HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12172013 - SD.10RECOMMENDATION(S):
OPEN the hearing on the appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of County File #LP13-2009,
ACCEPT public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing.
A.
FIND that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the review requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act – Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines §15303(d)).
B.
DENY the appeal of Kevin and Michelle Ferguson, and Eyleen Nadolny.C.
SUSTAIN the decision of the County Planning Commission.D.
ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution Number 10-2013.E.
DIRECT staff to file a California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and
pay the statutory filing fee.
F.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 12/17/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:SEE ADDENDUM
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Francisco Avila, (925)
674-7801
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: December 17, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
SD.10
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Date:December 17, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Approval of LP13-2009, for a Wireless Cell Site in the Kensington
Area (121 Windsor Avenue).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the initial application deposit, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover any and
all additional staff time and materials costs associated with the application processing.
BACKGROUND:
This is an appeal by Kevin and Michelle Ferguson, and Eyleen Nadolny (letters attached) of the County Planning
Commission’s (CPC) decision in CPC Resolution No. 10-2013 to approve a proposal by New Cingular Wireless
(AT&T) to attach a wireless telecommunications facility to an existing utility pole in the Windsor Avenue public
right-of-way (CPC’s approved project findings and conditions of approval are attached). In January of 2013,
AT&T submitted nine cell site applications within the Kensington boundaries. Due to community
comments/concerns, AT&T reduced the number of proposed cell sites to 6 and significantly improved the design
of 5 of the remaining 6 proposals. Comments in opposition were mostly related to view impacts, RF emissions and
diminished property values. Comments supporting the project include the need for fewer dropped calls, fair share
arguments, and potential improvements to emergency call reliability. Each of those community comments (in
support and against) were made available to the CPC and are also attached to this report for the Board’s review
and consideration.
Project Description: The proposal is a request to attach an AT&T distributed antenna system (DAS) node to
an existing 34-foot 10-inch tall utility pole. The project consists of attaching 2 antennas at an elevation of
30 feet 2 inches above-ground-level, one safety switch at an elevation of 8 feet above-ground-level, and
placing the associated electrical equipment in a utility box at the base of the pole.
The proposed antennas are 2 feet 2 3/4 inches tall, 6 1/4 inches deep, and 10 5/8 inches wide. The
associated electrical equipment will be placed within a utility box which measures 5 feet 2 3/4 inches tall, 2
feet 1 7/8 inches wide and 2 feet 5 7/8 inches deep. One 2-inch and one 3-inch conduit will carry the power
and fiber/coaxial cables from the utility box to the subject antennas. Once installed, the conduits will be
covered by a u-shaped cover. Construction of this project is anticipated to take 5-7 days. The purpose of the
project is to improve cellular coverage within an area that is difficult to serve with traditional "macro
antennas" due to topography that interferes with lines of sight between antennas and receivers.
A.
Site and Area: The subject pole is located within the Berkeley Highlands subdivision of the Kensington
area. The maps for this subdivision were recorded in the very early 1900s. Generally, lots in the area are
long rectangles roughly 40-45 feet in width and 100 feet in length. The neighborhood is eclectic
architecturally, with many different styles and designs. Numerous mature trees and landscaping are located
in the area. Most homes are two stories tall to maximize views. The topography of the public right-of-way at
this location is generally flat, with the adjacent residential properties sloping upward toward the east and
downward toward the west.
The subject pole is located on the east side of Windsor Avenue along the frontage of 121 Windsor Avenue.
The pole is within a 40-foot wide public right-of-way. Windsor Avenue has a paved width of 20 feet. The
pole is 34 feet 10 inches tall and currently supports multiple utility lines between 22 and 34 feet
above-ground-level. There are no other wireless telecommunication providers located at the site. The
surrounding area is similar to the subject site, which consists of high-density residential development.
B.
General Plan and Zoning: The property is designated Single-Family High-Density (SH) in the Contra Costa
County 2005-2020 General Plan. This designation allows for single-family residential units and the uses
that are normally necessary to support single-family residential neighborhoods. Utilities, including the
infrastructure necessary to support telephonic communication, are allowed uses.
C.
The County's 2005-2020 General Plan includes specific policies for the Kensington area that are enumerated
as policies 3-206 through 3-210, which state:
3-206 - Allow for the review of new residential development that provides reasonable
protection for existing residences in the Kensington Community with regards to: views, design
compatibility (including building bulk, size, and height), adequate parking, privacy, and access
to sunlight.
3-207 - Preservation of views of scenic natural features (e.g. bay, mountains) and the developed
environment (e.g. bridges, city skyline) should be incorporated into the review of development
applications.
3-208 - Review proposed residential development for design compatibility with nearby
development (e.g. building mass, height, mechanical devices) and provisions for adequate
parking.
3-209 - New residential development will be reviewed against realistic impacts of privacy and
sunlight on surrounding neighbors.
3-210 - Consideration will be given to review of non-residential development in the Kensington
Community with policies 3-206 through 3-209 herein.
Do These General Plan Policies Apply to the Consideration of this Land Use Permit Application?
Policies 3-206 through 3-209 apply to residential development within Kensington. The Board of
Supervisors adopted these policies in 2004 to support adoption of the Kensington Combining District
Ordinance. The overarching purpose of this ordinance, which regulates residential development, is to
minimize impacts on neighboring properties through preservation of views, light and solar access,
privacy, parking, and residential noise levels.
Under General Plan Policy 3-210, the Planning Agency should consider General Plan Policies 3-206
through 3-209 in the review of nonresidential development. These policies should be considered in
light of the whole of the County General Plan. As redesigned and conditioned, the project will not
conflict with the policies for the Kensington area as identified in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. The approval of a ground-mounted equipment cabinet (measuring approximately 5 feet tall x 2
feet wide x 2.5 feet deep) as well as two pole-mounted antennas are consistent with policies related to
preserving views of the natural and built environment (the original application was amended to move
more of the pole-mounted equipment to the ground level in order to retain the existing width of the
pole). The sunlight and privacy considerations in Policy 3-209 are not affected by the proposed
development due to the size of the equipment and the fact that the project is not a residence. Given
the size of the equipment, there is no evidence of incompatibility with nearby residential
development.
Does the Kensington Combining District Ordinance Apply to this Land Use Permit Application?
The Kensington Combining District Ordinance (K-Ordinance; attached), Chapter 84-74 of the
County Ordinance Code, does not apply to this Land Use Permit application. The K-Ordinance was
adopted for the purpose of regulating residential development within Kensington. Wireless
telecommunication facilities are not regulated under the K-Ordinance. Under section 84-74.404(f) of
the ordinance, “development” is defined as “any building or structure that requires a building
permit….” Section 82-4.270 of the County Code defines a “structure” as “anything constructed or
erected on and permanently attached to land, except for: ...poles, wires, pipes and other devices, and
their appurtenant parts, for the transmission or transportation of electricity and gas for light, heat or
power, or of telephone and telegraphic messages…” Section 82-4.210 defines a “building” as “any
structure with a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing, or
enclosure of persons, animals, or chattels.” Wireless facilities are exempt from the provisions of the
K-Ordinance because they do not qualify as either “structures” or “buildings."
Contra Costa County’s 1998 Telecommunication Policy: According to Section IV.A.1. (General
Development Guidelines) of the County's 1998 Telecommunications Policy, “All proposed
commercial wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located so as to minimize their visibility.”
D.
commercial wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located so as to minimize their visibility.”
Additionally, Section IV. A. 24, states, “In appropriate cases, the proposed wireless communication
facilities can be located on County-owned or controlled property or County rights-of-way.” AT&T
has met the intent of the above guidelines by proposing a slim design and by identifying an existing
utility pole of sufficient height that no extension is required. According to the applicant, this approach
was selected over larger “macro sites” due to the topography and line-of-sight issues in this part of
the County. Given that the majority of equipment will be located within the proposed utility box, the
site will only be marginally visible to residents in the immediate vicinity.
The photo simulations submitted with this application show the proposed antennas being painted a
brown color and the utility box being painted a green color. The CPC has approved Condition of
Approval (COA) #16, which requires the proposed antennas to be painted a light brown to match the
existing pole. COA #16 also requires the proposed utility box to be painted green. In the event the
applicant is required to paint over graffiti, COA #11 requires the applicant to also re-paint the entire
utility box. The intent of the condition is to avoid mismatched patches of green paint on the subject
box. Therefore, by approving COA #16, the CPC determined that the project complies with the
County’s 1998 Telecommunications Policy (attached).
Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions and "Preferred" Technology : Federal law limits the County’s
ability to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities. Under federal law, only the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) may approve the technology used on any wireless
telecommunications facility. Under Section 332 (C)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, “no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions." The County may not regulate the type of
technology that a wireless carrier uses, and it may not require carriers to use a “preferred”
technology. (See New York SMSA, L.P. v. Town of Clarkstown (S.D.N.Y 2009) 603 F.Supp.2d 715,
725.) In addition, under federal law only the FCC may determine the radio frequency emission
thresholds that apply to wireless telecommunication facilities. The County may not regulate or deny
wireless telecommunication facilities based on radio frequency emissions. (See 47 U.S.C., § 332;
AT&T Wireless Services of California, LLC v. City of Carlsbad (S.D. Cal. 2003) 308 F.Supp.2d
1148, 1159.)
E.
The proposed wireless facility will emit small amounts of RF energy. While the County itself has no
regulatory authority related to RF emissions, staff has required the applicant to demonstrate how the
project will comply with the applicable federal RF regulations. In response, the applicant contracted
with Hammett & Edison, Inc., to prepare a report, dated August 20, 2013, (attached) detailing the
project’s conformance with FCC approved standards for RF emissions. The report concludes that the
proposed project will operate far below permissible public exposure limits established by the FCC.
The CPC approved two COAs related to RF emissions. COA #10 states, “Facilities shall be operated
in such a manner so as to not to contribute to ambient RF/EMF emissions in excess of then-current
FCC adopted RF/EMF emission standards.” AT&T is also required by COA #2 to submit
administrative 3-year reviews detailing the on-going compliance of the project with the applicable
COAs (including RF emissions).
Statutory Authority for AT&T to Access the Public Right-of-Way: State law limits the County’s
ability to regulate the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within public street and
highway rights-of-way. Telecommunications companies, like AT&T, are granted a statewide
franchise to construct and maintain telecommunications facilities within public road and highway
rights-of-way. (Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.) Under Section 7901, “Telegraph or telephone corporations
may construct lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along
or across any of the waters or lands within this State, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments
for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at
F.
for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at
such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of
the waters.” This means that local governments like the County may not deny telecommunications
companies access to local street and highway rights-of-way. However, the County may impose
reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the placement of those facilities in County street
or highway rights-of-way, including limited requirements to address aesthetic impacts of a wireless
telecommunication facility. (See Pub. Util. Code, § 7901.1; Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos
Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009) 583 F.3d 716, 723.) Under Section 7901.1, “It is the intent of the
Legislature, consistent with Section 7901, that municipalities shall have the right to exercise
reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are
accessed." In short, the County has the authority to regulate the aesthetics and placement of wireless
facilities based on adopted policies and ordinances.
Multiple Wireless Service Providers and “Significant Gap” in Coverage: AT&T is just one of many
wireless service providers. The fact that other providers are currently serving the Kensington area
does not have bearing on the County’s review of this application. Under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, “The regulation of the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or
instrumentality thereof shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionality
equivalent services….” County staff has interpreted this regulation to mean that all competing
wireless service providers must be given an equal opportunity to extend service into any area of the
County.
G.
AT&T has submitted detailed, street-level, site specific coverage maps (attached) for this project. The
maps reflect a “significant gap” in coverage for the subject area. Additionally, due to the undulating
and challenging topography around the site, AT&T has prepared a report (attached) which
demonstrates that the proposed equipment is the “least intrusive” means of providing service to the
non-covered area. However, concerns have been raised by the community that AT&T’s online
marketing maps (attached) contradict the detailed maps provided with this application. In response,
the applicant has stated: “This (on-line) coverage viewer provides a high-level approximation of
wireless coverage. There are gaps in coverage that are not shown by this high-level approximation.
Actual coverage may differ from map graphics and may be affected by terrain, weather, foliage,
buildings and other construction, signal strength, high-usage periods, customer equipment and other
factors.” In approving the project, the CPC determined that AT&T’s proposed equipment is an
appropriate means of closing the coverage gap and providing service to the subject area.
“Shot Clock” and “Tolling Agreements”: Under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, local municipalities must act “within a reasonable period of time.” The FCC has
determined that 90 days for collocations and 150 days for other applications would be “generally
reasonable.” The FCC authorizes local governments and wireless carriers to extend these time frames
by entering into "tolling agreements."
H.
On June 25, 2013, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Department of Conservation and
Development Director or designee to enter into “tolling agreements” with AT&T and to execute
additional extensions as needed. Currently, the County and AT&T are operating under their third
tolling agreement extension, which is set to expire on December 17, 2013. Staff recommends that the
Board of Supervisors render a decision on this project prior to that expiration date.
PROCESSING OF LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC) Meetings and Recommendations: The subject
project was initially heard by KMAC at their February 26, 2013, meeting (approved minutes
attached). KMAC voted at that meeting to recommend denial based on the total height, bulk, and lack
of story poles available for review by KMAC members and the community (original plans attached).
As a result of that recommendation, staff and AT&T representatives met numerous times at County
1.
As a result of that recommendation, staff and AT&T representatives met numerous times at County
offices and the subject site to explore potential revisions to the project responsive to KMAC’s
comments. As a result of those meetings, AT&T submitted a substantially improved design that
lowered the overall height and reduced the bulk of the project. AT&T was also able to install story
poles reflecting the total height of the project on the subject pole.
Because of the substantial modifications to the project, the application was re-routed to KMAC for
comments. The revised proposal was scheduled and heard at the July 30, 2013, KMAC meeting
(approved minutes attached). Based on the revised plans, KMAC recommended approval of the
project by a 3 to 2 vote, subject to three conditions of approval (utility undergrounding, noise
restrictions, and potential aesthetic upgrade to the utility box). Those recommended COAs have been
approved by the CPC and are numbered COA #6, COA #15, and COA #17, respectively. The
applicant has accepted these conditions.
