Loading...
Exhibit CC 02-01-2011 No. 19 T-Mobile Antenna 11371 Bubb Rd EXHIBIT Grace Schmidt 9 From: Colin Jung Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:30 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Radiation analysis - T- Mobile Antenna proposal - 11371 Bubb Rd. Attachments: DIR- 2010- 28- EXHIBIT1.pdf; DIR - 2010- 28- EXHIBIT2.pdf; DIR- 2010- 28- EXHIBIT3.pdf Kim: I forwarded copies of these attachments to Aarti, Carol and the applicant. Don't know if the City Council got theirs. Shaul Berger received a copy of the T- Mobile attorney's letter. Colin From: Shaul Berger fmailto:dspmaster(agmail.com1 Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:46 PM To: City Council; Colin Jung Subject: Radiation analysis - T- Mobile Antenna proposal - 11:371 Bubb Rd. Dear Hon. Mayor, Council Members and Colin, In the last council meeting on this topic, (11/29/10), I mentioned radiation results of our own technical analysis, done by Prof. Willie Lu. These results showed much higher levels of radiation (compared to what the city presented), beyond the government approved levels. Council member Mark Santoro asked to see the report and I planned to do it as well as provide this information to Colin. Unfortunately I learned that these steps had legal implications that I was not aware of. Originally Mark agreed to meet me but later informed me (Dec 1) that he was adviced by the city attorney not to meet me. I suggested that the city attorney will attend this meeting (Dec 1) but the meeting never happened and thus I did not have a chance to present our analysis. The city attorney guidance indicated to me that disclosing this analysis had legal aspects. As good will gesture, without rescinding our right to use this information during any future judicial proceedings, I am providing this analysis to the city council. Providing this information does not preclude us from raising or litigating it in a subsequent judicial proceeding. T- Mobile reiterated the 0.22% MPE max at 12 FT from the antenna multiple times. However, we calculated much higher levels. The detailed data of MPE at 12ft, 20ft and 30ft, based on the antenna and transmitter information as set forth in the DIR- 2010 -28 REF -1, A -2, etc are attached. It is clear that our analysis and T- Mobile analysis provide completely different results. As I suggested in the 11/29/10 meeting, we are interested to resolve these extreme discrepancies. I was never approached by the city representative to discuss the results with their experts. W e believe that differences originate in the T- Mobile assumptions but I do not plan to make uneducated guess. Sincerely yours Shaul Berger 11371 Bubb Rd. 1 RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY EVALUATION FOR: Antenna Type: Panel Dual Polarized Antenna Gain: 14.7 dBi Transmission Line Type: Hardline Transmission Line Length: 25 feet Maximum Transmitter Power (PEP): 360 watts Power at the Antenna (PEP minus transmission line loss): 267 watts Frequency of Operation: 1900 MHZ Ground Reflection Effects are NOT included in results calculation Distance from the point of interest to the antenna: 12 feet Except for the 'WORST CASE' results, all results calculations utilized antenna gain, transmitter power, transmission line losses, frequency of operation, and the effects of ground reflection (if requested). Worst case results do not include transmission line losses and do include ground reflection effects whether requested or not. RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS: Maximum Permissible Exposure at this frequency, expressed as milliwatts /square centimeter is: Controlled Environment: 5 mW /sq. cm. Uncontrolled Environment: 1 mW /sq. cm. Estimated RF power density at the point of interest (specified distance from the antenna) expressed as percent of the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE). This percentage value can be added to the power density percentages calculated for other nearby antennas to determine if total exposure exceeds FCC guidelines. Check duty cycle(s) used: [ ] SSB w/o processor (20% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 18.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 93.7% [ ] CW and SSB w /processor (40% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 37.5% Uncontrolled Environment: 187.4% [ ] FM /FSK /RTTY /AFSK /SSTV (100% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 93.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 468.5% WORST CASE (100% duty cycle; w/o transmission line attenuation; w /ground reflection effects): Controlled Environment: 126.4% Uncontrolled Environment: 632% RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY EVALUATION FOR: Antenna Type: Panel Dual Polarized Antenna Gain: 14.7 dBi Transmission Line Type: Hardline Transmission Line Length: 25 feet Maximum Transmitter Power (PEP): 360 watts Power at the Antenna (PEP minus transmission line loss): 267 watts Frequency of Operation: 1900 MHZ Ground Reflection Effects are NOT included in results calculation Distance from the point of interest to the antenna: 20 feet Except for the 'WORST CASE' results, all results calculations utilized antenna gain, transmitter power, transmission line losses, frequency of operation, and the effects of ground reflection (if requested). Worst case results do not include transmission line losses and do include ground reflection effects whether requested or not. RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS: Maximum Permissible Exposure at this frequency, expressed as milliwatts /square centimeter is: Controlled Environment: 5 mW /sq. cm. Uncontrolled Environment: 1 mW /sq. cm. Estimated RF power density at the point of interest (specified distance from the antenna) expressed as percent of the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE). This percentage value can be added to the power density percentages calculated for other nearby antennas to determine if total exposure exceeds FCC guidelines. Check duty cycle(s) used: [ ] SSB w/o processor (20% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 6.