on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive
Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
December 19, 2023
City of Fremont
Planning Department
39550 Liberty Street
Fremont, CA
RE: AT&T Cell Site CCL05050 - Mission Blvd
Site Location: 43600 Mission Boulevard Fremont, CA
To whom it may concern,
I write to you as the Applicant and on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T), to respectfully request that the City Council rejects the appeal and approves the proposed AT&T Mobility project at Ohlone College.
This project was recommended for approval from the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) on September 7, 2023. The project was then approved by the Planning Commissioners on October 26, 2023. The appeal from that approval was based nearly entirely on concerns about the health effects of “electromagnetic waves,” which is not a lawful basis to deny a wireless facility that, like the Proposed Facility, will comply with the FCC’s rules on radio frequency emissions.
AT&Ts Proposed Facility will deliver critical wireless services to the area, meet the County’s siting criteria, and will comply with the FCC’s rules as to radiofrequency emissions. This site is necessary to close a significant service coverage gap in this portion of the City. The purpose of this letter is to provide the City Council with an overview of the Proposed Facility, to apply key requirements of state and federal law, and to address specific issues raised in the appeal.
Perceived Health Concerns.
All telecom carriers, including AT&T, must maintain all cell facilities in accordance with the FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency fields. For all AT&T projects, a radio frequency emission compliance analysis is completed to confirm that the proposed facility is to operate below applicable FCC limits. In connection with AT&T’s submitted application for this project, this analysis was completed by David H. Kiser, California Registered Professional Engineer with Waterford Consultants (see Attachment A). In the analysis, it was stated that Power Density decreases significantly with distance from any antenna. AT&T’s operations at this proposed facility will operate at 2.5482% of the FCC General Populations Limits at the ground level. Additionally, AT&T’s operations from adjacent buildings will operate at
23.6998% of the FCC General Populations Limits. The conclusion of the report indicated that the proposed facility will not expose the public to any hazardous level of RF Energy at either the ground level or the adjacent buildings. Given the compliance with the FCC standards, the Application cannot be rejected based on perceived health concerns.
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive
Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Federal Law.
Federal law, primarily found in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Telecom Act”), acknowledges a local jurisdiction’s zoning authority over proposed wireless facilities but limits the exercise of that authority in several important ways.
Local jurisdictions may not materially limit or inhibit. The Telecom Act prohibits a local jurisdiction from taking any action on a wireless siting permit that “prohibit[s] or [has] the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). According to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Order adopted in September 2018,1 a local jurisdiction’s action has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services when it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”2 Under the FCC Order, an applicant need not prove it has a significant gap in coverage; it may demonstrate the need for a new wireless facility in terms of adding capacity, updating to new technologies, and/or maintaining high quality service.3
While an applicant is no longer required to show a significant gap in service coverage, in the Ninth Circuit, a local jurisdiction clearly violates section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) when it prevents a wireless carrier from using the least intrusive means to fill a significant gap in service coverage. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
• Significant Gap. Reliable in-building coverage is now a necessity and every community’s expectation.
Consistent with the abandonment of land line telephones and reliance on only wireless communications, federal courts now recognize that a “significant gap” can exist based on inadequate in-building coverage. See, e.g., T- Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1168-69 (D.Kan. 2007), affirmed in part, 546 F.3d 1299 (10
th Cir. 2008); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006 WL 1699580, *10-11 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
• Least Intrusive Means. The least intrusive means standard “requires that the provider ‘show that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve.’” 572 F.3d at 995, quoting MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 734 (9th Cir. 2005).
These values are reflected by the local code’s preferences and siting requirements.
Environmental and health effects prohibited from consideration. Also under the Telecom Act, a jurisdiction is prohibited from considering the environmental effects of RF emissions (including health effects) of the proposed site if the site will operate in compliance with federal regulations. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). AT&T has submitted a report prepared by a licensed engineer demonstrating that the proposed facility will operate in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission’s RF emissions regulations (Attachment A). Accordingly, this issue is preempted under federal law and any testimony or documents introduced relating to the environmental or health effects of the proposed facility should be disregarded in this proceeding.
2 Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC 18-133 (rel. Sept. 27, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 51867 (Oct. 15, 2018), affirmed in part and vacated in part, City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2855 (June 28, 2021)(No. 20-1354) (“FCC Order”).