County Planning Commission Hearings and Decision : Due to the controversial nature of this project,
the County Zoning Administrator, per County Code section 26-2.1206, referred the matter directly to
the CPC for consideration and decision. On September 10, 2013, the County Planning Commission
held the first of two public hearings on the subject project (staff report and agency comments
attached). The CPC took testimony from the applicant as well as members of the public. However,
due to the large quantity of public speakers, the CPC elected to continue the matter to September 24,
2013. At the September 24, 2013, hearing (staff report attached), the Commission took the remainder
of public testimony and after a brief discussion unanimously voted to approve the subject project.
2.
APPEAL OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
The County has received two appeals of the CPC’s decision approving the subject AT&T project. In a letter
dated October 1, 2013, Kevin and Michelle Ferguson (8 Sunset Drive, Kensington), along with 30
additional undersigned Kensington residents (appellants) cited five points of opposition. Eyleen Nadolny,
the property owner of 125 Windsor Avenue, which is located immediately east of the subject site, has also
filed an appeal dated October 4, 2013. Both appeal letters are identical minus the undersigned signatures.
Staff has summarized the appeal points contained within the appeal letters and has provided a discussion of
each point below. Additionally, the applicant has provided responses to the appeal points and those
responses are attached.
Review of Points Raised in Appellant’s Appeal Letters
Summary of Appeal Point: The appellants contend that “A node in a DAS is not a freestanding
tower. Each node in the DAS is dependent on the other and the transport medium linking them
together.” Therefore, the CPC has segmented the whole of the development project by considering
each of the six AT&T applications separately and at two separate hearing dates, one of which was
closed.
1.
Staff Response: If approved, the subject cell site will be connected via fiber optic cables to a central
hub, not to other DAS nodes. Consequently, each cell site will operate independently from one
another. As evidence of this fact, AT&T originally proposed to use 9 DAS nodes to close the
coverage gaps in the Kensington area. Upon further review of potential collocation alternatives,
AT&T found it possible to replace 3 of the proposed Kensington nodes with one “macro” site. That
macro site is not connected to any part of the proposed project, and is proposed to be located on an
existing PG&E tower within the City of El Cerrito's boundaries. In the event the Board of
Supervisors does not approve one particular node, the net result would be that AT&T would have less
coverage in the area. The other nodes would function as intended. Therefore, the County has
appropriately processed each of AT&T’s Land Use Permit requests separately.
Summary of Appeal Point: The appellants contend that the Federal Government’s passage of the
2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, allows for collocation of subsequent cell sites to
2.
2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, allows for collocation of subsequent cell sites to
the subject poles with only ministerial permitting. Therefore, the County’s condition of approval
requiring a “modification of the Land Use Permit” is rendered ineffective by the federal statute
passed in 2012. Additionally, the appellants assert that the CPC should have known that no further
public review would be needed for a myriad of pole attachments, but did not discuss these future
attachments.
Staff Response: Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act mandates that
State and local governments must approve an “eligible facilities request” for the modification of an
existing wireless “tower or base station” that does not substantially change the physical dimensions
of such tower or base station. However, a modification request to the utility pole that is proposed
here would not qualify as an “eligible facility request.” An eligible facility request is defined as any
request for modification of an existing wireless “tower or base station.” Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regulations define a “tower” as “any structure built for the sole purpose or
primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities” (47C.F.R., Part
1, Appx. B.). FCC regulations also define a “base station” as “a station at a specified site authorized
to communicate with mobile stations” (47C.F.R., Section 24.5.). Therefore, a Land Use Permit
approval would be required for the collocation of any additional wireless facilities on the subject pole
because a utility pole does not qualify as a tower or base station.
It should also be noted that COA #4 would allow the applicant an opportunity to seek administrative
approval for minor modifications to the site. Replacement of existing equipment would be considered
a minor modification. However, the replacement of equipment would only be approved
administratively if the new equipment would not create a greater visual impact on the surrounding
area. An application for a Land Use Permit modification would be required for a major modification
such as the addition of antennas or raising the total height of the facility. Such applications require a
public hearing.
Should the Board of Supervisors approve this Land Use Permit, an amendment to this permit or a
new permit would be required if either AT&T or another carrier wished to add additional equipment
and/or antennas to the subject pole. New Land Use Permits and amendments to existing permits both
require a public hearing. If the applicant proposes in the future to substitute equipment or replace
outdated equipment that is substantially the same as included in this Land Use Permit application, this
may be administratively approved.
Although the issue is not raised in the appeal letters, state law also addresses collocation approvals.
Government Code section 65850.6 requires the County to ministerially approve the collocation of a
new wireless facility on an existing wireless facility (original facility) under limited circumstances.
But to be ministerially approved under that statute, the original facility must have been subject to the
County's discretionary review, and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report must have been prepared for that original facility. Here, the utility poles
on which AT&T will locate its facilities do not meet those requirements. Therefore, any future
collocation will not qualify for ministerial approval under Government Code section 65850.6. Any
future collocation will need to comply with all applicable County requirements in order to be approved.
Summary of Appeal Point: The appellants contend that the Radio Frequency Report (attached) for
the project did not consider the “future collocations” of additional wireless providers at the subject
site, and therefore, the total future radio frequency radiation generated by the project would be far
greater than that stated by the applicant or the County. The appellants go on to state that since future
collocation will only require a building permit, the public has been precluded from considering the
data for future radio frequency radiation generation.
3.
Staff Response: This appeal point contains two incorrect assumptions. The first, which tiers off
Appeal Point 2, is that future collocations will not require discretionary review. As indicated above in
the response to that appeal point, future collocations would require Land Use Permit approvals. As the
Land Use Permit process is a public process, the public would have the opportunity to review and
comment on radio frequency (RF) radiation data generated for future projects.
Secondly, the appellants assume that other carries would necessarily want to install DAS nodes on the
same poles upon which AT&T is proposing its nodes and in similar or greater numbers. This is
speculative considering that no other wireless providers have submitted Land Use Permit applications
for nodes in the Kensington area. While the subject pole and other poles in the Kensington area may
be physically capable of hosting multiple nodes, the needs of other carriers are not necessarily the
same as those of the applicant. AT&T’s goal with each of the independent nodes that has been
proposed is to improve coverage in a specific geographic area. Other carries may or may not have the
same coverage deficiencies, and may or may not attempt to resolve such deficiencies in a manner
similar to AT&T. Thus, one cannot reasonably assume that the subject pole, or any other pole upon
which AT&T has proposed a DAS node, would necessarily be developed by another carrier.
RF emissions are regulated by the FCC. The CPC has approved COA #9, which requires the
applicant to remain in compliance with the applicable FCC RF standards at all times. In the event the
County receives an application to collocate an additional facility on the subject pole, that provider
would be required to submit evidence in the form of a RF report detailing how the proposed
cumulative RF emissions meet the applicable FCC standards.
Summary of Appeal Point: The appellants contend that the required post-construction noise findings
(COA #15) will not be made public once the equipment has been installed and that the finding of
consistency with the Noise Element of the General Plan must be made prior to approving the project.
4.
Staff Response: AT&T’s proposed equipment for the project includes: two panel antennas, an
emergency shut-off switch and associated electrical equipment. If approved, the associated electrical
equipment will be located with a utility box at the base of the subject pole. The utility box requires an
approximate 4 inch by 4 inch (similar to a desk top computer's) fan to control temperatures within the
box. This fan is the sole noise-generating piece of equipment associated with the proposed facility.
The applicant has submitted a noise study (attached) which has considered the manufacture’s tested
decibel readings (48dba at a reference distance of 5 feet) for the proposed cabinet fan. The report
concludes that once the facility is operational, it will comply with the most restrictive County limits
for noise emissions (60dba). The project is anticipated to be well below the 60 decibel limit set by
the County’s 2005-2020 General Plan for single-family residential neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, COA #15 requires a third-party consultant (non-applicant) to perform a post
construction noise study of the facility in order to verify the pre-construction findings. The findings
of that report will be part of the public record for this project. Therefore, the appellant, as well as, the
general public would have the ability to review the findings of that report once completed. It should
be noted, that the applicant has supplied a post construction noise report dated, February 15, 2013,
(attached) which was prepared for a similar project in the City of Palo Alto. The report confirms that
once completed, the noise levels associated with AT&T's proposal will be well below the 60dba limit
for single-family residential land uses as set by the County's General Plan.
Summary of Appeal Point: The appellants contend that the objections to the project regarding
visibility, views, blight, and noise were not refuted by staff or the applicant. Therefore, adequate
findings for approval could not be made. The appellants also state that “hazardous materials
locations (e.g., pole-mounted transformers)” must be identified as part of the project before a
decision can be made.
5.
Staff Response: Numerous public comments have been submitted to the County regarding this
project. These comments have collectively influenced the applicant’s redesign of the project and the
conditions of approval. As a result of public comments, the facility is now 14 feet 7 inches lower and
less bulky than the original proposal (due to all of the associated electrical equipment being placed
within a utility box on the ground). The applicant has provided a statement indicating that the least
intrusive and most compact equipment has been proposed for the project (attached). Additionally,
AT&T has supplied an alternative site analysis which concluded that the subject pole would be the
AT&T has supplied an alternative site analysis which concluded that the subject pole would be the
least impactive location (attached). Furthermore, COA #6 requires the applicant to remove the
proposed facility upon notification that the overhead utilities are to be undergrounded, COA #9
requires continued compliance with FCC RF standards, COA #11 requires repainting of the entire
utility box whenever touch-up is required in order to avoid mismatched paint patches and an
unsightly appearance, COA #15 requires verification that the facility complies with County noise
standards, COA #16 requires the proposed antennas and supports to be painted a non-reflective brown
color that matches the subject pole, and COA #17 requires consultation with the public regarding the
design and location of the utility box. Ultimately, the CPC determined that the community’s concerns
have been significantly addressed through project redesign and the addition of appropriate COAs.
With respect to hazardous materials, the project does not involve the additions of any transformers or
back-up generators. Therefore, no further review or disclosure pertaining to hazardous materials is
necessary.
CONCLUSION
The appeal points are similar to the points presented to the County Planning Commission and do not
provide support for overturning the CPC's approval of the AT&T application. The project is consistent with
other wireless telecommunication projects that have been granted on utility poles throughout the County.
The project setting is within an area where views are protected, however, the proposed project would not
block any views. As evidenced by the photo simulations, the project would represent only a minor visual
change to the existing character of the neighborhood. Numerous conditions of approval have been adopted
which address concerns raised by the public. The project as proposed complies with the development
standards as outlined in the 1998 Telecommunications Policy and the General Plan policies for the
Kensington area. Considering these facts, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeals
of Ferguson et al and Nadolny, and sustain the County Planning Commission's approval of County File
#LP13-2009.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, the County Planning Commission's approval will be overturned and
AT&T will not have the authority to construct their proposed project.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
N/A
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Correspondence on this matter was received after the publication of the the Board's Agenda packet. By
unanimous vote of the Board, this material was accepted into the record (attached). Will Nelson and Aruna
Bhat, Department of Community Development, presented the staff report. Chair Glover opened the public
hearing and invited comment.
Speakers: Appellants Kevin and Michelle Ferguson and Eileen Nadolny; Bill Stanton, resident of
Kensington; Vanessa Cordova, Kensington Municipal Advisory Council; Celia Concus, . Eileen & John
Kramer did not wish to speak, but left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached).
Chair Glover returned the matter to the Board for discussion. Having discussed the matter, the Board:
CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the review
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act – Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines §15303(d)); DENIED
the appeal of Kevin and Michelle Ferguson, and Eyleen Nadolny; SUSTAINED the decision of the County
Planning Commission; ADOPTED the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution
Number 10-2013; DIRECTED staff to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and pay the
statutory filing fee; and ADDED the following to the Conditions of Approval:
Under Condition of Approval #15, Exterior Noise, the following paragraph is added: “The facility shall be kept
in good working order at all times so that noise levels do not increase over the life of the project. If the noise
emanating from the facility increases for any reason then that applicant shall take immediate corrective action,
for example replace the fan.” Under Condition of Approval #4, Replacement of Equipment, the following
sentence is added: “A new land use permit approval is necessary prior to the installation of any equipment that
does not satisfy Criteria A and B above, or prior to co-location by another carrier.” The following condition of
approval is added: “Prior to construction, the applicant, planning department and public works department,
and PG&E must engage adjacent neighbors to identify and provide the least impactful aesthetic options for the
proposed utility box to ensure the relative scale and siting is consistent with this particular residential street."
The following installation requirement is added: The installation of the equipment must be a mid-pole
mounting.
ATTACHMENTS
Email Chain
Report on Review of Applications
Location Maps
Planning Commission Resolution
Ferguson Appeal
Nadolny Appeal
Conditions of Approval
Approved Plans
Photosimulations
Kensington General Plan Policies
Kensington Combining District
1998 Telecommunication Policy
Radio Frequency Report
Coverage Maps
Online Coverage Maps
KMAC February 2013 Meeting Minutes
KMAC July 2013 Meeting Minutes
Original Plans
September 10, 2013, Planning Commission Staff Report
September 24, 2013, Planning Commission Staff Report
Agency Comments
Noise Study
Hammett Noise Letter on Palo Alto Nodes
Best Technology Statement
Alternative Site Analysis
Project-Specific Public Comments
General Public Comments
Notification List
AT&T Appeal Response
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415/ 288-4000
FACSIMILE 415/ 288-4010
November 26, 2013
VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Chair Federal D. Glover
Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Supervisors John Gioia, Mary Piepho
and Candace Anderson
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Room 107
Martinez, California 94553
Re: Multiple Appeals of AT&T Kensington Distributed Antenna System
Application Nos. LP13-2009 (Near 121 Windsor Avenue); LP13-2010
(Near 8 Sunset Drive); LP13-2011 (Near 248 Grizzly Peak Boulevard);
LP13-2017 (Near 18 Highgate Road); LP13-2019 (Near 4 Stratford
Road); and LP13-2020 (Near 110 Ardmore Road)
Board of Supervisors Agenda, December 17, 2013
Dear Chair Glover, Vice Chair Mitchoff and Supervisors:
We write on behalf of our client AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) to ask that you
uphold the Planning Commission’s well-reasoned decision to approve the six Distributed
Antenna System nodes referenced above (the “Kensington DAS”), and reject all five
appeals.1 AT&T is currently building DAS nodes in nearby communities in the East Bay
Hills, including Oakland, Berkeley, and El Cerrito. The Kensington DAS represents the
newest and best technology for providing ubiquitous wireless service. By using existing
telephone poles, it presents the least aesthetic impacts to the communities served.