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 33.7% [ ] CW and SSB w /processor (40% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 13.5% Uncontrolled Environment: 67.5% [ ] FM /FSK /RTTY /AFSK /SSTV (100% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 33.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 168.7% WORST CASE (100% duty cycle; w/o transmission line attenuation; w /ground reflection effects): Controlled Environment: 45.5% Uncontrolled Environment: 227.5% RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY EVALUATION FOR: Antenna Type: Panel Dual Polarized Antenna Gain: 14.7 dBi Transmission Line Type: Hardline Transmission Line Length: 25 feet Maximum Transmitter Power (PEP): 360 watts Power at the Antenna (PEP minus transmission line loss): 267 watts Frequency of Operation: 1900 MHZ Ground Reflection Effects are NOT included in results calculation Distance from the point of interest to the antenna: 30 feet Except for the 'WORST CASE' results, all results calculations utilized antenna gain, transmitter power, transmission line losses, frequency of operation, and the effects of ground reflection (if requested). Worst case results do not include transmission line losses and do include ground reflection effects whether requested or not. RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS: Maximum Permissible Exposure at this frequency, expressed as milliwatts /square centimeter is: Controlled Environment: 5 mW /sq. cm. Uncontrolled Environment: 1 mW /sq. cm. Estimated RF power density at the point of interest (specified distance from the antenna) expressed as percent of the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE). This percentage value can be added to the power density percentages calculated for other nearby antennas to determine if total exposure exceeds FCC guidelines. Check duty cycles) used: [ ] SSB w/o processor (20% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 3% Uncontrolled Environment: 15% [ ] CW and SSB w /processor (40% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 6% Uncontrolled Environment: 30% [ ] FM /FSK /RTTY /AFSK /SSTV (100% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 15% Uncontrolled Environment: 75% WORST CASE (100% duty cycle; w/o transmission line attenuation; w /ground reflection effects): Controlled Environment: 20.2% Uncontrolled Environment: 101.1% ExHiBrir _ MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 423 WASHINGTON STREET, SIXTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 TELEPHONE 415 / 288 -4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288 -4010 January 27, 2011 VIA EMAIL Mayor Gilbert Wong Vice Mayor Mark Santoro Council Members Kris Wang, Orrin Mahoney and Barry Chang Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 -3232 Re: City Council Agenda, February 1, 2011 Appeal of DIR- 2010 -28 T- Mobile Facility at 11371 Bubb Road Dear Mayor Wong, Vice Mayor Santoro and Council Members: We write to you on behalf of our client T- Mobile West Corporation ( "T- Mobile ") to urge that you reject the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Shaul Berger ( "Appellant ") and instead affirm your well - reasoned decision, as well as the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the determination of the Director of Community Development, to grant a Minor Modification to T- Mobile to allow the placement of a wireless microcell facility on the utility pole located at 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino (the "Approved Facility"). Appellant raises no new relevant evidence nor any evidence of abuse of discretion or procedure by the City Council that could warrant reconsideration of this approval. Further, as we explain below, given the extensive record submitted in support of approval of the Approved Facility, there are no lawful grounds under federal law for Council denial of the Approved Facility. I. The Project T- Mobile has identified a significant gap in coverage in its Cupertino wireless network in the area centered around the intersection of Bubb and Regnart Roads. The Approved Facility would consist of three (3) panel antennas mounted at approximately 45' on an existing 61' 4" wooden PG &E pole. Associated equipment boxes would also be installed on the pole, with antennas and equipment boxes painted to match the color of the existing wooden pole. Cupertino Municipal Code ( "CMC ") Section 19.108.040(B)(3) provides that facilities are allowed on utility poles in residential Cupertino City Council January 27, 2011 Page 2 of 6 districts so long as they comply with Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ") standards. The approved facility will provide telecommunications service to approximately 4,881 Cupertino residents and will provide seamless coverage to four other T- Mobile wireless facilities in the Cupertino network. II. No Grounds for Reconsideration The Petition for Reconsideration filed by Appellant under CMC Section 2.08.096 clearly fails to meet the standards for reconsideration and should be summarily rejected by the City Council. Specifically, Appellant fails to introduce any of the requisite new evidence or provide evidence of any abuse of discretion by the Council. In his petition, Appellant claims that site alternatives were not adequately