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive
Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
FirstNet Program: In addition to providing customers with reliable coverage, fast speeds, and excellent quality, the proposed project will include facilities to support the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (“FirstNet”). In its partnership with the First Responder Network Authority, AT&T is responsible for building, maintaining, and upgrading the FirstNet network for the next 25 years. In order to support FirstNet, AT&T is upgrading its existing wireless sites and building new wireless facilities throughout the United States, including (City of Fremont). AT&T’s upgrades include deployment of the new frequency band (“Band 14”) supporting the FirstNet network. In 2012, the U.S. Congress set aside Band 14 for use by first responders. FirstNet Built with AT&T is designed to be reliable, functional, safe, and secure, and it will provide optimal levels of operational capacity at all times.
FirstNet’s benefits include:
• Always on, 24x7 priority and preemption for First Responders across data and voice communications; • A physically separate and highly secure network core that is fully dedicated to FirstNet – utilizing end to end encryption and keeping public safety and emergency management traffic separate from commercial traffic; and • A dedicated fleet of portable network deployable assets to support first responder and emergency manager connectivity for planned events, emergencies, in extremis, and other mission requirements.
Service Gap.
Per the submitted Coverage Map (Attachment B), AT&T has demonstrated that there is a significant service coverage gap in this area of Mission Blvd. These maps show that AT&T lacks adequate indoor service on and around the Mission Tierra community. AT&T has worked hard to identify the right solution to its service needs here. AT&T investigated possible opportunities to collocate the Proposed Facility on existing towers, but none were found near enough to the coverage gap to serve as feasible alternatives. Thus AT&T identified the proposed site at Ohlone College as the best available and least intrusive means to address its coverage gap. In addition, City Staff confirmed in its Staff Report that this site is consistent with applicable siting regulations per the City Code and suitable for the area and compatible with land use.
Per the submitted Coverage Map for the current proposed Candidate (Attachment C), this location grants the most consistent coverage on and around the College, Mission Blvd, Washington Blvd and the streets. Additionally, the residential home and the church will receive good indoor coverage.
Location of Proposed Facility.
AT&T reviewed the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance (Chapter 18.187) of the City Code to find a location that follows all guidelines. The current proposed location meets and/or exceeds all standards as described in the City Code.
18.187.090 Development Standards
(a) Height. Per the RAN Engineer for this project, the coverage objective of this new site is to improve service in the dense residential neighborhoods on and around Washington Blvd & Mission Blvd. The coverage objective includes servicing the schools and churches in the area as well. To have a better reach to this whole area, an 80ft structure is required so that this network element can add more value to the community. The 80 ft. structure is the lowest functioning height in order to establish reliable coverage.
(b) Setback. Per the City Code, all sites adjacent to residential zoning (Mission Tierra Community) require a 100’ setback. The proposed facility is seven times the City requirements at 700’ from a residential zoned property. In addition, all facilities shall be 1,000 ft. from the nearest functioning Wireless Facility. AT&T’s proposed location exceeds that requirement at 2,000 ft. from the existing facility to the southwest.
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive
Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Alternative Sites:
The appealer to this project brought up other locations to review for feasibility purposes. Please see analysis provided below.
1) Existing PG&E Transmission Towers. AT&T is already a collocator on this existing facility. Thus, the PG&E Transmission Towers were not viable, and were not considered for this project. 2) Option #1 (37.528050, -121.913384): The RAN Engineer provided a propagation Map (Attachment D) to show the proposed coverage at this location if AT&T would relocate. Per the Map, this location provides a reduced footprint in comparison with the current proposed location. Additionally, this location could cause interference to the AT&T equipment on the existing PG&E Transmission Tower. 3) Option #2 (37.531423, -121.911302): The RAN Engineer provided a propagation Map (Attachment E) to show the proposed coverage at this location if AT&T would relocate. Per the Map, this location provides a reduced footprint in comparison with the current proposed location, and offers inconsistent coverage on Washington Blvd, and the residences across Mission Blvd and the College.
Coverage Comparison of Proposed Locations:
Per the Coverage Comparison Map (Attachment F) of the current location vs. the two (2) alternatives, the current location provides the most consistent coverage on and around Mission Blvd, including the Mission Tiera Community.
Thus, the current submitted location is the best means to provide adequate coverage to this area of Fremont.
Generator Noise.