To obtain the Planning Commission’s approval, AT&T has devoted over two
years to reviewing nearly 100 utility poles and presenting four design variations to Contra
Costa County (“County”) planners and residents. As we will explain below, this Board
should uphold the Planning Commission and reject the appeals for the following reasons:
• the Kensington DAS complies with the County’s Telecommunications Policy, its
General Plan, and all standards for approval under the County’s ordinance code;
1 While we refer to all six DAS nodes as the Kensington DAS, it should be noted that each node is an
individual application and that the approval and installation of any one node does not depend on the
approval and installation of any other node.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 2 of 15
• none of the five appeals has any merit; and
• the Kensington DAS is the least intrusive means to fill a significant gap in
wireless service.
Under these circumstances, the Planning Commission’s approval was not only the correct
decision under the County’s zoning code, it was required by federal law.
I. The Kensington DAS Meets All County Requirements for Approval.
A. Background
AT&T has identified a significant gap in its wireless coverage in Kensington.2
This area, due to the steep slopes and undulating topography of the East Bay hills,
presents immense challenges to providing reliable wireless services. The Kensington
DAS has been designed to meet these challenges by placing small antennas on existing
utility poles – each referred to as a node – to provide service to individual gaps within the
larger coverage gap. AT&T’s original design consisted of nine nodes with pole-top
extensions and pole-mounted equipment. In response to community concerns and
direction from staff, AT&T reviewed the Kensington DAS (including reanalysis of nearly
50 utility poles) and redesigned it to include only six nodes. In addition, AT&T has
redesigned five of the six nodes to address aesthetic concerns.
Wherever feasible, AT&T lowered antennas from a pole-top extension to side-
mounts to minimize any aesthetic impact. In addition, at staff’s request, where there was
adequate ground space, equipment was relocated from the pole to a single ground-
mounted cabinet. Pole-top antennas were retained only in those circumstances where
existing tree screening would minimize the aesthetic impact of the increased pole height
and would block radio signals from lowered antennas. Where radio equipment remains
on the utility pole, it has been rotated to minimize aesthetic impact and provide for safe
maintenance access. Finally, as described below, AT&T has incorporated aesthetic
considerations into every aspect of designing the Kensington DAS.
B. Design Considerations
1. Pole Selection
The utility poles selected for the Kensington DAS were initially chosen in order
to provide radio signal coverage to a discrete area which, together with other nodes, will
fill the identified significant gap in AT&T service with the minimum number of nodes.
Thereafter, utility poles were reviewed within close proximity to this coverage area
primarily based on two factors: (1) whether the pole has adequate space for AT&T’s
antennas and radio equipment; and (2) whether the pole would have unacceptable impacts
2 The AT&T RF Engineer’s Statement confirming the gap is attached as Exhibit 1-A to this letter. Maps
showing the gaps for each node are included in Exhibits 2 through 7. The signficiant gap is further
confirmed by the comments of 28 AT&T customers attached as Exhibit 8.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 3 of 15
on neighbor views. In each case, AT&T has selected a utility pole that will accommodate
its equipment with the least impact to resident views.
2. Antennas
The two-foot antennas selected by AT&T are the smallest available to provide the
necessary coverage and will be painted brown to match the utility poles. Antenna height
is based upon the need to avoid radio signal blockage by adjacent foliage. Pole-top
antennas are mounted on a seven foot extension required by state law for safe separation
from power lines. Similarly, side-mounted antennas are placed at the end of a four-foot
crossbar to allow passage of linemen climbing the pole.
3. Radio Equipment
Radio equipment has been designed to minimize bulk and appearance. Pole-
mounted equipment is limited to a less than one-foot-wide and four-foot-tall radio box, a
roughly two-foot-wide by two-foot-tall battery backup cabinet, a roughly one-foot-square
interface box and an electrical meter, all of which are vertically stacked on the pole.
Ground-mounted equipment contains all of the same components in one five-foot-tall and
two-foot-wide box. Pole-mounted equipment is painted brown to match the pole while
ground-mounted cabinets are painted green to blend in with surrounding foliage.
In sum, the Kensington DAS represents the smallest and most technologically-
advanced means for AT&T to serve the Kensington community. According to Planning
staff, “The proposed equipment is compact and one of the smallest proposals the County
has reviewed to date.”3
C. The County’s Scope of Review
In its review of the Kensington DAS, the County – and this Board – must consider
local, state, and federal law. In addition to confirming the required findings under the
County’s ordinance code and compliance with the 1998 Telecommunications Policy, the
Board’s decision must comply with state and federal law.
1. County Telecommunications Policy
The 1998 Contra Costa County Telecommunications Policy (the “Policy”)
establishes detailed design preferences to minimize the impact of wireless facilities on
residential communities. Least favored under the Policy are monopole designs and their
aesthetic impacts. In contrast, the Kensington DAS meets several of the most favored
criteria for wireless facility design. One of the preferred stealth or camouflage designs is
a facility disguised as a “telephone pole.” See Policy § IV(E)(1). In addition, under
Policy § IV(A)(8), “[S]ervice providers are encouraged to co-locate antennas with other
facilities such as…light standards, and other utility structures.” Consistent with these
express preferences in the Policy, each of the Kensington DAS nodes consists of antennas
3 See, e.g., Staff Report to the Planning Commission, County File #LP13-2009, p. SR-8.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 4 of 15
attached to an existing utility pole, eliminating the impacts that might otherwise result
from erection of an entirely new tower.
Finally, in keeping with the Policy, the Kensington DAS has been designed to
“avoid unreasonable interference with views from neighboring properties, whenever
feasible.” See Policy § IV(A)(11) (emphasis added). As confirmed by County staff, each
node of the Kensington DAS “is in accord with the 1998 Telecommunications Policy.”4
2. County Ordinance Code
Under well-established California law, the placement of telephone equipment on
telephone poles in the public right-of-way is a state-authorized use (see note 15, below).
Under the County code, the Kensington DAS is permitted in the R-6 district subject to a
land use permit. Both staff and the Planning Commission have confirmed that all
necessary findings for a land use permit can be made for the Kensington DAS. As
recommended by staff, the Commission adopted the following findings for each node:
(1) Not detrimental to health, safety and welfare. Staff and the Commission
found that the Kensington DAS is not detrimental to health, safety and welfare because
AT&T has shown that each node will fully comply with Federal Communications
Commission (“FCC”) limits on radio-frequency (“RF”) emissions. Federal law provides
that local jurisdictions may not regulate wireless facilities based upon the
“…environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” See 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(iv). The Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers report submitted
by AT&T (attached as Exhibit 1-B) confirms that each of the Kensington DAS nodes will
operate far below permissible public exposure limits.
(2) Provides for orderly development within the County. As staff and the
Commission found, the DAS nodes are “so compact and innocuous that granting AT&T a
. . . permit for the installation and operation of the proposed project cannot reasonably be
expected to influence the orderly development of property within the County.” In
addition, the orderly development of wireless facilities in Contra Costa County is
prescribed by the 1998 Telecommunications Policy. As noted above, the Kensington
DAS fully complies with this Policy.
(3) Does Not Adversely Affect Property Values. Staff and the Commission found
that due to their “small scope,” location, and design, the DAS nodes will not “block any
views” or “significantly alter the visual characteristics” nor “limit the potential range of
uses at the site or on adjacent properties.” They further found that the project will “not
adversely affect the preservation of property values.”5
These findings are consistent with federal court decisions holding that local
governments may not deny wireless facility permit applications based upon alleged
4 See, e.g., Staff Report to the Planning Commission, County File #LP13-2009, p. SR-7.
5 See, e.g., id., p. COA-2.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 5 of 15
reduction of property values, where the alleged reduction is based upon perceived health
effects of RF emissions. See e.g., AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of
Carlsbad, 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003); see also California RSA No. 4
d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Madera County, 332 F.Supp.2d 1291 (E.D. Cal. 2003)
(property value evidence found to be unlawful proxy for radiofrequency emission
concern).
(4) Complies With General Plan. As confirmed by staff and the Commission, the
extension of telephone service through the Kensington DAS, on existing poles that
already provide telephone and other utility services, is “consistent with the existing uses
at the site, immediate area and intent of the . . . General Plan designation in which it is
situated.”6 Similarly, staff confirmed that the Kensington DAS complies with General
Plan policies for the Kensington Area which require “reasonable protection” for existing
views of the bay, mountains, bridges and city skyline without any “realistic impacts” on
privacy or sunlight.7 In finding compliance with these policies, staff and the Commission
relied on findings that the DAS nodes will not block any views and that the slim,
diminutive design will soften or reduce the visual intrusiveness of the equipment.8 Based
on the foregoing, they found that the Kensington DAS complies with the General Plan.
(5) Shall Not Create a Nuisance. The attachment of AT&T DAS facilities to
existing utility poles clearly will not create a nuisance. Specific transportation
management plans prepared for each facility will avoid congestion during construction
and infrequent trips for maintenance. An acoustic report prepared by Hammett & Edison,
Inc., Consulting Engineers dated July 30, 2013 (attached as Exhibit 1-C), confirms that
the DAS facilities will operate far below the allowed noise levels permitted under the
County’s General Plan. After construction, AT&T will be required to pay for a third-
party test at each node to confirm that it complies with noise standards, and compliance
reviews every three years will ensure continued compliance.9
In short, the Commission found that the Kensington DAS meets all applicable
requirements for approval under the County code. Those findings are amply supported
by substantial evidence and should be upheld. As we explain below, this is not simply
the correct result under the County’s own code, it is mandated by federal law.
II. Federal Law Constrains the County’s Discretion.
In addition to its own code, the County’s review of this application is subject to
Section 704 of the federal Telecommunications Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332. While
Section 704 generally preserves local land use authority over wireless facilities, it places
significant limits on such local authority. Specifically, the statute:
6 See, e.g., id., at COA-2-3.
7 Id. at p. SR-6; See also Contra Costa General Plan Land Use Policies 3-206 through 3-210.
8 See, e.g., Staff Report to the Planning Commission, County File #LP13-2009, at COA-3.
9 Staff and the Planning Commission also found, based on substantial evidence, that the Kensington DAS
will not encourage marginal development, and that the undulating, hilly topography of the area, with its
challenges for line-of-site wireless coverage, constitutes the requisite special or unique conditions.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 6 of 15
• preempts local regulation based on the environmental effects of radio-frequency
emissions so long as those emissions comply with FCC standards;10
• requires the local government to take final action on a permit application within a
reasonable period of time;11
• requires that any permit denial be in writing and based on substantial evidence in
the record;12
• prohibits unreasonable discrimination among competing wireless carriers;13 and
• bars local action that would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.14
As we will explain in more detail below, denial of the applications would violate
at least two of these provisions.15
III. There Is No Merit To Any of The Appeals And No Substantial Evidence That
Would Support Denial.
The five separate appeals raise a host of largely overlapping arguments. As we
will explain, there is no merit to any of these contentions. For the sake of brevity, we
will organize the following discussion by issue, rather than addressing each of the appeals
separately.
A. Alleged Health Effects of RF Emissions
Whether explicit or otherwise, fear of the alleged health effects of RF emissions is
really the fundamental complaint in all of the appeals. As discussed below, the other
issues raised are nothing more than window dressing for this underlying concern. Indeed,
the 140-page Owen/Cooper appeal is quite explicit about this, first alleging that the
10 See 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
11 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
12 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
13 47 USC 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I).
14 47 USC 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
15 State law also restricts the scope of the County’s review of the applications. Under established California
law, the Kensington DAS constitutes the attachment of telephone equipment to telephone poles. Pursuant
to California Public Utilities Code § 7901, telephone corporations such as AT&T are granted a statewide
franchise to place telephone equipment within the public rights-of-way. Under § 7901, the placement of
telephone equipment in the public right-of-way is essentially a state-mandated “use” subject only to
reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions imposed by the County. As a state-authorized use,
AT&T does not believe the Kensington DAS requires any more than encroachment permit review by the
County. In an effort to work cooperatively with County staff, however, AT&T has applied for land use
permits for the Kensington DAS, subject to an express reservation of rights.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 7 of 15
Ardmore node would block their views and be an “eyesore,”16 but then arguing that
subjective aesthetic standards “have no place in zoning and siting of radiation emitting
equipment.”17 Both the Ferguson appeal of the Sunset node and the Owen/Cooper appeal
explicitly tie alleged impacts on property values to the underlying fear of RF emissions,
and the Owen/Cooper appeal ties its claim of inverse condemnation to the alleged threat
of “cancer or illnesses linked to EMF emissions.”18
In asking this Board to overturn the Planning Commission on such grounds, the
appeals are asking you to violate federal law. As noted above, the Telecommunications
Act preempts local regulation based on the environmental effects of RF emissions so long
as those emissions remain below FCC limits, as is true here.19 Moreover, federal
preemption goes beyond decisions that are explicitly based on RF emissions. It also bars
efforts to circumvent such preemption through some proxy such as aesthetics or property
values. See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Servs. of Cal. LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d
1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (in light of federal preemption, “concern over the decrease
in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property
value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions”);
Calif. RSA No. 4, d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Madera County, 332 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311
(E.D. Cal. 2003) (“complaints about property values were really a proxy for concerns
about possible environmental effects of RF [emissions], which cannot provide the basis
to support a decision”).
Finally, even if they were not preempted, appellants’ claims about property values
are demonstrably false. In their appeal of the 8 Sunset Drive node, the Fergusons rely on
an email dated August 12, 2013, from a real estate broker claiming that the proposed cell
site was hindering her efforts to sell the property across the street, at 5 Sunset Drive, and
that as a result, the property “may sell at a seriously diminished value.”20 The facts are
actually quite different. According to the broker’s website, 5 Sunset Drive was listed for
$1.195M and public records reveal that it sold approximately two weeks after the
broker’s email for $1.270M – or $75,000 above the asking price. See attached Exhibit 3.
In short, appellants’ claims about the alleged dangers of RF emissions – as well as
the various proxies for those claims – are not based on substantial evidence.