evaluated or explored. However the record of the City Council hearing shows that T- Mobile representatives evaluated alternatives such as Linda Vista Park, Results Way and the water tank on Regnart Road and found that none of the potential alternatives provide a less intrusive means to provide service in T- Mobile's identified coverage gap. Appellant has provided no new evidence regarding these proposed locations that would change that conclusion. Appellant's comments regarding the networks of other wireless carriers is entirely irrelevant as each carrier utilizes different radio frequencies for their service which require differing network designs. Further, the abundance or lack of T- Mobile customers in Cupertino is entirely irrelevant to their need to fill a significant coverage gap and again, Appellant provides no new evidence that would support reconsideration of the Approved Facility. Appellant's allegations that the Council did not adequately address radio frequency emissions from the Approved Facility is equally erroneous as this matter was fully evaluated and reviewed by Council prior to their decision. Finally, as confirmed by Planning staff, the Planning Commission and your own Council, the Director acted fully within CMC Section 19.132 in determining that the addition of antennas to a 61' 4" tall utility pole is a Minor Modification. Again, Appellant provides no new evidence of abuse of discretion to change this decision. The Petition for Reconsideration does not fulfill the requirements of CMC Section 2.08.096 to provide new evidence or evidence of Council abuse of discretion and must be rejected by Council without further review of the Approved Facility. III. Federal Law T- Mobile is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless telecommunications services throughout the United States, including in Cupertino. The siting of a wireless communications facility ( "WCF ") for licensees such as T- Mobile, including antennae facilities such as the one at issue before the Council, is governed by both federal law and by local land use provisions. The federal Telecommunications Act attempts to reconcile any potential conflicts between the need for deployment of new WCFs and local land use Cupertino City Council • January 27, 2011 Page 3 of 6 authority "by placing certain limitations on localities' control over the construction and modification of WCFs." Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 721 (9th Cir. 2009). Specifically, as relevant here, the Telecommunications Act preserves local control over land use decisions, subject to the following explicit statutory restrictions: -- The local government must act on a permit application within a reasonable period of time (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(13)(ii)); - - The decision must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii)); -- The local government may not regulate the placement, construction, or modification of WCFs on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)); - - The local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)); and -- The local government's decision must not "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). Local governments are specifically precluded from considering any alleged health or environmental effects of RF emissions in making decisions as to the siting of WCFs "to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions." See 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). The "substantial evidence" requirement means that a local government's decision must be "authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence (i.e., more than a `scintilla' but not necessarily a preponderance)." Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Sprint PCS, 583 F.3d at 726 (a local government decision must be valid under local law and supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as acceptable to support a conclusion "). Generalized concerns or opinions about aesthetics are insufficient to constitute substantial evidence upon which a local government could deny a permit. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 101 Cal.App.4th 367, 381 (2002). While a local government may regulate the placement of WCFs based on aesthetics, it must have specific reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the :record to deny a permit. Under the "effective prohibition" criteria (the last in the list above), a local government runs afoul of the Telecommunications Act if it prevents a wireless provider Cupertino City Council January 27, 2011 Page 4 of 6 from closing a "significant gap" in service coverage. This issue involves a two - pronged analysis: (1) whether the provider has demonstrated the existence of a "significant gap" in coverage; and (2) whether the proposed facility is the "least intrusive means," in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations, to address the gap. See e.g., Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 734 -35; Sprint PCS, 583 F.3d at 726. In California, courts follow the "multi provider rule," which means that the focus is on whether the provider shows a significant gap in its own service coverage; the availability of wireless service from other providers in the area is irrelevant for purposes of the analysis. Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 733; Sprint PCS, 583 F.3d at 726, n. 8. If a provider demonstrates both the existence of a significant gap in coverage, and that the proposed facility meets the "least intrusive means" standard, the local government is required to approve the facility, even if there would otherwise be substantial evidence to deny the permit on aesthetic grounds or under other local land use provisions. This is because the requirements for federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act have been satisfied, i.e., denial of the permit would "have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(1)(ii); T- Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). For the local jurisdiction to overcome this preemption, it must show that another alternative is available, that it is technologically feasible, and that it is "less intrusive" than the proposed facility. T- Mobile v. Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 998 -999. With this legal framework in mind, we address below the specific issues before the Council with respect to T- Mobile's Approved Facility and the Petition for Reconsideration. IV. Federal Law Preempts Regulation Based on Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency Emissions CMC Section 19.108.040(B)(3) provides that facilities are allowed on utility poles in residential districts so long as they comply with FCC standards. A radio frequency engineering analysis provided Hammett & Edison Consulting Engineers dated July 28, 2010 (the "H &E RF Report") confirms that the Approved Facility will operate well within (and actually far below) all applicable FCC public exposure limits. As noted above, local governments are specifically precluded from considering any alleged health or environmental effects of RF emissions in making decisions as to the siting of WCFs "to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions." See 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)). It is well established federal law that a local agency may not deny an application for the installation for a wireless telecommunication facility based on concerns related to the effects of radio frequency emissions. See SprintCom Inc. v. Puerto Rico Regulations and Permits Admin. (2008) 553 F.Supp.2d 87. The H &E RF Report verifies that the Approved Facility will operate well within (and actually far below) all applicable FCC public exposure limits. Indeed, the H &E RF Report states that with the Approval Facility operating at maximum Cupertino City Council January 27, 2011 Page 5 of 6 theoretical power levels, the RF exposure for a person anywhere at ground level or at the nearest residence would be less than one - quarter of one percent of the applicable public limit. In sum, where RF emissions are 400 times below federal standards, regardless of Appellant's claims regarding topography or proximity to schools, the City of Cupertino has no authority to reconsider the approved facility based upon radio frequency emissions. V. Approval Required to Avoid Federal Prohibition of Service T- Mobile has demonstrated both that there is a "significant gap" in coverage and that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive alternative for meeting the coverage needs in that area. Under the federal law, if these two criteria are shown, the facility must be approved. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). This is because when these factors are present, denial of the Approved Facility would impermissibly result in the denial of wireless services within the coverage gap area. Ibid.; see also Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 734 -35; Sprint PCS, 583 F.3d at 726. The coverage maps and drive test data submitted by T- Mobile clearly show a gap in coverage in densely residential areas of the city of Cupertino centered around the intersections of Bubb and Regnart Roads. Specifically, this coverage gap is bound by Rosario Avenue to the north, Stelling Road and Hwy 85 to the east, Rainbow Drive and Upland Way to the south, and Linda Vista, Santa Teresa Drives and Lindy Lane to the West. VI. The Approved Facility is the "Least Intrusive" Alternative Lastly, the evidence before the Council demonstrates that the Approved Facility is the "least intrusive" alternative to address the coverage gap. T- Mobile in locating this site sought to identify the facility that would be least intrusive to the community while providing the necessary wireless service. In this regard, T- Mobile followed the direction of Planning staff and the Cupertino Wireless Facilities Master Plan, which favors the use of existing structures in residential zones such as utility poles. Specifically, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan provides that, in residential locations, "the most unobtrusive mounting structures will likely be existing street lights, traffic signals and utility poles and towers. There will be facility opportunities at high schools, churches and fire stations that are located in residential neighborhoods, but these locations are few in comparison to the number of public utility structures." In completing its Alternatives Analysis, T- Mobile determined that there were no high schools, churches or fire stations available for locating the Approved Facility. As such, T- Mobile's modification of a utility pole is the least intrusive means of filling the identified coverage gap under the values expressed in the CMC and the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Appellant has proposed alternatives that are both infeasible and fall outside of the preferred site locations under the CMC and the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. These Cupertino City Council January 27, 2011 Page 6 of 6 alternatives are reviewed in the supplemental Alternatives Analysis submitted by T- Mobile and discussed at the City Council meeting of November 29, 2010. The proposed AT &T monopine at the Results Way Office Park has not been approved, and is therefore not a currently feasible alternative. In addition, the AT &T monopine is located