In re Memo to Kraig Tambornini re incomplete letter of 4/20/11 response memo dated 4/10/12 — Item 6 Stealth Design. Landscape screening for equipment cabinets mounted at grade is proposed. Although the aesthetic intent is appreciated, without an allocation for maintenance and irrigation, this is not feasible. The installations are in un- irrigated public rights of way with extremely depleted and hardened soils. In the unlikely event that plants installed for screening could survive, the costs of irrigation and regular maintenance should be borne by the Applicant and not by City taxpayers. B. Memo To KT re 4/20/11 response memo dated 4/10/12 — Item 7 General Plan Compliance. Equipment boxes have been redesigned to be mounted at grade. While this is an improvement over the "garbage can in the sky" approach, equipment boxes at grade will attract graffiti and require re -painting within 24 hours of their defacement. To prevent the blighting of the neighborhoods, a toll-free graffiti hotline telephone number should be established, placed on each installation together with some ExteNet identification that describes the location of the facility. The terms of this maintenance should be written, specific and involve no expense for the City. "The equipment boxes can be vaulted in certain unique cases if absolutely necessary provided that the City can agree to a cost-sharing agreement." The City (taxpayers) Si iould wear no cosi of any kiiid in connection with the i iigi iiy-iucr ative private enterprise being conducted in public rights of way. If utilities are to be undergrounded and the existing wood utility poles are left in place, ExteNet should bear all costs and liability since it is the primary beneficiary. C. Memo To KT re 4/20/11 response memo dated 4/10112 — Item 8. Basic Description; last sentence of third paragraph. "Wireless -only households as a percentage of overall households is (sic) increasing steadily, and will eventually be the predominate (sic) means of telephone communication." In the event of disaster, wireless -only households and VOIP-households will be left vulnerable--- without telephone service within a short period. Since ExteNet is promoting this outcome, they should fund a public service announcement program for the foreseeable future regarding their customers' clients' expectations during disasters and/or prolonged electrical outages. D. 8a. CPUC regulations that apply to the DAS system network and purpose for installing the utility infrastructure, 10th line. "Although it is ExteNet's policy that it will work with local jurisdictions on location and design issues, it is also ExteNet's position that local jurisdictions cannot take actions that are contrary to this grant of authority or that are otherwise inconsistent with the CPUC's exercise of its jurisdiction in determining that DAS networks and the advanced telecommunication services that they provide are in the state's interest in ubiquitous deployment of such services." According to the Bagley -Keene Act: "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." The State's interest is the people's interest and this is further delineated and expressed in local government, local control and local regulations to which ExteNet will comply without objection or exception. E. 8f. Alternative design solutions fhat would meet coverage objectives and decrease node and equipment visibility, height, number, placement, etc. Explain why alternatives that decrease visibility are not pursued. See the first paragraph, 7th line: "...and now has evolved to ground -mounted boxes, softened by landscaping. ExteNet believes that this latest solution will decrease the visibility of the installations to the greatest extent possible..." See comments A and B above. F. Pole Loading Analysis. DPW Comment 4. Agreement to remove improvements. "ExteNet is willing to post a surety bond satisfactory to the City in form and amount, to ensure the restoration of the light standards to a condition absent ExteNet's DAS equipment in the event that ExteNet cannot sustain activities or the improvement are Geeiiied no lodger deeded. Please Confirm the direction and the amount of the surety bond. "Of course, the bond should ensure the restoration of the entire pole (not just the light standards) to pre-ExteNet installation conditions. We do not understand what the "direction" of a bond is. The amount of bond should be tied to the CPI or other appropriate and customary cost/inflation projection index. G. Open House Summary. "Most people simply want to be heard, and they appreciate that we took the time to listen, "said Patti. "We vigorously disagree with the above statement. ExteNet was forced to convene a community forum after a total failure to properly engage one community while attempting to install a 60' tower 20' from a San Rafael homeowner's bedroom on Cedar Hill without the necessary permits or regulatory review. The "divide and conquer" approach at the Open House with five topic -specific stations was unsuccessful and resulted in a lively community question and answer period. One vice president began his statement "In all good faith..." while the Applicant was suing another Bay Area city that was attempting to apply its local telecommunication ordinances. The five -station approach is inefficient and incoherent. The public did not "want to be heard," but wanted the facts and assurances of local design