For all projects, it is required to submit a Nosie Study to confirm that the Generator and HVAC System complies with the Jurisdictions Noise ordinance. Per the submitted Noise Study completed by Waterford Consultants (Attachment G), the proposed AT&T Facility complies with all requirements as mandated by the City of Fremont. The 30kw Generator is proposed for Emergency uses for the facility. Thus, it will only be utilized if there is a Power outage in the area affecting the Wireless Facility.
Replacement of Existing Tree with Proposed AT&T Tower.
The removal of the existing tree was approved by both the HARB and Planning Commission board.
Loss of Property Values.
During the Planning Commission hearing it was speculated by a resident that the proposed facility may negatively impact property values in the surrounding area. This day and age, it is important for home buyers to have access to reliable coverage (phone and broadband). The National Association of Realtors not only supports broadband infrastructure, but commissioned its own study showing that communities that have access to it have higher property values. In 2012, a realtor association conducted it’s own study on property values near a wireless facility (Attachment H). Based on the study, there was no negative impact on the home values based on proximity to wireless telecommunications facilities.
Building Code Standards.
All proposed facilities (buildings, apartments, residences, etc.) built in California must be constructed per current Building Code Standards. Wireless Facilities also need to follow these standards. Additionally, as the proposed facility is located on a School Property, it is required for the plans to be approved by the California Division of State Architect (DSA). This entity ensures that any proposed construction on state owned property, public schools, etc. complies with structural, accessibility, fire, and safety codes.
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive
Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Conclusion.
AT&T is diligently seeking to upgrade its network to provide and improve wireless services to this part of the City of Fremont. AT&T has worked closely with the City to propose the best available and least intrusive design for this necessary wireless facility. Additionally, AT&T has shown that federal law strongly supports (indeed, mandates) approval, and there has been no substantial evidence submitted on which the City Council could deny AT&T’s application. I urge the City Council to deny the appeal and approve AT&T’s application.
Sincerely,
Ashley Smith
Site Acquisition Specialist
Epic Wireless Group LLC
605 Coolidge Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 247-1749 [email protected]
Attachment A: EME Report dated April 13, 2023
Attachment B: Existing AT&T LTE Coverage
Attachment C: Proposed LTE Coverage at Current Location Attachment D: Proposed LTE Coverage at Option 1 (37.528050, -121.913384) Attachment E: Proposed LTE Coverage at Option 2 (37.531423, -121.911302) Attachment F: Coverage Comparison between Current Location and the two (2) other options Attachment G: Noise Study
Attachment H: Relator Evaluation
ATTACHMENT A
EME Report dated April 13, 2023
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Compliance Statement
Based on information provided by AT&T Mobility and predictive modeling , the MISSION BLVD installation proposed by AT&T Mobility will be compliant with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits of 47 C.F.R. §§
1.1307(b)(3) and 1.1310. RF alerting signage at the base of the Stealth Pole -Extrnl Array and restricting access to authorized climbers that have completed RF safety training is required for Occupational environment compliance. The proposed operation will not expose members of the General Public to hazardous levels of RF energy at ground level or in adjacent buildings.
Certification
I, David H. Kiser, am the reviewer and approver of this report and am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications
Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation, specifically in
accordance with FCC’s OET Bulletin 65. I have
reviewed this Radio Frequency Exposure Assessment
report and believe it to be both true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
General Summary
The compliance framework is derived fr om the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for preventing human exposure in excess of the applicable Maximum Permissible Exposure (“MPE”) limits. At any location at this site, the power density resulting from each transmitter may be expressed as a percentage of the frequency-specific limits and added to determine if 100% of the exposure limit has been exceeded. The FCC Rules define two tiers of permissible exposure differentiated by the situation in which the exposure takes place and/or the status of the individuals who are subject to exposure. General Population / Uncontrolled exposure limits apply to those situations in which persons ma y not be aware of the presence of electromagnetic energy, where exposure is not employment-related, or where persons cannot exercise control over their exposure. Occupational / Controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment, have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure, and can exercise control over their exposure. Based on the criteria for these classifications, the FCC General Population limit is considered to be a level that is safe for continuous exposure time. The FCC General Population limit is 5 times more restrictive than the Occupational limits.
In situations where the predicted MPE exceeds the General Population threshold in an accessible area as a result of emissions from multiple transmitters, FCC licensees that contribute greater than 5% of the aggregate MPE share responsibility for mitigation.
Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report for AT&T Mobility Site Name: MISSION BLVD Site Structure Type: Stealth Pole- Address: 43630 Mission Boulevard Latitude: 37.529752
Fremont, Ca 94539 Longitude: -121.915575
Report Date: April 13, 2023 Project: New Build
MISSION BLVD - New Build .04.13.2023
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com Table 1: FCC Limits
Frequency
(MHz)
Limits for General Population/ Uncontrolled Exposure Limits for Occupational/ Controlled Exposure Power Density
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
(minutes)
Power Density
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
(minutes)
30-300 0.2 30 1 6
300-1500 f/1500 30 f/300 6
1500-100,000 1.0 30 5.0 6
f=Frequency (MHz)
Based on the computational guidelines set forth in FCC OET Bulletin 65, Waterford Consultants, LLC has developed software to predict the overall Maximum Permissible Exposure possible at any location given the spatial orientation and operating parameters of multiple RF sources. The power density in the Far Field of an RF source is specified by OET-65 Equation 5 as follows:
𝑆 =
𝐸𝐼𝑅𝑃
4⋅𝜋⋅𝑅2 (mW/cm2)
where EIRP is the Effective Radiated Power relative to an isotropic antenna and R is the distance between the antenna and point of study. Additionally, consideration is given to the manufacturers’ horizontal and vertical antenna patterns as well as radiation reflection. At any location, the predicted power density in the Far Field is the spatial average of points within a 0 to 6-foot vertical profile that a person would occupy. Near field power density is based on OET-65 Equation 20 stated as
𝑆 = (180
𝜃𝐵𝑊
) ⋅ 100 ⋅ 𝑃𝑖𝑛
𝜋 ⋅ 𝑅 ⋅ ℎ (mW/cm2)
where Pin is the power input to the antenna, BW is the horizontal pattern beamw idth and h is the aperture length.
Some antennas employ beamforming technology where RF energy allocated to each customer device is dynamically directed toward their location. This analysis includes a statistical factor reducing the actual power of the antenna system to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience.
MISSION BLVD - New Build .04.13.2023
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com Analysis
AT&T Mobility proposes the following installation at this location:
• INSTALL (12) (N) ANTENNAS
• INSTALL (12) (N) RADIOS
The antennas will be mounted on a 80 -foot Stealth Pole-Ex with centerlines 69.12, 71, & 72.71 feet above ground level. Proposed antenna operating parameters are listed in Appendix A. Other appurtenances such as GPS antennas, RRUs and hybrid cable below the antennas are not sources of RF emissions. No other antennas are known to be operating in the vicinity of this site.
Figure 1: Antenna Locations
MISSION BLVD - New Build .04.13.2023
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com Power density decreases significantly with distance from any antenna. The panel -type antennas to be employed at this site are highly directional by design and the orientation in azimuth and mounting elevation, as documented, serves to reduce the potential to exceed MPE limits at any location other than directly in front of the antennas. For accessible areas at ground level, the maximum predicted power density level resulting from all AT&T Mobility operations is 2.5482% of the FCC General Population limits. Incident at adjacent buildings depicted in Figure 1, the maximum pr edicted power density level resulting from all AT&T Mobility operations is 23.6998% of the FCC General Population limits. The proposed operation will not expose members of the General Public to hazardous levels of RF energy at ground level or in adjacent buildings.
Waterford Consultants, LLC recommends posting RF alerting signage with contact information (Caution 2B) at the base of the Stealth Pole-Ex to inform authorized climbers of potential conditions near the antennas. These recommendations are depicted in Figure 2.
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com
Compliance Requirement Diagram (Access Location)
Recommendations
AT&T Mobility Access Location
Caution 2B sign posted at the base
of the pole.