too far north of the coverage area to even reach any coverage objective areas that would be served by the approved facility. Similarly, Linda Vista Park would require a new antenna structure, is too far to the northwest, and would not provide coverage to the areas north and south of Rainbow Drive and east of Bubb Road. Finally, location of the facility at the San Jose Water Company reservoir on Regnart Road is not feasible as a new structure would be required, and any such structure would not meet required residential setbacks. In sum, a review of the CMC, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan and all potential and theoretical alternatives confirms that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive means under the values expressed in the CMC and the Wireless Facilities Master Pland to provide service to the coverage objective area. Having identified a significant gap in coverage, and also having shown that the Approved Facility is the least intrusive means to fill that gap, T- Mobile has met its burden of establishing that the facility must be approved under applicable federal law. In such circumstances, the burden shifts to the local government to provide substantial evidence that another alternative is available, that it is technologically feasible, and that it will provide adequate signal coverage with less impact than the Approved Facility. See T Mobile USA, Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, 572 F.3d at 998 - 999. The Director of Community Development, the Planning Commission and the City Council, notwithstanding Appellant's continuing efforts to relocate the Approved Facility, correctly recognized that such a showing has not, and cannot be made in the circumstances presented here. Conclusion T- Mobile has worked in good faith to meet the wireless telecommunications needs of Cupertino, and to do so in a manner consistent with both federal law and City land use regulations and guidelines. While minimally impacting adjacent neighbors, T- Mobile's proposal will bring life - saving technology to a significant number of Cupertino residents, service providers, emergency service personnel and visitors. We urge the Council to reject the Petition for Reconsideration and to grant T- Mobile's minor modification. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Kevin Brinkley, Esq. / Mohammed Hill, Esq. cc/0 -1-11 tr Colin Jung From: Shaul Berger [dspmaster @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:46 PM To: City Council; Colin Jung Subject: Radiation analysis - T- Mobile Antenna proposal - 11371 Bubb Rd. Attachments: DIR- 2010- 28- EXHIBIT1.pdf; DIR 2010- 28- EXHIBIT2.pdf; DIR- 2010- 28- EXHIBIT3.pdf Dear Hon. Mayor, Council Members and Colin, In the last council meeting on this topic, (11/29/10), I mentioned radiation results of our own technical analysis, done by Prof. Willie Lu. These results showed much higher levels of radiation (compared to what the city presented), beyond the government approved levels. Council member Mark Santoro asked to see the report and I planned to do it as well as provide this information to Colin. Unfortunately I learned that these steps had legal implications that I was not aware of. Originally Mark agreed to meet me but later informed me (Dec 1) that he was adviced by the city attorney not to meet me. I suggested that the city attorney will attend this meeting (Dec 1) but the meeting never happened and thus I did not have a chance to present our analysis. The city attorney guidance indicated to me that disclosing this analysis had legal aspects. As good will gesture, without rescinding our right to use this information during any future judicial proceedings, I am providing this analysis to the city council. Providing this information does not preclude us from raising or litigating it in a subsequent judicial proceeding. T- Mobile reiterated the 0.22% MPE max at 12 FT from the antenna multiple times. However, we calculated much higher levels. The detailed data of MPE at 12ft, 20ft and 30ft, based on the antenna and transmitter information as set forth in the DIR- 2010 -28 REF -1, A -2, etc are attached. It is clear that our analysis and T- Mobile analysis provide completely different results. As I suggested in the 11/29/10 meeting, we are interested to resolve these extreme discrepancies. I was never approached by the city representative to discuss the results with their experts. We believe that differences originate in the T- Mobile assumptions but I do not plan to make uneducated guess. Sincerely yours Shaul Berger 11371 Bubb Rd. 1 RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY EVALUATION FOR: - Antenna Type: Panel Dual Polarized Antenna Gain: 14.7 dBi Transmission Line Type: Hardline Transmission Line Length: 25 feet Maximum Transmitter Power (PEP): 360 watts Power at the Antenna (PEP minus transmission line loss): 267 watts Frequency of Operation: 1900 MHZ Ground Reflection Effects are NOT included in results calculation Distance from the point of interest to the antenna: 12 feet Except for the 'WORST CASE' results, all results calculations utilized antenna gain, transmitter power, transmission line losses, frequency of operation, and the effects of ground reflection (if requested). Worst case results do not include transmission line losses and do include ground reflection effects whether requested or not. RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS: Maximum Permissible Exposure at this frequency, expressed as milliwatts /square centimeter is: Controlled Environment: 5 mW /sq. cm. Uncontrolled Environment: 1 mW /sq. cm. Estimated RF power density at the point of interest (specified distance from the antenna) expressed as percent of the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE). This percentage value can be added to the power density percentages calculated for other nearby antennas to determine if total exposure exceeds FCC guidelines. Check duty cycle(s) used: [ ] SSB w/o processor (20% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 18.