standards. "Most people" cannot believe assertions made by ExteNet representatives due to their divisive attempts to circumvent local regulations and their later false written assertion that Underground Service Area markings on Cedar Hill have been removed. The multi -color paint remains to this day along the entire length of the street, reminding "most people" what almost happened on the 2011 Martin Luther King 3 -day holiday weekend. Last page. "All of the utility lines in this particular community are underground..." While this may be true of the Lucas Valley installations, four of the facilities are planned for Terra Linda. So this statement is confusing or untrue. "Also, please note that none of the comments submitted concerned any of the nodes that are currently planned for the City of San Rafael." The public record is clear: from the beginning of the proposed project, the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association requested compensation for the blighting of its community, objected to the "garbage cans in the sky," and asked that a bond for equipment removal be secured. H. Obsolesence. We understand that DAS technology is already obsolete and are not enthusiastic about the proposed project. I. Height of Aerial Routing. We have observed that aerial pole-to-pole routing has been installed too low and without cable -wrapping in our neighborhoods. In several IC—l—S other VerI -C fac,l,t;eS dC notenable moving trucks to �tuy in their lane of ll, �,.,�.,r .-11,.J L7Il,___ it,— .,1:.-...,f:.,., It dL. .. !� f'L - !.. deemed no /Ongef neeuuu. rluaou Conflrfm, ufu unut,uvu and the amount ofthe e surety bond." Of course, the bond should ensure the restoration of the entire pole (not just the light standards) to pre-ExteNet installation conditions. We do not understand what the "direction" of a bond is. The amount of bond should be tied to the CPI or other appropriate and customary cost/inflation projection index. G. Open House Summary. "Most people simply want to be heard, and they appreciate that we took the time to listen, "said Patti. "We vigorously disagree with the above statement. ExteNet was forced to convene a community forum after a total failure to properly engage one community while attempting to install a 60' tower 20' from a San Rafael homeowner's bedroom on Cedar Hill without the necessary permits or regulatory review. The "divide and conquer" approach at the Open House with five topic -specific stations was unsuccessful and resulted in a lively community question and answer period. One vice president began his statement "In all good faith..." while the Applicant was suing another Bay Area city that was attempting to apply its local telecommunication ordinances. The five -station approach is inefficient and incoherent. The public did not "want to be heard," but wanted the facts and assurances of local design standards. "Most people" cannot believe assertions made by ExteNet representatives due to their divisive attempts to circumvent local regulations and their later false written assertion that Underground Service Area markings on Cedar Hill have been removed. The multi -color paint remains to this day along the entire length of the street, reminding "most people" what almost happened on the 2011 Martin Luther King 3 -day holiday weekend. Last page. "All of the utility lines in this particular community are underground..." While this may be true of the Lucas Valley installations, four of the facilities are planned for Terra Linda. So this statement is confusing or untrue. "Also, please note that none of the comments submitted concerned any of the nodes that are currently planned for the City of San Rafael. "The public record is clear: from the beginning of the proposed project, the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association requested compensation for the blighting of its community, objected to the "garbage cans in the sky," and asked that a bond for equipment removal be secured. H. Obsolesence. We understand that DAS technology is already obsolete and are not enthusiastic about the proposed project. I. Height of Aerial Routing. We have observed that aerial pole-to-pole routing has been installed too low and without cable -wrapping in our neighborhoods. In several locations, other vendors' facilities do not enable moving trucks to stay In their lane of M travel which is completely unacceptable. In other locations ---especially at wide intersections ---the steel cable -wrapping around the fiber optics has failed. There were lengthy delays until this could be repaired. Most of Terra Linda and parts of Lucas Valley experiences high winds and deferred maintenance is not acceptable. J. Age/Condition of Poles. Our community has 50+ year old wood poles. The additional weight of above -ground fiber optic cabling is causing the poles to lean and/or fail. The staking or "tie -downs" on private property are further blight and may create public safety issues that Applicant should mitigate. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We appreciate your attention to detail and prompt clear communication on this issue. Respectfully submitted, NORTH SAN RAFAEL COALITION OF RESIDENTS* SANTA MARGARITA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION** Carolyn S. Lenert cc: City of Novato Telecommunication Specialist *Post Office Box 6442, San Rafael, CA 94903 **Post Office Box 6449, San Rafael, CA 94903