B. Alleged Visual Impacts
In varying degrees of specificity, each of the appeals alleges unacceptable visual
impacts. There is no merit to these complaints. Generalized concerns or opinions about
aesthetics or compatibility with a neighborhood 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
16 See Owen/Cooper appeal at 3.
17 Id. at 4.
18 See Ferguson appeal dated October 4, 2013, un-numbered p. 2; Owen/Cooper appeal, p. 5.
19 See 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
20 See Ferguson appeal dated October 4, 2013, un-numbered p. 2 and Attachment 2.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 8 of 15
regulate the placement of wireless communication facilities based on aesthetics, it must
have specific reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations and supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Here, most of appellants’ aesthetic complaints are
mere generalized concerns unsupported by any evidence. For example, in their identical
appeals of all six nodes, appellants Ferguson and Nadolny refer to unspecified
“complaints regarding visibility, views, [and] blight.” This is not substantial evidence.
Two of the appeals included photographs intended to show that the Ardmore and
Sunset nodes would block resident views, but those photographs do no such thing. The
Owen/Cooper appeal claims that photos submitted as Exhibit 3 demonstrate the “obvious
. . . view blockage at 110 Ardmore Road.”21 To the contrary, what is actually obvious is
that this appeal is entirely about fear of radio waves, and all the other claims are just
cover for that underlying concern. Indeed, Owen and Cooper explicitly tie the alleged
view blockage to their claim that the presence of antennas “creates anxiety and the
impression of harm which diminishes the character and quality of the neighborhood for
all those within 400 meter limits who know of the research on non-ionizing radiation.”22
The photos they submitted only reinforce this conclusion. All the photos
demonstrate is that Owen and Cooper already look at a large telephone pole and wires
when they look out their window, and any view in that direction is already blocked by
the large tree behind that pole. To suggest that adding a thin wooden extension topped by
2-foot antennas, both painted to match the existing 44-foot pole, will further block their
view is simply frivolous.
Indeed, after seeing the photos relied on by appellants, staff concluded that the
pole extension would not interfere with any views. This led staff to recommend, at the
September 24, 2013 Planning Commission hearing, deleting a proposed condition that
would have prevented AT&T from extending the height of the existing pole.23 The
Commission agreed, and adopted staff’s recommendation.
Similarly, the photos submitted with the Ferguson appeal of the 8 Sunset Drive
node fail to show the alleged “significant change in the visual character of the area.”24
Here too, the photos simply show a large existing pole with a tangle of existing wires,
and the appeal does not explain how adding a slim wooden extension to the top of the
pole will block anyone’s views or change the visual character of the area. Again, the real
concern appears to be that the pole will hold antennas that emit radio waves. This is
confirmed by Exhibits 2 and 3 to the appeal, which purportedly address property values,
but expressly tie this concern back to the underlying fear of RF emissions.
21 Owen/Cooper appeal at 6.
22 Id. at 7.
23 Owen, et al. appear to complain that the pole extension will block their “view” of the sliver of sky behind
it, claiming that it will “change the light and view, the nature of the sky in front of the house.”
(Owen/Cooper appeal at 7.) This is nonsense. Views of the sky are not protected in the General Plan or
Telecommunications Policy, which, as noted above, focus on such prominent features as the bay,
mountains, bridges and city skyline.
24 Ferguson appeal dated October 4, 2013, p. 1.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 9 of 15
Planning staff visited the area to observe the story pole at 8 Sunset, and “was not
able to identify any potential view blockages as seen from nearby residences.”25 Indeed,
given the adjacent large tree and other mature vegetation, staff determined that the pole-
top extension and other AT&T equipment would be only “marginally visible to adjacent
neighbors and does not block any appreciable views,” and that it would not have any
significant visual impact.26 These conclusions – and the Commission decision based on
them – are amply supported by substantial evidence in the record, and appellants have
countered with nothing more than argument and speculation. In short, there is no
substantial evidence of any visual impact.
C. Failure to Approve All Nodes at a Single Hearing
In three separate appeals, appellants Ferguson and Nadolny claim that the
Planning Commission erred by continuing the hearing on the Grizzly Peak node to
October, while approving all other nodes on September 24th. There is no merit to this
claim, which is based on nothing more than semantics. Specifically, appellants assume
that because this is a Distributed Antenna System, all of the nodes are interrelated. In
fact, each node is discrete and independent of all the others. AT&T submitted a separate
application for each node, the Planning Commission voted separately on each node, and
AT&T will install each node this Board approves even if one or more of the others are
not approved.
Appellants argue that deferring a decision on the Grizzly Peak node to a later
hearing denied them a fair hearing or due process. Curiously, appellants first complained
that it was unfair not to allow public testimony at the later hearing,27 and then when the
Planning Commission opened the later hearing to public testimony, appellants complain
that they were not ready.28 In any event, appellants can claim no harm because their
separate appeal of the Grizzly Peak node raised virtually identical arguments to those
raised in regard to the other five nodes. They offer no reason why the Commission
would have found these arguments any more persuasive in reviewing the Grizzly Peak
node than it did in approving the other five nodes.29
D. Alleged Lack of Review for Future Collocations
All five of the appeals argue that the Commission failed to consider the impact of
Section 6409 of the federal Tax Relief Act of 2012 (the “TRA”), which they claim will
insulate future collocation from review. As a threshold matter, the TRA only applies to
“eligible facilities requests,” which, by definition, cannot substantially change the
25 Staff report to the Planning Commission on application LP13-2010, at SR-4.
26 Id. at SR-2, SR-7.
27 See Ferguson appeal filed October 3, 2013, and Nadolny appeal filed October 4, 2013.
28 See Ferguson appeal dated October 28, 2013.
29 Even more curious is the focus in multiple appeals on the “transport medium linking [the nodes]
together” (e.g., Ferguson appeal dated October 3, 2013, p. 1), by which appellants appear to refer to fiber-
optic cable. Appellants are simply wrong: the individual nodes are not directly linked, either by fiber or
any other means, nor do they communicate directly with each other. Rather, they are all linked to a remote
base station (which happens to be in Berkeley in this case).
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 10 of 15
physical dimensions of an existing wireless tower or base station. In any case,
appellants’ argument could be applied to contest the approval of any wireless facility
anywhere in the country. As such, it is really nothing more than a thinly disguised attack
on the federal law itself, and must be rejected under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Furthermore, the argument is based on nothing but speculation that future
collocation is likely. Given the space constraints of existing utility poles, it is generally
disfavored where other utility poles are available.
For the same reason, appellants are simply wrong in their related attack on
AT&T’s proof that the Kensington DAS will comply with FCC limits on RF emissions.
Appellants Ferguson and Nadolny merely assert, with no supporting evidence, that “the
number and type” of future collocations “can be projected,” and that the future RF
emissions are “far greater than admitted” by AT&T. This is sheer speculation.
In any event, even if collocation does occur, appellants concede that it would still
require ministerial permits, and there is nothing in the TRA that would prevent the
County from imposing reasonable permit conditions to ensure that any new equipment
complies with FCC emissions standards. For example, Conditions 9 and 10 of each
permit require continued compliance with FCC standards for RF emissions, Condition 3
requires initial proof of compliance with these and all other permit conditions, and
Condition 2 requires administrative review every 3 years to ensure continued compliance.
Finally, local regulations aside, AT&T and its competitors must comply with FCC
standards as a matter of federal law. In short, the TRA is completely irrelevant to these
appeals.
E. Noise
Appellants’ noise complaints are simply frivolous. The only source of noise from
the AT&T equipment will be two small internal cooling fans. As noted above, there are
two levels of review to confirm that each node will comply with all applicable noise
standards under the County code. First, AT&T has submitted a third-party engineer’s
report (Exhibit 1-C) which concludes that all six nodes will comply with applicably
County noise standards. In addition, AT&T will be required to pay for a third-party
engineer chosen by the County to measure actual noise levels at each node after
construction in order to ensure they do not exceed applicable limits. (See Condition 15 of
each approval.)
Remarkably, appellants Ferguson and Nadolny find fault with this arrangement,
insisting that noise compliance “must be confirmed prior to the approval of the project.”
As just noted, however, AT&T has already done all that is possible to confirm noise
compliance prior to approval, by having a professional engineer compare projected noise
levels to County standards. Indeed, that engineer – Mr. Hammett – testified at the
September 24, 2013 Commission hearing that his projections are based on “actual
measurements of these units” under laboratory conditions, and that their noise would be
roughly equivalent to a desktop computer. If appellants are suggesting that AT&T must
also measure noise levels at each node in the field prior to approval, that is simply not
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 11 of 15
possible. Under the County code, AT&T cannot legally install and operate the equipment
prior to approval.
Nor is there any reason it would be desirable to do so. The conditions of approval
require AT&T to comply with County noise standards, and to prove such compliance
shortly after construction. In the unlikely event that testing reveals any real noise issue,
the County will require AT&T to bring the equipment into compliance.
F. Alleged Failure to Refute Miscellaneous Resident Complaints
Three of the appeals allege in identical terms that the Planning Commission erred
by failing to refute resident “complaints regarding visibility, views, blight and noise,” and
“failure to acknowledge hazardous materials.”30 This, too, is simply frivolous. The
County is not obligated to refute every vague, unsubstantiated “complaint.” Rather, it is
bound to decide the applications on the basis of substantial evidence in the record.
As already discussed, there is no substantial evidence of any significant visual or
noise impact, and the same is true of hazardous materials and “blight.” The only
hazardous materials alleged in the appeals are those contained in transformers, but there
are no transformers connected with the Kensington DAS. Rather, any transformers on
the poles belong to other utilities, and in any event only one of the poles (at 18 Highgate
Road) even appears to have a transformer.
The alleged “blight” is equally baseless. Whether this refers to visual impact or
some other type of alleged blight, it is just another generalized claim, unsupported by any
substantial evidence.
G. Alleged Lack of Significant Gap
The Owen/Cooper appellants claim that AT&T has not demonstrated a significant
gap in coverage, and attempt to show that there is none through anecdotal reports of
successful calls and reference to coverage maps distributed for marketing purposes. 31
This argument is fatally flawed in at least three respects. First, appellants simply ignore
the coverage maps submitted by AT&T depicting the coverage gap around each node,
and the improved coverage after the node is installed (see Exhibits 2 though 7). This type
of technical evidence has been accepted by numerous courts as substantial evidence to
demonstrate a coverage gap.32 In addition, we have enclosed as Exhibit 1-A a statement
from AT&T’s RF Engineer that further confirms the existence of a significant gap.
30 Ferguson appeal dated October 3, 2013, at 3; Ferguson appeal dated October 28, 2013, at 2; and Nadolny
appeal, at 3.
31 Owen/Cooper appeal, at 3, 6.
32 For example, in T-Mobile West Corp. v. City of Huntington Beach, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148170 (C.D.
Cal. 2012), the court found that similar coverage maps used by T-Mobile were “highly reliable and
scientifically based,” and that “[t]hose maps demonstrate that T-Mobile has a significant gap in reliable
3G/4G wireless coverage.” Id., slip op. at 17, Finding 47, and 22, Finding 56.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 12 of 15
Second, appellants mistakenly assume that AT&T is required to demonstrate a
coverage gap in order to obtain approval of the Kensington DAS. That is not the case, as
the County’s standards for approval contain no such requirement. Indeed, proof of a
significant gap is relevant only to demonstrating a prohibition of service under federal
law, as discussed below.
Finally, appellants’ attempt to prove that there is no gap is not based on
substantial evidence. Courts have held that anecdotal evidence showing that “my phone
works fine” is not substantial evidence to rebut a wireless carrier’s technical evidence of
a coverage gap.33 Moreover, the online coverage maps referred to by appellants are
intended for marketing purposes, not network design.34 Courts have repeatedly rejected
efforts to prove that a gap does not exist by reference to such marketing maps.35
H. Attack on the Planning Commission
The Owen/Cooper appeal includes, at pages 3-4, a rambling, ad hominem attack
on the Planning Commission, Planning staff, and the County generally, questioning
everything from the Commissioners’ qualifications to the County’s process for deciding
land use issues. This is nothing more than venting, and like appellants’ other complaints
ultimately comes back to their overriding concern with RF emissions. In the midst of
their rant, appellants state that “former carpenters, electricians, and unelected citizens
should never be in a position to approve nuclear or radiation-emitting facilities with a
public health impact.” As noted above, this argument is preempted by federal law.
I. Denial of Equal Protection, Due Process, Etc.
Equally frivolous is the Owen/Cooper appellants’ argument that they have been
denied equal protection or due process. They provide neither legal nor factual support for
their argument that the County should hire attorneys to help them oppose its decisions,
and there is none. There is also no basis for the claim that the County failed to notify
33 See, e.g., T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. City of Lawrence, 755 F. Supp. 2d 286, 292 (overturning denial
based on lay opinion that existing coverage was adequate; “Unscientific, anecdotal evidence will not
suffice to controvert the plaintiff's evidence of a coverage gap.”); Nextel Communs. of the Mid-Atlantic,
Inc. v. Town of Sudbury, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2642 (D. Mass. 2003), slip op. at 35-38 (overturning
denial based on town’s “semi-scientific” test of coverage based on use of a single phone on a single day as
not based on substantial evidence).
34 As confirmed by staff’s response to public comment (See, e.g., Staff Report to the Planning Commission,
County File #LP13-2009, p. SR-8), online AT&T customer marketing maps do not provide evidence
contradicting the refined RF engineering maps that AT&T has submitted to the County. Online marketing
maps contain the following disclaimer: “This coverage viewer provides a high-level approximation of
wireless coverage. There are gaps in coverage that are not shown by this high-level approximation. Actual
coverage may differ from map graphics and may be affected by terrain, weather, foliage, buildings and
other construction, signal strength, high-usage periods, customer equipment, and other factors. AT&T does
not guarantee coverage. Our coverage maps are not intended to show actual customer performance on the
network, nor are they intended to show future network needs or build requirements inside or outside of
existing AT&T coverage areas.”
35 See, e.g., T-Mobile West Corp. v. City of Huntington Beach, supra, slip. op. at 34, Finding 81 (finding
significant gap despite marketing maps showing good coverage; such maps “are not system engineering or
design tools”).