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 93.7% [ ] CW and SSB w /processor (40% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 37.5% Uncontrolled Environment: 187.4% [ ] FM /FSK /RTTY /AFSK /SSTV (100% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 93.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 468.5% WORST CASE (100% duty cycle; w/o transmission line attenuation; w /ground reflection effects): Controlled Environment: 126.4% Uncontrolled Environment: 632% RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY EVALUATION FOR: Antenna Type: Panel Dual Polarized Antenna Gain: 14.7 dBi Transmission Line Type: Hardline Transmission Line Length: 25 feet Maximum Transmitter Power (PEP): 360 watts Power at the Antenna (PEP minus transmission line loss): 267 watts Frequency of Operation: 1900 MHZ Ground Reflection Effects are NOT included in results calculation Distance from the point of interest to the antenna: 20 feet Except for the 'WORST CASE' results, all results calculations utilized antenna gain, transmitter power, transmission line losses, frequency of operation, and the effects of ground reflection (if requested). Worst case results do not include transmission line losses and do include ground reflection effects whether requested or not. RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS: Maximum Permissible Exposure at this frequency, expressed as milliwatts /square centimeter is: Controlled Environment: 5 mW /sq. cm. Uncontrolled Environment: 1 mW /sq. cm. Estimated RF power density at the point of interest (specified distance from the antenna) expressed as percent of the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE). This percentage value can be added to the power density percentages calculated for other nearby antennas to determine if total exposure exceeds FCC guidelines. Check duty cycle(s) used: [ ] SSB w/o processor (20% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 6.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 33.7% [ ] CW and SSB w /processor (40% duty cyc:_e): Controlled Environment: 13.5% Uncontrolled Environment: 67.5% [ ] FM /FSK /RTTY /AFSK /SSTV (100% duty cyc:_e): Controlled Environment: 33.7% Uncontrolled Environment: 168.7% WORST CASE (100% duty cycle; w/o transmission line attenuation; w /ground reflection effects): Controlled Environment: 45.5% Uncontrolled Environment: 227.5% RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY EVALUATION FOR: Antenna Type: Panel Dual Polarized Antenna Gain: 14.7 dBi Transmission Line Type: Hardline Transmission Line Length: 25 feet Maximum Transmitter Power (PEP): 360 watts Power at the Antenna (PEP minus transmission line loss): 267 watts Frequency of Operation: 1900 MHZ Ground Reflection Effects are NOT included in results calculation Distance from the point of interest to the antenna: 30 feet Except for the 'WORST CASE' results, all results calculations utilized antenna gain, transmitter power, transmission line losses, frequency of operation, and the effects of ground reflection (if requested). Worst case results do not include transmission line losses and do include ground reflection effects whether requested or not. RESULTS OF POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS: Maximum Permissible Exposure at this frequency, expressed as milliwatts /square centimeter is: Controlled Environment: 5 mW /sq. cm. Uncontrolled Environment: 1 mW /sq. cm. Estimated RF power density at the point of interest (specified distance from the antenna) expressed as percent of the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE). This percentage value can be added to the power density percentages calculated for other nearby antennas to determine if total exposure exceeds FCC guidelines. Check duty cycle(s) used: [ ] SSB w/o processor (20% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 3% Uncontrolled Environment: 15% [ ] CW and SSB w /processor (40% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 6% Uncontrolled Environment: 30% [ ] FM /FSK /RTTY /AFSK /SSTV (100% duty cycle): Controlled Environment: 15% Uncontrolled Environment: 75% WORST CASE (100% duty cycle; w/o transmission line attenuation; w /ground reflection effects): Controlled Environment: 20.2% Uncontrolled Environment: 101.1% ) % a - 1_I I � Atta - Mobile West Corp.' Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF24189D ) 11371 Bubb Road • Cupertino, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of T- Mobile West Corp., a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF24189D) proposed to be located at. 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ( "RF ") electromagnetic fields. • • Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several wireless services are as follows: . Wireless Service Frequency Band Occupational Limit Public Limit Microwave (Point -to- Point) 5- 80,000 MHz 5.00 mW /cm .1.00 mW /cm BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,60() 5.00 1.00 AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,10() 5.00 1.00 PCS (Personal Communication) 1,95() 5.00 1.00 Cellular 870 • 2.90 . 0.58 SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0.57 700 MHz • • 700 2.35 0.47 [most restrictive frequency range] 30 -300 . 