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 13 of 15
some residents, or that the 10-day appeal deadline is “arbitrary” or too short. The
County’s appeal deadline is consistent with other jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area
and California, and appellants cannot claim any harm since they filed their appeal within
the deadline. Moreover, appellants have no standing to challenge any lack of notice to
other – unidentified – residents (even assuming for discussion that anyone entitled to
notice did not receive it).
J. Environmental Hazards Due to Flooding, Earthquakes, and Fires
The Owen/Cooper appeal claims that the DAS nodes pose “potential”
environmental hazards due to the risk of flooding, earthquakes, or fires in the area, but
offers no evidence to support this argument. 36 Nor is there any explanation of what
“potential” risks are being alleged, aside from a vague reference to a cell tower that
caught fire in Southern California. The fact that appellants can site only this single
incident underscores how rare such occurrences are. Furthermore, the Malibu fire
involved a pole that was overloaded with wireless equipment in violation of state
regulations, and there is no evidence that the pole or the equipment were similar to those
proposed for the Kensington DAS. Finally, the County has imposed safeguards to
prevent such occurrences in Kensington. AT&T will be required to submit an
engineering study known as a “Bending Moment Program” analysis to determine if the
pose is capable of supporting the wireless equipment. If it is not, the pole must be
replaced before AT&T installs any equipment.37
K. Failure to Apply the Kensington Combining District Ordinance
One appeal challenges the staff determination that the Kensington Combining
District Ordinance does not apply to the Kensington DAS.38 As staff explained in its
report to the Commission, this determination was based on a legal interpretation that the
Kensington DAS does not meet the definition of “development” in that ordinance.39 The
Ferguson appeal complains that the public did not have an opportunity to comment on
this interpretation, but that is simply not true. Staff made this determination in its report
for the September 24, 2013 hearing, and explained it during that hearing, yet the
Fergusons did not even mention the issue in their appeal of the Grizzly Peak node filed
over a month later, on October 28, 2013. In any case, code interpretation is a legal issue
that does not depend on public input, and appellants offer no specific criticism of staff’s
well-reasoned interpretation.
36 The Owen/Cooper appeal also contains a passing reference – with no supporting evidence – to “Noise
and/or Heat Pollution” from the equipment boxes. As already discussed, the cooling fans for the equipment
will emit only minimal noise, which an expert engineer compared to a desktop computer, and the reference
to “heat pollution” has no basis whatsoever.
37 See, e.g., Staff Report to the Commission for LP13-2009, at SR-8, ¶ D.
38 See Ferguson appeal of the 8 Sunset node, filed October 4, 2013, at 2.
39 See, e.g., staff report to the Planning Commission for LP13-2010, at 1-2.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 14 of 15
L. Alternative Sites to the Sunset Node
In their appeal of the Sunset node, the Fergusons suggest that it should be
relocated to the nearby cemetery or mausoleum. As AT&T’s representative told the
Planning Commission, AT&T contacted the owner of that property and was told that he
would not lease any part of the property to AT&T for a wireless facility. In addition,
there is no reason to consider alternative locations because, as discussed above, the
AT&T facility will not create any significant visual, noise, or other impacts in the
location approved by the Planning Commission.
M. Alleged Denial of DAS Nodes in El Cerrito
Appellants’ claim that the City of El Cerrito denied AT&T’s applications for
several DAS nodes is neither accurate nor relevant. In the first place, all five El Cerrito
nodes were approved by the El Cerrito Planning Commission with one such approval
confirmed by the City Council. AT&T is presently seeking design review approval for
each node. But even if El Cerrito had ultimately denied one or more of AT&T’s DAS
nodes, that would have no bearing whatsoever on this appeal. As noted above, each of
the AT&T DAS nodes is independent of the others, so what happens in El Cerrito is
simply not relevant to this Board’s decision on the Kensington DAS.
In short, all five appeals are completely devoid of merit, and there is no
substantial evidence that would support denial.
IV. Denial Would Constitute An Unlawful Prohibition Of Service.
A local government violates the Telecommunications Act’s “effective
prohibition” clause if it prevents a wireless provider from closing a “significant gap” in
service by the “least intrusive means.” This issue involves a two-pronged analysis:
(1) whether the provider has demonstrated the existence of a “significant gap” in wireless
service; and (2) whether the proposed facility is the “least intrusive means” to address the
gap. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 2009).
If a provider demonstrates that it has a significant gap and that its proposed
facility is the least intrusive means to fill the gap, the local government is required to
approve the facility, even if there would otherwise be substantial evidence to deny it
under the local code. This is because the requirements for federal preemption 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 v. City of
Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 999.
Here, both prongs of the Anacortes standard are met. As discussed above, AT&T
has demonstrated that a significant gap exists through coverage maps for each node (see
Exhibits 2 through 7) and the RF Engineer’s Statement (Exhibit 1-A). Moreover, the
alternatives analysis for each node included in Exhibit 2 thought 7 confirms that there are
no less intrusive alternatives to the Kensington DAS as approved. Thus, AT&T has
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
November 26, 2013
Page 15 of 15
demonstrated that denial of the Kensington DAS would constitute and unlawful
prohibition of service.
Conclusion
The approved Kensington DAS will deploy the most advanced technology in
order to fill significant gaps in wireless service with the least possible intrusion on the
community. It meets all County requirements for approval, and there is neither merit to
any of the appeals, nor substantial evidence that would support denial. This Board should
uphold the Commission’s well-reasoned decision and reject each of the baseless appeals.
Sincerely,
Paul B. Albritton
cc: Thomas L. Geiger, Esq.
Francisco Avila
Telma Moreira
William Nelson
Schedule of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-A: RF Engineer’s Statement
Exhibit 1-B: Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers RF Emissions Report
Exhibit 1-C: Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers Acoustic Report
Exhibit 2: Windsor Node Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis, Node
Coverage Map and Alternate Design
Exhibit 3: Sunset Node Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis, Node
Coverage Map and 5 Sunset Drive Sale Information
Exhibit 4: Grizzly Peak Node Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis and
Node Coverage Map
Exhibit 5: Highgate Node Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis, Node
Coverage Map and Tree Clutter Exhibit
Exhibit 6: Stratford Node Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis and Node
Coverage Map
Exhibit 7: Ardmore Node Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis, Node
Coverage Map and Tree Clutter Exhibit
Exhibit 8: AT&T Customer Support Cards
Exhibit 1-A
RF Engineer’s Statement
Exhibit 1-A
AT&T Submittal
November 25, 2013 AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement
of Significant Coverage Gap
Kensington, Contra Costa County
I am the AT&T radio frequency engineer assigned to resolving coverage and capacity
gaps in the AT&T wireless network in unincorporated Kensington, Contra Costa County (the
“Kensington Gap”). Based on my personal knowledge of the Kensington Gap and AT&T’s
wireless network, as well as my review of AT&T’s records with respect to the Kensington
Gap and wireless telecommunications facilities in the surrounding area, I have concluded that
the six proposed distributed antenna system (“DAS”) nodes to be located in the public right-
of-way of near 121 Windsor, 8 Sunset Drive, 248 Grizzly Peak Boulevard, 18 Highgate, 4
Stratford and 110 Ardmore (collectively, the “Kensington DAS”) are needed individually to
close coverage gaps in the vicinity of each node and collectively will provide service to the
Kensington Gap. This statement is submitted as part of and incorporated into the AT&T
submittal to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors with respect to certain appeals
that have been filed (the “AT&T Submittal”).
The service coverage gap is caused by inadequate (or, in the case of 4G LTE, non-
existent) infrastructure in the area. AT&T’s existing facilities cannot adequately serve its
customers in the Kensington Gap, let alone address rapidly increasing data usage. Moreover,
4G LTE service coverage has not yet been deployed in this area. To remedy this service
coverage gap, AT&T needs to install new wireless infrastructure.
AT&T uses industry standard propagation tools to identify the areas in its network
where signal strength is too weak to provide reliable in-building service quality. This
information is developed from many sources including terrain and clutter databases, which
simulate the environment, propagation models that simulate signal propagation in the
presence of terrain and clutter variation, drive tests measuring existing radio signals, and
signal propagation from test antennas. AT&T designs and builds its network to ensure
customers receive reliable in-building service quality.
Exhibit 1 to this Statement is a map of existing service coverage in the Kensington
Gap (without the proposed Kensington DAS). As shown, the Kensington Gap includes an
area of approximately one square mile and a population of approximately 5,000 residents.
The gap to be served by each node of the Kensington DAS network is separately set forth in
the description of each DAS node in the AT&T Submittal to which this statement appears as
Exhibit 1-C. Each individual DAS node serves a specific and significant area of Kensington
with populations ranging from over 100 residents to over 800 residents per node as shown in
the AT&T Submittal. The green shaded areas depict areas within a signal strength range that
provide acceptable in-building service coverage. In-building coverage means customers are
able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building. The yellow shaded areas
depict areas within a signal strength range that provide acceptable in-transit coverage. In this
area, an AT&T customer should be able to successfully place or receive a call within a
vehicle. The red shading depicts areas within a signal strength range in which a customer
might have difficulty receiving a consistently acceptable level of service. The quality of
service experienced by any individual can differ greatly depending on whether that customer
is indoors, outdoors, stationary, or in transit. Any area in the red or yellow category is
considered inadequate service coverage and constitutes a service coverage gap.
Exhibit 2 and the proposed coverage “After” maps shown with the description of
each node in the AT&T Submittal predict service coverage based on signal strength in the
vicinity of the Kensington DAS if the DAS nodes are placed as proposed. The coverage
provided by each node is shown adjacent to the map of the gap. As shown by these maps,
and, in particular, the “After” map, each DAS node closes the significant 3G service
coverage gap in the area immediately surrounding that node.
In addition to these 3G wireless service gap issues, AT&T is in the process of
deploying its 4G LTE service in Contra Costa County with the goal of providing the most
advanced personal wireless experience available to residents. 4G LTE is capable of
delivering speeds up to 10 times faster than industry-average 3G speeds. What’s more, LTE
uses spectrum more efficiently than other technologies, creating more space to carry data
traffic and services and to deliver a better overall network experience. This is particularly
important in the County because of the likely high penetration of the new 4G LTE tablets,
smart phones, and other LTE devices. As clearly depicted in Exhibit 2 and the proposed
coverage maps for each node, the Kensington DAS will provide new LTE service to the over
5,000 residents of Kensington.
This is also important in part because as existing customers migrate to 40 LTE ,the
LTE technology will provide the added benefit of reducing 3G data traffic, which can cause
capacity issues on the UMTS (30)network during peak usage periods ,especially in light of
forecasted increase in usage. AT&T customers are using these applications in a manner that
has caused a 20 ,000%increase in mobile data usage on AT&T's network over the past five
years (2007-2011).AT&T expects total mobile data volume to grow 8x-lOx over the next
five years .The Kensington DAS will close the existing 3G UMTS and 4G LTE service gaps
in the Kensington Gap .
November 25 ,2013
Kensington oDAS – Existing Coverage
In-Building Service
In-Transit Service
Outdoor Service
Legend
Existing Site
Kensington Boundary
Proposed Node
Proposed Site
Note: In-Building service includes
In-Transit and Outdoor service. In-
Transit service includes Outdoor
service.
Kensington oDAS – Proposed Coverage
In-Building Service
In-Transit Service
Outdoor Service
Legend
Existing Site
Kensington Boundary
Proposed Node
Proposed Site
Note: In-Building service includes
In-Transit and Outdoor service. In-
Transit service includes Outdoor
service.
Exhibit 1-B
Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
RF Emissions Report
!"#$%&'()*+,$-&,"*"../$00%$1$2&3$4,565."7$8&.9,&:)9"7$;'9"''+$2<.9"=$!57".$
>+?*+'7$@&**.$1$A"'.&'(95'/$%+*&B5,'&+$
!"#$%&'
()*+,-./01,)*'23''
40-5'&')+'6'
29+9"="'9$5B$@+=="99$C$D7&.5'/$E'FG/$%5'.)*9&'($D'(&'"",.$
785'+,/9')+':099511';'<=,>)*?'#*@%?'()*>.A1,*-'<*-,*55/>?'80>'B55*'/510,*5=')*'B580A+')+'!5C'
(,*-.A0/'D,/5A5>>?'EE(?'0'C,/5A5>>'15A5@)99.*,@01,)*>'>5/F,@5'G/)F,=5/?'1)'5F0A.015'>,H'=,>1/,B.15='
0*15**0' >I>159' J$KLM' *)=5>' G/)G)>5=' 1)' B5' A)@015=' ,*' 185' N0OA0*=' :,AA>' 0/50' )+' P5*>,*-1)*?'
(0A,+)/*,0?'+)/'@)9GA,0*@5'C,18'0GG/)G/,015'-.,=5A,*5>'A,9,1,*-'8.90*'5HG)>./5'1)'/0=,)'+/5Q.5*@I'
JRSTUM'5A5@1/)90-*51,@'+,5A=>%'
D3"F)9&H"$2)==+,<$
!5C'(,*-.A0/'D,/5A5>>'G/)G)>5>'1)',*>10AA'1C)'=,/5@1,)*0A'G0*5A'0*15**0>')*'>,H'5H,>1,*-')/'
G/)G)>5='.1,A,1I'G)A5>'>,15=',*'185'N0OA0*=':,AA>'0/50')+'P5*>,*-1)*%''785'G/)G)>5=')G5/01,)*'
C,AA'@)9GAI'C,18'185'T(('-.,=5A,*5>'A,9,1,*-'G.BA,@'5HG)>./5'1)'ST'5*5/-I%'
4,"H+&*&'($D365.),"$29+'7+,7.$
785' V%L%' ()*-/5>>' /5Q.,/5>' 1801' 185' T5=5/0A' ()99.*,@01,)*>' ()99,>>,)*' JRT((UM' 5F0A.015' ,1>'
0@1,)*>'+)/'G)>>,BA5'>,-*,+,@0*1',9G0@1')*'185'5*F,/)*95*1%''K'>.990/I')+'185'T((W>'5HG)>./5'A,9,1>'
,>'>8)C*',*'T,-./5'&%''785>5'A,9,1>'0GGAI'+)/'@)*1,*.).>'5HG)>./5>'0*='0/5',*15*=5='1)'G/)F,=5'0'
G/.=5*1'90/-,*')+'>0+51I'+)/'0AA'G5/>)*>?'/5-0/=A5>>')+'0-5?'-5*=5/?'>,X5?')/'850A18%''785'9)>1'/5>1/,@1,F5'
T(('A,9,1'+)/'5HG)>./5>')+'.*A,9,15='=./01,)*'1)'/0=,)'+/5Q.5*@I'5*5/-I'+)/'>5F5/0A'G5/>)*0A'C,/5A5>>'
>5/F,@5>'0/5'0>'+)AA)C>Y'
'' D,/5A5>>'L5/F,@5'T/5Q.5*@I'30*=' N@@.G01,)*0A'E,9,1' 4.BA,@'E,9,1'''''
Z,@/)C0F5'J4),*1[1)[4),*1M' \?]]]^_]?]]]'Z:X' \%]]'9D`@9
2' &%]]'9D`@9
2'
3SL'J3/)0=B0*='S0=,)M'2?a]]'\%]]'&%]]'
KDL'JK=F0*@5='D,/5A5>>M' 2?&]]'\%]]'&%]]'
4(L'J45/>)*0A'()99.*,@01,)*M' &?"\]'\%]]'&%]]'
(5AA.A0/'_b]'2%"]']%\_'
LZS'JLG5@,0A,X5='Z)B,A5'S0=,)M' _\\'2%_\']%\b'
b]]'Z:X'b]]'2%c\']%6b'
d9)>1'/5>1/,@1,F5'+/5Q.5*@I'/0*-5e' c]^c]]'&%]]']%2]'
4)C5/'A,*5'+/5Q.5*@,5>'Ja]':XM'0/5'C5AA'B5A)C'185'0GGA,@0BA5'/0*-5')+'185>5'>10*=0/=>?'0*='185/5',>'
@)*>,=5/5=' 1)' B5' *)' @)9G).*=,*-' 5++5@1' +/)9' >,9.A10*5).>' 5HG)>./5' 1)' G)C5/' A,*5' 0*=' /0=,)'
+/5Q.5*@I'+,5A=>%''
I"'",+*$J+F&*&9<$K"L)&,"="'9.$
30>5'>101,)*>'1IG,@0AAI'@)*>,>1')+'1C)'=,>1,*@1'G0/1>Y''185'5A5@1/)*,@'1/0*>@5,F5/>'J0A>)'@0AA5='R/0=,)>U')/'
R@80**5A>UM'1801'0/5'@)**5@15='1)'185'1/0=,1,)*0A'C,/5='15A5G8)*5'A,*5>?'0*='185'G0>>,F5'0*15**0>'1801'
>5*=' 185' C,/5A5>>' >,-*0A>' @/5015=' BI' 185' /0=,)>' ).1' 1)' B5' /5@5,F5=' BI' ,*=,F,=.0A' >.B>@/,B5/' .*,1>%'''
!"#$%&'()*+,$-&,"*"../$00%$1$2&3$4,565."7$8&.9,&:)9"7$;'9"''+$2<.9"=$!57".$
>+?*+'7$@&**.$1$A"'.&'(95'/$%+*&B5,'&+$
!"#$%&'
()*+,-./01,)*'23''
40-5'6')+'7'
29)7<$C".)*9.$
8)/'0'95/:)*'0*;<=5/5'01'-/).*>?'1=5'@0A,@.@'B8'5A9):./5'C5D5C'>.5'1)'1=5'9/)9):5>')95/01,)*',:'
E0CE.C015>' 1)' F5' G%GG72' @HIE@
2?' <=,E=' ,:' G%J&K' )+' 1=5' 099C,E0FC5' 9.FC,E' 5A9):./5' C,@,1%' ' L=5'
@0A,@.@'E0CE.C015>'C5D5C'01'1=5':5E)*>M+C))/'5C5D01,)*')+'0*;'*50/F;'F.,C>,*-N',:'2%OK')+'1=5'9.FC,E'
C,@,1%''#1':=).C>'F5'*)15>'1=01'1=5:5'/5:.C1:',*EC.>5':5D5/0C'P<)/:1ME0:5Q'0::.@91,)*:'0*>'1=5/5+)/5'0/5'
5A95E15>'1)')D5/:1015'0E1.0C'9)<5/'>5*:,1;'C5D5C:'+/)@'1=5'9/)9):5>')95/01,)*%'''
C"D5=="'7"7$E&9&(+9&5'$E"+.),".$
$.5'1)'1=5,/'@).*1,*-'C)E01,)*:')*'.1,C,1;'9)C5:?'1=5'!5<'(,*-.C0/'H,/5C5::'0*15**0:'<).C>'*)1'F5'
0EE5::,FC5'1)'1=5'-5*5/0C'9.FC,E?'0*>':)'*)'@,1,-01,)*'@50:./5:'0/5'*5E5::0/;'1)'E)@9C;'<,1='1=5'8(('
9.FC,E'5A9):./5'-.,>5C,*5:%''L)'9/5D5*1')EE.901,)*0C'5A9):./5:',*'5AE5::')+'1=5'8(('-.,>5C,*5:?'*)'
0EE5::' <,1=,*' 6' +551' >,/5E1C;' ,*' +/)*1' )+' 1=5' 0*15**0:' 1=5@:5CD5:?' :.E=' 0:' @,-=1' )EE./' >./,*-'
@0,*15*0*E5'<)/R')*'1=5'9)C5:?':=).C>'F5'0CC)<5>'<=,C5'1=5'95/1,*5*1'*)>5',:',*')95/01,)*?'.*C5::'
)1=5/' @50:./5:' E0*' F5' >5@)*:1/015>' 1)' 5*:./5' 1=01' )EE.901,)*0C' 9/)15E1,)*' /5S.,/5@5*1:' 0/5' @51%''
4):1,*-'5A9C0*01)/;'<0/*,*-':,-*:T'01'1=5'0*15**0:'0*>I)/')*'1=5'9)C5:'F5C)<'1=5'0*15**0:?':.E='1=01'
1=5':,-*:'<).C>'F5'/50>,C;'D,:,FC5'+/)@'0*;'0*-C5')+'099/)0E='1)'95/:)*:'<=)'@,-=1'*55>'1)'<)/R'
<,1=,*'1=01'>,:10*E5?'<).C>'F5':.++,E,5*1'1)'@551'8((M0>)915>'-.,>5C,*5:%'''
%5'D*).&5'$
30:5>')*'1=5',*+)/@01,)*'0*>'0*0C;:,:'0F)D5?',1',:'1=5'.*>5/:,-*5>U:'9/)+5::,)*0C')9,*,)*'1=01'1=5'
9/)9):5>')95/01,)*')+'1=5:5'!5<'(,*-.C0/'H,/5C5::'*)>5:',*'V5*:,*-1)*?'(0C,+)/*,0?'<,CC'E)@9C;'<,1='
1=5'9/5D0,C,*-':10*>0/>:'+)/'C,@,1,*-'9.FC,E'5A9):./5'1)'/0>,)'+/5S.5*E;'5*5/-;'0*>?'1=5/5+)/5?'<,CC'*)1'
+)/'1=,:'/50:)*'E0.:5'0':,-*,+,E0*1',@90E1')*'1=5'5*D,/)*@5*1%''L=5'=,-=5:1'E0CE.C015>'C5D5C',*'9.FC,EC;'
0EE5::,FC5'0/50:',:'@.E='C5::'1=0*'1=5'9/5D0,C,*-':10*>0/>:'0CC)<'+)/'5A9):./5:')+'.*C,@,15>'>./01,)*%''
L=,:'+,*>,*-',:'E)*:,:15*1'<,1='@50:./5@5*1:')+'0E1.0C'5A9):./5'E)*>,1,)*:'10R5*'01')1=5/')95/01,*-'
F0:5':101,)*:%''4):1,*-'5A9C0*01)/;':,-*:',:'/5E)@@5*>5>'1)'5:10FC,:='E)@9C,0*E5'<,1=')EE.901,)*0C'
5A9):./5'C,@,101,)*:%'
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''
N''#*EC.>,*-'*50/F;'/5:,>5*E5:'C)E015>'01'C50:1'&J'+551'+/)@'0*;'9)C5?'F0:5>')*'9=)1)-/09=:'+/)@'W))-C5'X09:%'
T' H0/*,*-':,-*:':=).C>'E)@9C;'<,1='YZLMO['E)C)/?':;@F)C?'0*>'E)*15*1'/5E)@@5*>01,)*:%''\,-*0-5'@0;'0C:)'*55>'
1)'E)@9C;'<,1='1=5'/5S.,/5@5*1:')+'(0C,+)/*,0'4.FC,E']1,C,1,5:'()@@,::,)*'W5*5/0C'Y/>5/'!)%'"[%'
!"#$%&'()*+,$-&,"*"../$00%$1$2&3$4,565."7$8&.9,&:)9"7$;'9"''+$2<.9"=$!57".$
>+?*+'7$@&**.$1$A"'.&'(95'/$%+*&B5,'&+$
!"#$%&'
()*+,-./01,)*'23''
40-5'6')+'6'
;)9C5,.C&6$
785' .*95/:,-*59' 0.18)/' )+' 18,:' :1015;5*1' ,:' 0' <.0=,+,59' 4/)+5::,)*0=' >*-,*55/?' 8)=9,*-' (0=,+)/*,0'
@5-,:1/01,)*'!):%'>A&BC2D'0*9'EA2CDFD?'G8,H8'5IJ,/5')*'K.*5'BC?'2C&L%''78,:'G)/M'80:'N55*'H0//,59'
).1'.*95/'8,:'9,/5H1,)*?'0*9'0==':1015;5*1:'0/5'1/.5'0*9'H)//5H1')+'8,:')G*'M*)G=59-5'5IH5J1?'G85/5'
*)159?'G85*'9010'80:'N55*':.JJ=,59'NO')185/:?'G8,H8'9010'85'N5=,5P5:'1)'N5'H)//5H1%'
''QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ'
'R,==,0;'S%'T0;;511?'4%>%'
'FCFU""DAL2CC'
V.-.:1'2C?'2C&B'
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
Frequency (MHz)
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.1 1 10 100
103 104 105
Occupational Exposure
Public Exposure
PCS
CellFM
PowerDensity(mW/cm2)The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the 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 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”).
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five 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
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
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field Strength
(V/m)
Magnetic
Field Strength
(A/m)
Equivalent Far-Field
Power Density
(mW/cm2)
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/ f2
3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f2 180/ f2
30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500
1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
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
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
RFR.CALC ™ Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
Methodology
Figure 2
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the 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
BW
0.1 Pnet
D 2 h , in mW /cm 2,
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 0.1 16 Pnet
h 2 , in mW /cm 2,
where 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
= 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 1.64 100 RFF 2 ERP
4 D2 , in mW /cm 2,
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.
Exhibit 1-C
Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
Acoustic Report
Exhibit 2
Windsor Node
Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis,
Node Coverage Map and Alternate Design
Windsor
Simulation
Windsor Design
Alternatives Analysis
PRIMARY CANDIDATE
OAKN-010A
Near 121 Windsor Avenue
This DAS Node (Node 10A) is proposed to be constructed on a PG&E utility pole on Windsor
Ave. in Kensington. The proposed coverage from this Node is shown below. The primary
candidate, OAKN-010A, is designed as a new side arm mount on PG&E pole #110286008, in
the public right-of-way in front of 121 Windsor Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude
37°54'33.37"N, 122°16'43.29"W). This pole is set off to the side of a residence and AT&T’s
facility will not result in a view corridor obstruction. As requested by the county, the
equipment for this proposed facility will be located in a ground-mounted equipment cabinet
located four feet south from the existing pole within the public right-of-way along Windsor
Ave.
Design Considerations
Antennas were lowered from a pole-top extension to a side-mount and equipment was removed
from the pole and placed in a ground-mounted cabinet in response to Planning Staff comments
to achieve an aesthetically acceptable design. As stated in the Staff Report, “Based on the
story poles, photo simulations, and the plans submitted with this application, the Kensington
Advisory Council recommended approval of the project as submitted.” At a meeting held by
AT&T on the morning of Saturday November 16, 2013, nearby neighbors stated a preference
for pole-mounted equipment. A photo simulation of pole-mounted equipment appears at the
end of this exhibit and is an available alternative at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.
ALTERNATIVES
OAKN-010A-C1
Between 129 & 133 Windsor Ave
Alternative 1, OAKN-010A-C1, is PG&E pole #110286096, in the public right-of-way between 129 &
133 Windsor Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'32.56"N, 122°16'42.95"W). This pole is in
front of two residences. This site is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor
obstruction. Further, this pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house
AT&T’s facility, or replaced due to its condition.
OAKN-010A-C2
In front of 25 Westminster Ave
Alternative 2, OAKN-010A-C2, is PG&E pole #110286092, in the public right-of-way in front of 25
Westminster Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'37.02"N, 122°16'43.36"W). This pole is in
front of a residence at the intersection of Westminster Ave. and Windsor Ave. This site is not feasible
because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross
arms. Further, this site is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor obstruction.
This pole also would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility
or replaced due to its condition.
OAKN-010A-C3
Between 11 & 21 Westminster Ave
Alternative 3, OAKN-010A-C3, is PG&E pole #110286092, in the public right-of-way between 11 & 21
Westminster Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'37.01"N, 122°16'44.61"W). This pole is a
PG&E primary riser pole situated in front of two residences near trees that provides minimal screening.
This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including
cross arms. Further, this site is not available to AT&T because PG&E will not support installation on
primary riser poles. This site also is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor
obstruction.
OAKN-010A-C4
Between 5 & 7 Westminster Ave
Alternative 4, OAKN-010A-C4, is PG&E pole #110301151, in the public right-of-way between 5 & 7
Westminster Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'37.42"N, 122°16'46.50"W). This pole is in
front of two residences at the intersection of Westminster Ave. and York Ave. This site is not feasible
because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross
arms. Further, this site is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor obstruction.
This pole also would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s
facility, or replaced due to its condition.
Conclusion
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are not feasible due to inadequate space for AT&T’s DAS facilities on each pole
and all of the alternatives create greater aesthetic impacts than the preferred alternative. Accordingly, the
primary candidate constitutes the least intrusive and feasible means for closing AT&T’s significant
service coverage gap in the vicinity.