1.00 0.20 Power line frequencies (60 Hz) are well below the applicable range of these standards, and there is considered to be no compounding effect froth. simultaneous exposure to power line and radio frequency fields. . General Facility Requirements • Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "channels ") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. Tilt transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial gables. . A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line -of -sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum - perrn-issible-exposUre-ljmits- yKithout_being h illy very near the Jntennas_ `= HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. TM24189X596 CONSULTING tNCINEOS . _ :`;'4:- SAN INANCISCQ Page 1 of 3 T- Mobile West Corp. • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF24189D) 11371 Bubb Road • Cupertino, California Computer Modeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC - Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the "near- field" effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law "). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests: Site Description Based upon information provided by T- Mobile, including construction drawings by Michael Wilk Architecture, dated July 2, 2010, it is proposed to mount three RFS Model APXV18- 206513 -C directional panel antennas on an existing 60V2 -foot utility pole sited in the public right -of -way located near . 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino. The antennas would be mounted with up to 2° downtilt at an effective height of about 44%2 feet above ground and would be oriented toward 0°T, 120 °T, and 240 °T, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 360 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 180 watts each for AWS and for PCS. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations nearby. • • Study Results • • For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed T- Mobile operation is calculated to be 0.0012 mW /cm which is 0.12% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at the second -floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.22% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst- case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels from the proposed operation. Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting locations, the T- Mobile antennas would not be accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To .prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 2 feet directly in front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the pole, should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Luiated al 1eaat 25 fuel away, Lured Ulu t11G ell awiug'a. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 4 ' ; 0.Nst:LI1NO TM24189X596 :k -• SAN FRANCISCO Page 2 of 3 T- Mobile West Corp. • Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF24189D) 11371 Bubb Road • Cupertino, California • Posting explanatory warning signst at the antennas and/or on the pole below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet :FCC- adopted guidelines. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the operation of the base station proposed by T- Mobile West Corp. at 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow - for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base station3. Posting of explanatory signs is recommended to establish compliance with occupational exposure limitations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration No. E- 18063, which expires on June 30, 2011. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. • r S44 No. E-18063 1..jat athur, P.E. Exp.6 -30-2011 707/996 -5200 July 28, 2010 * * • qTF OF CAte t Warning signs should comply with OET -65 color symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) - is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local 'zoning or health authority, or appropriate prolbssiunals may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements ofPUC G095. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. • CONSL•C1'INC ENCINEEIS TM24189X596 SAN FRANCISCO Page 3 of 3 • FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide • The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Cormnunications Commission ( "FCC ") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ( "NCRP "). "— 'Sepyate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally ive times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1 -2006, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and I are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure . conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V/m (gym) (mW /cm 0.3 — 1.34 614 614 1.63. 1.63 100 100 1.34— 3.0 614 823.8/f 1.63 ' 2.19/f 100 . 180/1 3.0 — 30 1842/ f 823.8/f 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900 / f 1801/ 30 — 300 6I.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300.— 1,500 3.54* 1.59fj 4i/106 1ff/238 //300 ;1500 1,500— 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 — - Occupational Exposure • Nrti 100 — ! PCS a . 3 10 1 n ■ �....... 0.1 - -.�.