Map of Primary Candidate and Alternative Candidates
Coverage Map
Windsor
Alternate
Design
Exhibit 3
Sunset Node
Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis,
Node Coverage Map and 5 Sunset Drive Sale Information
Sunset
Simulation
Sunset Design
Alternatives Analysis
PRIMARY CANDIDATE
OAKN-011B
Across From 5 Sunset Dr
This DAS Node (Node 11B) is proposed to be constructed on a PG&E utility pole on Sunset
Dr. in Kensington. The proposed coverage from this Node is shown below. The primary
candidate, OAKN-011B, is designed as a pole top extension on PG&E pole #110301168, in
the public right-of-way across from 5 Sunset Dr., Kensington (at latitude/longitude
37°54'29.27"N, 122°17'2.98"W). This pole, which is directly adjacent to a tall tree and
extends into the center of the tree cover, is situated at the intersection of Sunset Dr. and
Sunset Terrace, approximately 55 feet from the nearest residence. The tree will screen
AT&T’s equipment from nearby residences.
Design Considerations
Due to elevation and line-of-sight issues at this site, the height of the antennas could
not be lowered and still provide the intended coverage. Existing utilities prevent side-
mounting of antennas above 26 feet. Radio equipment could not be placed in a ground-
mounted cabinet due to a large sized tree to the east of the pole and limited right-of-way
space on the north and west sides. Pole-mounted equipment has been rotated to the east to
minimize visual impacts to passerby and to provide safe maintenance access. Staff states,
“the proposed AT&T facility has been determined by staff to be a minor change in the visual
character of the site. The proposed equipment is compact and one of the smallest proposals
the County has reviewed to date.”
ALTERNATIVES
OAKN-011B-C1
Between 33 & 35 Sunset Dr
Alternative 1, OAKN-011B-C1, is PG&E pole #110301035, in the public right-of-way between 33 & 35
Sunset Dr., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'30.55"N, 122°16'52.53"W). This pole is uphill from
the primary and other alternative candidates and is situated directly in front of residences in line of sight
of view corridors. This pole is a PG&E primary riser pole situated near trees that provide minimal
screening. This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole,
including a streetlight and cross arms. Further, this site is not available to AT&T because PG&E will not
support installations on primary riser poles. This site also is not available because a facility there would
create a view corridor obstruction.
OAKN-011B-C2
Next to 1 Sunset Dr
Alternative 2, OAKN-011B-C2, is PG&E pole #110301113, in the public right-of-way next to 1 Sunset
Dr., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'29.98"N, 122°17'4.37"W). This pole is in front of a
residence, adjacent to mature trees and across the street from a cemetery. This site is lower in elevation
from the primary candidate, and the lower elevation results in degraded available signal coverage from
this site. Further, this site does not allow for ideal signal coverage due to nearby trees. This pole also is
nearer to a residence than the primary candidate. And this pole would need to be reframed to
accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility, or replaced with a taller pole.
OAKN-011B-C3
In front of 99 Franciscan Way
Alternative 3, OAKN-011B-C3, is PG&E pole #110301173, in the public right-of-way in front of 99
Franciscan Way, Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'30.97"N, 122°17'4.80"W). This pole is directly
in front of a residence, without any mature vegetation to provide natural screening and across the street
from a cemetery. This site is lower in elevation from the primary candidate, and the lower elevation
results in degraded available signal coverage from this site. Further, this site does not allow for ideal
signal coverage due to nearby trees across the street. This pole also is nearer to a residence than the
primary candidate. And this pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to
house AT&T’s facility, or replaced with a taller pole.
OAKN-011B-C4
In front of 97 Franciscan Way
Alternative 4, OAKN-011B-C4, is PG&E pole #110301174, in the public right-of-way in front of 97
Franciscan Way, Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'32.18"N, 122°17'5.31"W). This pole is in front
of a residence, adjacent to mature trees and across the street from a cemetery. This site is lower in
elevation from the primary candidate, and the lower elevation results in degraded available signal
coverage from this site. Further, this site does not allow for ideal signal coverage due to nearby trees.
This pole also is nearer to a residence than the primary candidate. And this pole would need to be
reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility, or replaced with a taller pole.
OAKN-011B-C5
In front of 91 Franciscan Way
Alternative 5, OAKN-011B-C5, is PG&E pole #110301103, in the public right-of-way in front of 91
Franciscan Way, Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'33.37"N, 122°17'5.85"W). This pole, which is a
PG&E riser pole, is situated in front of a residence, adjacent to mature trees and across the street from a
cemetery. This site does not allow for ideal signal coverage due to nearby trees. Further, this pole is
nearer to a residence than the primary candidate. This site is not available to AT&T because PG&E will
not support installations on riser poles. This pole has a broken cross arm, which was reported to PG&E.
This pole also would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s
facility, or replaced with a taller pole.
OAKN-011B-C6
101 Colusa Avenue – Sunset View Cemetery
In response to resident requests, AT&T investigated placement of this node within the Sunset View
cemetery, which abuts Sunset Drive at Franciscan Way. In general, AT&T will not investigate private
property alternatives to a facility proposed in the public right-of-way. However, on September 4, 2013
AT&T representative Matt Yergovich spoke with Sunset View Cemetery President Michael Clinger, who
advised that the cemetery would not allow an AT&T facility anywhere on the cemetery property. While
Mr. Clinger declined to confirm the cemetery’s rejection of an AT&T facility in writing, he offered to
verify his position by telephone to anyone, at anytime at (510) 525-5111.
Conclusion
Alternatives 1 and 5 are not feasible due to inadequate space for AT&T’s DAS facilities on each pole.
While alternatives 2, 3 and 4 offer limited feasibility, all alternatives are situated much closer to
residences than the primary candidate, and all of the alternatives create greater aesthetic impacts than the
preferred alternative. Alternative 6 is simply not available due to an unwilling landlord. Accordingly, the
primary candidate constitutes the least intrusive and feasible means for closing AT&T’s significant
service coverage gap in the vicinity.
Map of Primary Candidate and Alternative Candidates
o
OAKN-011B-C6
Coverage Map
5 Sunset Drive, Kensington
2013 Sale Web Information
search.grubbco.com/idx/detail.cfm?cid=42&pid=3426718&bid=0&ff=1
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5-Sunset-Dr-Kensington-CA-
94707/18551785_zpid/
Exhibit 4
Grizzly Peak Node
Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis
and Node Coverage Map
Grizzly
Peak
Simulation
Grizzly
Peak
Design
Alternatives Analysis
PRIMARY CANDIDATE
OAKN-015A
Next to 248 Grizzly Peak Blvd
This DAS Node (Node 15A) is proposed to be constructed on a PG&E utility pole on
Grizzly Peak Blvd. in Kensington. The proposed coverage from this Node is shown
below. The primary candidate, OAKN-015A, is designed as a replacement pole at the
same location as existing PG&E pole #110257971, in the public right-of-way next to
248 Grizzly Peak Blvd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'33.11"N,
122°16'16.62"W). This pole, which is directly adjacent to several mature trees, is
situated near the entrance to a trail and not adjacent to the nearby residences. Given the
nearby foliage and orientation of nearby residences, AT&T’s facility will not result in a
view corridor obstruction. As requested by the county, the equipment for this proposed
facility will be located in a ground-mounted equipment cabinet located four feet
southeast from the pole within the public right-of-way near the intersection of Grizzly
Peak Blvd. and Kenton Ave.
Design Considerations
Radio equipment has been relocated from the utility pole to a ground-mounted cabinet
adjacent to the pole. Antennas remain at a height of 50 feet to achieve necessary radio
frequency propagation. AT&T is once again reevaluating antenna height to confirm the
minimum height necessary for radio frequency propagation. Staff concludes, “the
project is one of the smallest and innocuous sites staff has reviewed to date.”
ALTERNATIVES
OAKN-015A-C1
Next to 540 Kenyon Ave
Alternative 1, OAKN-015A-C1, is PG&E pole #110257972, in the public right-of-way next to 540
Kenyon Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'32.11"N, 122°16'15.92"W). This pole is situated
on the south corner of the intersection of Grizzly Peak Blvd. and Kenyon Ave. near a mature tree and
other vegetation, but is directly across the street and visible from a residence. This site is not feasible
because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross
arms. Further this pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house
AT&T’s facility, or replaced due to its condition.
OAKN-015A-C2
Next to 248 Grizzly Peak Blvd
Alternative 2, OAKN-015A-C2, is PG&E pole #110257970, in the public right-of-way in front of 248
Grizzly Peak Blvd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'32.49"N, 122°16'17.42"W). This pole, which
is unscreened, is directly in front of and very close to a residence and across the street from another
residence. The visual impact of a facility at this site would be greater than the primary candidate. Further,
this pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility.
OAKN-015A-C3
In front of 247 Los Altos Dr
Alternative 3, OAKN-015A-C3, is PG&E pole #110301063, in the public right-of-way in front of 247
Los Altos Dr., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'32.36"N, 122°16'12.68"W). This pole, which
extends into the foliage of a large evergreen tree, is situated in front of a residence and across the street
from another residence, and it is a PG&E riser pole. This site is not feasible because climbing space is
obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a transformer and cross arms. This site is not
available to AT&T because PG&E will not support installations on riser poles. Further this pole would
need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility, or replaced due to
its condition.
OAKN-015A-C4
In front of 255 Los Altos Dr
Alternative 4, OAKN-015A C4, is PG&E pole #110301062, in the public right-of-way in front of 255
Los Altos Dr., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'31.51"N, 122°16'11.88"W). This pole is largely
unscreened from view of several nearby residences, and it is situated in front of a residence and directly
across the street from another residence. The visual impact of a facility at this site would be greater than
the primary candidate. Further this pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension
to house AT&T’s facility, or replaced due to its condition.
OAKN-015A-C5
In front of 260 Los Altos Dr
Alternative 5, OAKN-015A C5, is PG&E pole #110301061, in the public right-of-way in front of 260
Los Altos Dr., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'30.58"N, 122°16'11.52"W). This pole, which is
adjacent to two large trees, is situated in front of a residence. Although the mature vegetation helps to
screen the pole from that residence, nearby residences on the other side of the street have a direct view of
this pole. The visual impact of a facility at this site would be greater than the primary candidate. Further
this pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility.
OAKN-015A-C6
Next to 534 Kenyon Ave
Alternative 6, OAKN-015A C6, is PG&E pole #110257969, in the public right-of-way next to 534
Kenyon Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'31.14"N, 122°16'18.47"W). This pole, which is
located on the east corner of the intersection of Kenyon Ave. and Lake Dr., is situated in front of a
residence and directly across the street from another residence. This site is not feasible because climbing
space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross arms. Further this
pole will need to be replaced due to its condition.
OAKN-015A-C7
In front of 273 Lake Dr
Alternative 7, OAKN-015A C7, is PG&E pole #110257967, in the public right-of-way in front of 273
Lake Dr., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'28.55"N, 122°16'17.03"W). This pole is unscreened
and is situated in front of two residences and directly across the street from two other residences. This
site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a
streetlight and cross arms. Further this pole will need to be replaced due to its condition. The primary
candidate for this node is less intrusive than this alternative.
Conclusion
Alternatives 1, 3, 6 and 7 are not feasible due to limited space for AT&T’s equipment, and alternatives 2,
4 and 5 create greater aesthetic impacts than the preferred alternative. Accordingly, the primary
candidate constitutes the least intrusive and feasible means for closing AT&T’s significant service
coverage gap in the vicinity.
Map of Primary Candidate and Alternative Candidates
Coverage Map
Exhibit 5
Highgate Node
Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis,
Node Coverage Map and Tree Clutter Exhibit
Highgate
Simulation
Highgate Design
Alternatives Analysis
PRIMARY CANDIDATE
OAKN-007B
Near 18 Highgate Rd.
This DAS Node (Node 7B) is proposed to be constructed on a PG&E utility pole on
Highgate Rd. in Kensington. The proposed coverage from this Node is shown below. The
primary candidate, OAKN-007B, is designed as a pole top extension on PG&E pole
#110250454, in the public right-of-way near 18 Highgate Rd., Kensington (at
latitude/longitude 37°54'47.04"N, 122°17'10.04"W). This existing pole is in front of a
vacant lot and is surrounded by mature vegetation that provides natural screening. The pole
top extension and AT&T’s facility will not result in a view corridor obstruction. As
requested by the county, the radio equipment for this proposed facility will be located in a
ground-mounted equipment cabinet located four feet southeast from the existing pole
within the public right-of-way along Highgate Rd.
Design Considerations
The design has been approved by both the KMAC and Planning Staff as stated in the Staff
Report: “Based on [the] story poles, photo simulations and the plans submitted with this
application, the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council recommended approval of the
project as submitted.” Antennas cannot be side-mounted due to existing utilities on the
pole which would lower antennas below a level that would provide adequate signal
propagation, e.g., less than 30 feet.
ALTERNATIVES
OAKN-007B-C1
In front of 22 Highgate Rd
Alternative 1, OAKN-007B-C1, is PG&E pole #110250455, in the public right-of-way in front of 22
Highgate Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'45.86"N, 122°17'8.62"W). This pole is situated
between residences. This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on
the pole, including a street light and cross arm. Further, this pole would need to be reframed to
accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility.
OAKN-007B-C2
In front of 26 Highgate Rd
Alternative 2, OAKN-007B-C2, is PG&E pole #110250456, in the public right-of-way in front of 26
Highgate Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'44.82"N, 122°17'7.25"W). This pole is situated in
front of a residence. This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on
the pole, including cross arms. Further, this pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top
extension to house AT&T’s facility.
OAKN-007B-C3
In front of 14 Highgate Rd
Alternative 3, OAKN-007B-C3, is PG&E pole #110306409, in the public right-of-way in front of 14
Highgate Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'48.04"N, 122°17'10.77"W). This pole is situated
in front of a residence. This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities
on the pole, including a streetlight and cross arms. Further, this pole would need to be reframed to
accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility.
OAKN-007B-C4
Next to 4 Highgate Rd
Alternative 4, OAKN-007B-C4, is PG&E pole #110228766, in the public right-of-way next to 4
Highgate Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'52.16"N, 122°17'14.88"W). This pole is situated
next to a residence and houses a transformer. This site is not available because a facility there would
create a view corridor obstruction. Further, this pole will need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top
extension to house AT&T’s facility or replaced due to its condition.
OAKN-007B-C5
In front of 7 Jessen Ct
Alternative 5, OAKN-007B-C5, is PG&E pole #110250344, in the public right-of-way in front of 7
Jessen Ct., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'51.94"N, 122°17'11.02"W). This pole is situated in
front of a residence. This site is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor
obstruction. Further, this pole will need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house
AT&T’s facility.
Conclusion
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are not feasible due to inadequate space for AT&T’s DAS facilities on each pole
and alternatives 4 and 5 create greater aesthetic impacts than the preferred alternative. Accordingly, the
primary candidate, as confirmed by the KMAC and Planning Staff, constitutes the least intrusive and
feasible means for closing AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in the vicinity.
Map of Primary Candidate and Alternative Candidates
Coverage Map
Antenna
Centerline
AT&T
asked
its
contractor,
Extenet
systems
to
evaluate
the
potential
reduction
of
the
proposed
antenna
centerline
of
48-‐feet
6-‐inches.
Extenet
has
advised
AT&T
that
the
only
available
lower
centerline
would
be
29-‐feet,
which
would
require
relocation
of
equipment
on
the
existing
pole
and
an
approximately
2-‐foot
increase
of
height
to
the
existing
pole.
The
2-‐foot
increase
in
pole
height
would
also
require
an
equivalent
increase
in
height
to
the
existing
utility
poles
on
either
side
of
this
pole
to
accommodate
the
increase
in
height
to
existing
power
lines.
Extenet
advised
that
the
antenna
centerline
cannot
be
reduced
to
29-‐feet
due
to
signal
attenuation
from
adjacent
foliage,
particularly
to
the
east,
as
shown
above.
Extenet
engineers
concluded,
“coverage
gap
would
be
created
with
height
reduction
due
to
terrain,
houses,
trees
and
foliage
particularly
in
eastwardly
direction.”
AT&T
RF
engineers
confirmed
a
reduction
in
the
antenna
centerline
will
not
provide
adequate
coverage
for
AT&T’s
proposed
node
at
this
location.
Exhibit 6
Stratford Node
Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis,
and Node Coverage Map
Stratford
Simulation
Stratford Design
Alternatives Analysis
PRIMARY CANDIDATE
OAKN-013A
Across From 4 Stratford Rd
This DAS Node (Node 13A) is proposed to be constructed on a PG&E utility pole
on Stratford Rd. in Kensington. The proposed coverage from this Node is shown below.
The primary candidate, OAKN-013A, is designed as a new side arm mount on a
replacement pole at the same location as existing PG&E pole #110242379, in the public
right of-way across from 4 Stratford Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude
37°54'11.92"N, 122°17'7.23"W). This pole, which is directly adjacent to a tree and a large
hedge row, is situated across the street from a residence near the intersection of Stratford
Rd. and Berkeley Park Blvd. Given the nearby foliage, AT&T’s facility will not result in
a view corridor obstruction.
Design Considerations
Based upon the comments of the KMAC and Planning Staff, antennas were lowered from
a pole-top extension to a side-mount on the utility pole. Radio equipment could not be
relocated to a ground cabinet due to existing vegetation, uneven topography and limited
right-of-way space on the northern portion of the pole. Radio equipment has been rotated
north next to a hedge row to limit visibility and provide safe maintenance access. Staff
states, “Therefore, given that the facility will not block any views and the fact the
equipment will be marginally visible to passersby, staff considers the project to be
appropriate for the area in which it is situated.”
ALTERNATIVES
OAKN-013A-C1
Across from 245 Berkeley Park Blvd
Alternative 1, OAKN-013A-C1, is PG&E pole #110242392, in the public right-of-way across from 245
Berkeley Park Blvd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'11.88"N, 122°17'8.07"W). This pole is
situated at the intersection of Stratford Rd. and Berkeley Park Blvd., across the street from a residence.
This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a
streetlight and cross arms. Further, this site is not available because a facility there would create a view
corridor obstruction. This pole also would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to
house AT&T’s facility. The primary candidate for this node is less intrusive than this alternative.
OAKN-013A-C2
Across from 267 Berkeley Park Blvd
Alternative 2, OAKN-013A-C2, is PG&E pole #110286092, in the public right-of-way in front of 25
Westminster Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'10.78"N, 122°17'7.91"W). This pole is across
the street from a residence and is not screened by any vegetation. This site is not feasible because
climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross arms.
Further, this site is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor obstruction. This
pole also would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility. The
primary candidate for this node is less intrusive than this alternative.
OAKN-013A-C3
In front of 25 Stratford Rd
Alternative 3, OAKN-013A-C3, is PG&E pole #110286092, in the public right-of-way between 11 & 21
Westminster Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'12.08"N, 122°17'5.80"W). This pole is
situated between two residences on one side of the street and across the street from another residence.
This site is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor obstruction. Further this
pole would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility. The
primary candidate for this node is less intrusive than this alternative.
OAKN-013A-C4
Between 12 & 34 Stratford Rd
Alternative 4, OAKN-013A-C4, is PG&E pole #110301151, in the public right-of-way between 5 & 7
Westminster Ave., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'12.21"N, 122°17'4.34"W). This pole is in
front of two residences at the intersection of Stratford Rd. and Avon Rd. This site is not feasible because
climbing space is obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross arms.
Further, this site is not available because a facility there would create a view corridor obstruction. This
pole also would need to be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility. The
primary candidate for this node is less intrusive than this alternative.
OAKN-013A-C5
300 Berkeley Park Blvd
In response to resident requests, AT&T investigated placement of this node within the East Bay
Municipal Utility District San Pablo Water Treatment Plant property. In general, AT&T will not
investigate public or private property alternatives to a facility proposed in the public right-of-way.
However, on September 11, 2013 AT&T representative Matt Yergovich corresponded with East Bay
Municipal Utility District representative Paul Hoover regarding possible wireless facility locations at the
San Pablo Water Treatment Plant. Because the facility is a secure water treatment plant, only a limited
area near access would be allowed for a wireless facility. The area available to AT&T would be
immediately adjacent to Berkeley Park Boulevard and require installation of a new pole. A wireless
facility in this area would have a direct view impact on residences across the street on Berkeley Park
Boulevard. A photosimulation demonstrating this visual impact is shown to the right. Placing the
antennas on the existing utility pole as proposed would be far less intrusive than installation of a new
pole in front of residences on Berkeley Park Boulevard.
Conclusion
Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 are not feasible, and alternatives 3 and 5 would result in a view corridor
obstruction. Accordingly, the primary candidate constitutes the least intrusive and feasible means for
closing AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in the vicinity.
Map of Primary Candidate and Alternative Candidates
o
OAKN-013A-C5
Coverage Map
Exhibit 7
Ardmore Node
Photosimulation, Design, Alternatives Analysis,
Node Coverage Map and Tree Clutter Exhibit
Ardmore
Simulation
Ardmore Design
Alternatives Analysis
PRIMARY CANDIDATE
OAKN-014B
In Front of 110 Ardmore Rd
This DAS Node (Node 14B) is proposed to be constructed on a PG&E utility pole on Ardmore
Rd. in Kensington. The proposed coverage from this Node is shown below. The primary
candidate, OAKN-014B, is designed as a pole top extension on PG&E pole #110306453, in the
public right-of-way adjacent to 110 Ardmore Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude
37°54'17.45"N, 122°16'51.04"W). This pole, which is directly adjacent to a large evergreen
tree, is situated to the side of a residence. Given the nearby foliage and orientation of nearby
residences, AT&T’s facility will not result in a view corridor obstruction. As requested by the
County, the equipment for this proposed facility will be located in a ground-mounted
equipment cabinet located four feet southeast from the existing pole within the public right-of-
way along Ardmore Rd.
Design Considerations
In response to comments of the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee and Planning
Staff, pole-mounted radio equipment has been relocated to a ground-mounted cabinet. AT&T
has not proposed lowering the antennas due to inadequate space on the utility pole for a side
mount above 29 feet and due to an adjacent tree that would block radio signal coverage. Based
upon resident submitted photographs that failed to show view blockage from the mock facility
and evidence from AT&T (attached below) showing signal blockage from lower antennas, the
planning staff rescinded its recommendation to lower the antennas and the Planning
Commission approved the facility at the originally proposed height.
ALTERNATIVES
OAKN-014B-C1
In front of 97 Ardmore Rd
Alternative 1, OAKN-014B-C1, is PG&E pole #110286165, in the public right-of-way in front of 97
Ardmore Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'19.01"N, 122°16'52.67"W). This pole is situated at
the intersection of Ardmore Rd. and Beverly Ct., directly in front of a residence and across the street
from another residence. This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by existing
facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross arms. Further, this site is not available because a
facility there would create a view corridor obstruction. This pole also would need to be reframed to
accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility, or replaced due to its condition.
OAKN-014B-C2
In front of 48 Ardmore Rd
Alternative 2, OAKN-014B-C2, is PG&E pole #110286203, in the public right-of-way in front of 97
Ardmore Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'20.60"N, 122°16'50.45"W). This pole is directly in
front of a residence and across the street from another residence. This site is not available because a
facility there would create a view corridor obstruction. Further this pole would need to be reframed to
accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility.
OAKN-014B-C3
In front of 46 Ardmore Rd
Alternative 3, OAKN-014B-C3, is PG&E pole #110286167, in the public right-of-way in front of 46
Ardmore Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'20.60"N, 122°16'49.35"W). This pole is situated in
front of a residence and across the street from another residence. An adjacent tree provides some
screening to the bottom two-thirds of the pole. This site is not feasible because climbing space is
obstructed by existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross arms. Further, this site is not
available because a facility there would create a view corridor obstruction. This pole also would need to
be reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility, or replaced due to its
condition.
OAKN-014B-C4
In front of 156 Ardmore Rd
Alternative 4, OAKN-014B-C4, is PG&E pole #110306302, in the public right-of-way in front of 156
Ardmore Rd., Kensington (at latitude/longitude 37°54'14.04"N, 122°16'46.61"W). This pole, which is
located where Ardmore Path crosses Ardmore Rd., is situated in front of a residence and directly across
the street from another residence. This site is not feasible because climbing space is obstructed by
existing facilities on the pole, including a streetlight and cross arms. Further this pole would need to be
reframed to accommodate a pole top extension to house AT&T’s facility.
Conclusion
Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are not feasible, and alternative 2 would result in a view corridor obstruction.
Accordingly, the primary candidate constitutes the least intrusive and feasible means for closing AT&T’s
significant service coverage gap in the vicinity.
Map of Primary Candidate and Alternative Candidates
Coverage Map
Clutter
to
Northeast
of
Node
014
Antenna
Centerline
AT&T
asked
its
contractor,
Extenet
systems
to
evaluate
the
potential
reduction
of
the
proposed
antenna
centerline
of
53-‐feet.
Extenet
has
advised
AT&T
that
the
only
available
lower
centerline
would
be
29-‐feet.
Extenet
advised
that
the
antenna
centerline
cannot
be
reduced
to
29-‐feet
due
to
signal
attenuation
from
adjacent
terrain,
houses,
and
the
pine
tree
immediately
to
the
northeast
of
the
proposed
node.
As
shown
above,
the
greater
diameter
of
the
pine
tree
at
29-‐feet
will
directly
block
the
northeasterly
and
easterly
antennas.
Extenet
engineers
concluded,
“coverage
gap
would
be
created
with
height
reduction.”
AT&T
RF
engineers
confirmed
a
reduction
in
the
antenna
centerline
will
not
provide
adequate
coverage
for
AT&T’s
proposed
node
at
this
location.
Exhibit 8
AT&T Customer Support Cards
Confidential
DATE:
November
26th,
2013
TO:
Contra
Costa
County
Board
of
Supervisors
FROM:
Taylor
Jordan
BergDavis
Public
Affairs
RE:
Kensington
Support
for
Improved
AT&T
Wireless
Infrastructure
BergDavis
Public
Affairs
works
closely
with
AT&T
on
targeted
public
outreach
projects.
In
October
2013,
we
assisted
AT&T
in
sending
out
support
cards
to
Kensington
residents.
The
support
cards,
which
read
“I
support
upgrading
the
AT&T
wireless
network
in
Kensington”
at
the
top
of
the
card,
allow
residents
to
express
their
support
for
AT&T’s
efforts.
Residents
complete
the
cards
by
providing
their
information
(name,
address,
and
contact
information)
and
writing
in
any
optional
remarks
in
the
“Comments”
section.
The
cards
were
completed
by
residents
who
wished
to
complete
them
and
were
returned
to
our
office.
Attached
are
25
cards
representing
28
Kensington
residents
in
support
of
AT&T’s
proposed
wireless
upgrade
project
in
Kensington.
Comments
from
the
cards
are
also
below.
In
addition
to
these
cards,
BergDavis
has
helped
AT&T
in
the
collection
of
an
additional
21
support
cards
from
Kensington
residents,
for
a
total
of
49
identified
Kensington
residents
in
support.
What
do
Kensington
residents
say
about
our
efforts
to
upgrade
the
wireless
network
in
their
area?
“Tired
of
horrible
coverage.
Let’s
get
with
the
times.”
–Larry
E.
and
Tracy
O.,
Kensington
“The
AT&T
wireless
signal
is
very
poor
here
at
our
home,
we
are
suffering
every
day.”
-‐Tom
&
Lixia
L.,
Kensington
Memo
“Vital
we
have
improvement.
I
am
[an]
M.D.
and
rely
on
phone
and
need
better
service.”
-‐David
A.,
Kensington
“More
towers,
now!”
-‐John
B.,
Kensington
“...This
will
enhance,
not
diminish,
property
values.
Don’t
be
swayed
by
[a]
vocal
minority.”
-‐Richard
L.,
Kensington
“This
is
basically
a
safety
issue.”
-‐Barbara
Z.,
Kensington
“If
I’m
lucky,
when
I
run
out
to
the
deck
I
can
get
reception.
Hard
to
make
business
calls!”
-‐Jane
E.,
Kensington
“Reception
very
poor.”
-‐Mary
K.,
Kensington
“Cell
phone
does
not
work
at
home
and
in
the
hills.”
-‐Ildiko
D.,
Kensington
“...Wireless
is
terrible
here.”
-‐Larry
N.,
Kensington
“Strong
support.”
Robert
F.,
Kensington
“At
times
I
have
to
go
outside
from
my
home
in
order
to
receive
and
talk
on
my
cell
phone.”
-‐Ildiko
S.,
Kensington