- • Public Exposure 1 1 1 r 1 1 0.1 1 .10 100 10 10 10 ,1 Frequency (MHz) 4, Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or • thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any - number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven tcrrain, if to obtain more accurate projections. � r � HAMMETT & EDISON, INC rut ;� q a ��f CONSULTnNC ENG1NISERS FCC Guidelines , ]+3 SAN Figure 1 • RFR.CALC r " Calculation Methodology • • Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) tle Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively do not exceed the limits. Near Field. • Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip (omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish (aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones. • For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 180 x 0.1 x P net m 2 B n x D x h' un /cm , and f o r an a erture antenna maximum ower densi 0.1 x 16 x h x Pe mW z p antenna, power h' Smax ° 7L x h2 un /cm , where 0 BW = half -power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts, D = distance from antenna, in meters, h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and r7 = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5 -0.8). The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density. Far Field. OET 65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source: • power density S 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF x ERP mW 2 • 4 x .7r x D2 , in /cm , where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual . radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. • a HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. ` ''` CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology I. 1 ""T SAN FRANCISCO Figure 2 EXHIBIT 0/ WILLIAM F. HAMMETT, P.E. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. DANE E. ERICKSEN, P.E. tl CONSULTING ENGINEERS STANLEY SALEK P.E. BROADCAST & WIRELESS MARK D. NEUMANN, P.E. ROBERT P. SMITH, JR. RAJAT MATHUR, P.E. FERNANDO DIZON KENT A. SWISHER IVETTA KHENOKH ROBERT L. HAMMETT, P.E. 1920 - 2002 EDWARD EDISON, P.E. 1920 -2009 BY E -MAIL COLINJ @CUPERTINO.ORG January 31, 2011 Mr. Colin Jung, AICP Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 -3255 Re: T- Mobile Base Station at 11731 Bubb Road Dear Mr. Jung: Thank you for sending to T- Mobile the correspondence dated January 27, 2011, from Mr. Shaul Berger regarding the proposed T- Mobile base station at 11731 Bubb Road. I have reviewed the letter and attachments, finding the methodology and calculations to be reasonable, though not results. The error that Mr. Berger makes is using the proposed output power from the antenna as the output power from the transmitter. This means that all of his results are too high by a factor of about 15 times, that being the gain of the antenna minus the loss of the transmission line connecting the two. Thus, there is no discrepancy between the T- Mobile submittals and Mr. Berger's analysis, once this error has been accounted for. I should also point out that Mr. Berger is calculating the exposure levels in front of the antennas themselves, some 40 feet in the air next to the PG &E pole, rather than, as we had done, where people might be present: at ground level and in nearby buildings. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and would welcome any questions on this • material. Please let me know if we may be of additional assistance. Sincerely yours, (7....ex■e4 I/ William F. Hammett ms Web: www.h -e.com • bhammett@h -e.com Delivery: 470 Third Street West • Sonoma, California 95476 Telephone: 707/996 -5200 San Francisco • 214/559 -5200 Dallas • 202/396 -5200 D.C. • 707/996 -5280 Fax Cc /, -1 -1( I/q Linda Lagergren From: shaul berger [dspmaster @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:20 PM To: Colin Jung Cc: City Council; City Attorney's Office; Aarti Shrivastava Subject: Re: review of Berger calculations for Reconsideration Petition of DIR- 2010 -28 - T- Mobile /Bubb Road Hi Colin, I do not think we have enough time to respond to T- Mobile response till tomorrow evening (since I did not do the analysis myself). The bottom line is that I asked for a review of our and their assumptions already in 11/29 meeting (see the video of the session) but neither T- Mobile nor the city council never approached us on this matter. I am very disappointed with these tactics which prevent the city and its citizens getting the facts right! I provided all the information how we calculated our numbers. Maybe it is time for T- Mobile to do the same instead of criticizing our analysis. We do not know what are the assumptions of T- Mobile analysis. We never received clear data but only the end result. My feeling is that T- Mobile did not analyze for example the situation if someone is using the attic. Regarding their comments about the "error" of 15x (one hour before it was 20x), we do not have real information how they modelled their system. Their own documents indicate how unreliable their analysis is! Usually the antenna delivers a gain which compensates for loss in the path from the transmitter. This is why we assumed transmitter power same as antenna power in the worst case. We would expect to get from T- Mobile the whole analysis including their ERP (effective radiated power), TPO (transmitter power output), any polarization losses, etc. I have to state again what I said in 11/29 council meeting and proposed in my reconsideration petition - the analysis results are not even near and instead of being constructive, T- Mobile in their behavior show how unprofessional they are. One minute the factor is 20x. One hour later it is 15x. Clearly there is a need to review these numbers! Regards Shaul Berger From: Colin Jung <ColinJ @cupertino.org> To: City Council <CityCouncil @cupertino.org >; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney @cupertino.org >; Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS @cupertino.org> Cc: shaul berger <dspmaster @yahoo.com >; Dayna Aguirre <daguirre @sutroconsulting.com> Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 2:18:43 PM Subject: FW: review of Berger calculations for Reconsideration Petition of DIR- 2010 -28 - T- Mobile /Bubb Road Here is the applicant's response to Mr. Berger's (petitioner's) radio frequency energy analysis. Colin Jung Senior Planner City of Cupertino 1