Materials –
1 Caution 2B Sign
Figure 2: Mitigation Recommendation
MISSION BLVD - New Build .04.13.2023
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150 Frederick, Maryland 21703 (703) 596-1022 Phone www.waterfordconsultants.com Appendix A: Operating Parameters Considered in this Analysis
Antenna
#: Carrier: Manufacturer Pattern:
Band
(MHz):
Mech
Az
(deg):
Mech
DT
(deg):
H BW
(deg):
Length
(ft):
TPO
(W): Channels:
Loss
(dB):
Gain
(dBd):
ERP
(W):
EIRP
(W):
Rad
Center
(ft):
1 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 02DT 700 50 0 70 6 40 4 0 12.0716 2578 4229 71 1 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 02DT 850 50 0 64 6 40 4 0 12.3679 2760 4528 71 1 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 00DT 1900 50 0 65 6 40 4 0 15.2398 5347 8772 71 1 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 00DT 2100 50 0 62 6 40 4 0 15.6713 5905 9688 71 2 AT&T Ericsson
SON_AIR6419 TB 05.17.22 3500
AT&T 3500 50 0 13 2.4 54.2 1 0 23.45 11999 19686 72.71
3 AT&T Ericsson
SON_AIR6449 NR TB 05.17.22
3700 AT&T 3700 50 0 11.7 2.8 86.8 1 0 23.45 19199 31497 69.12 4 AT&T QUINTEL QD6616-7 V1 02DT 700 50 0 66 6 40 2 0 11.9711 1260 2066 71 4 AT&T QUINTEL QD6616-7 V1 02DT 700 50 0 66 6 40 4 0 11.9711 2519 4133 71 5 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 02DT 700 300 0 70 6 40 4 0 12.0716 2578 4229 71 5 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 02DT 850 300 0 64 6 40 4 0 12.3679 2760 4528 71 5 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 00DT 1900 300 0 65 6 40 4 0 15.2398 5347 8772 71 5 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 00DT 2100 300 0 62 6 40 4 0 15.6713 5905 9688 71 6 AT&T Ericsson
SON_AIR6419 TB 05.17.22 3500
AT&T 3500 300 0 13 2.4 54.2 1 0 23.45 11999 19686 72.71 7 AT&T Ericsson
SON_AIR6449 NR TB 05.17.22
3700 AT&T 3700 300 0 11.7 2.8 86.8 1 0 23.45 19199 31497 69.12 8 AT&T QUINTEL QD6616-7 V1 02DT 700 300 0 66 6 40 2 0 11.9711 1260 2066 71 8 AT&T QUINTEL QD6616-7 V1 02DT 700 300 0 66 6 40 4 0 11.9711 2519 4133 71 9 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 02DT 700 160 0 70 6 40 4 0 12.0716 2578 4229 71 9 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 02DT 850 160 0 64 6 40 4 0 12.3679 2760 4528 71 9 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 00DT 1900 160 0 65 6 40 4 0 15.2398 5347 8772 71 9 AT&T QUINTEL QD6612-3D V1 00DT 2100 160 0 62 6 40 4 0 15.6713 5905 9688 71 10 AT&T Ericsson
SON_AIR6419 TB 05.17.22 3500
AT&T 3500 160 0 13 2.4 54.2 1 0 23.45 11999 19686 72.71 11 AT&T Ericsson
SON_AIR6449 NR TB 05.17.22
3700 AT&T 3700 160 0 11.7 2.8 86.8 1 0 23.45 19199 31497 69.12 12 AT&T QUINTEL QD6616-7 V1 02DT 700 160 0 66 6 40 2 0 11.9711 1260 2066 71 12 AT&T QUINTEL QD6616-7 V1 02DT 700 160 0 66 6 40 4 0 11.9711 2519 4133 71
Notes: Table depicts recommended operating parameters for AT&T Mobility proposed operations.
ATTACHMENT B
Existing AT&T LTE Coverage
2 Existing LTE 1900 RSRP
“AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
Legend
Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
Proposed site
Existing site
Reliable Coverage Outdoors
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
3 Existing LTE 1900 RSRP Zoomed-In View near Mission Tierra “AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
Legend
Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
Proposed site
Existing site
Reliable Coverage Outdoors
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
Poor Indoor Service
on and around
Mission Tierra
ATTACHMENT C
Proposed LTE Coverage at Current Location
4 Proposed LTE 1900 RSRP with CCL05050 Current Location “AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
Legend
Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
Proposed site
Existing site
Reliable Coverage Outdoors
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
• Consistent coverage on and around
College, Mission Blvd, Washington Blvd
and the streets.
• Good indoor coverage for the
residential homes & the Church Area
ATTACHMENT D
Proposed LTE Coverage at Option 1 (37.528050, -121.913384)
5 Proposed LTE 1900 RSRP with Option 1 (37.528050,-121.913384) “AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
Legend
Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
Proposed site
Existing site
Reliable Coverage Outdoors
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
• Reduced footprint in coverage in
comparison with the proposed
location, specially on the Church Area
• Inconsistent coverage on Mission Blvd
& Washington Blvd
• Location is only 0.377mi away from
existing AT&T element and has the
potential for interference
ATTACHMENT E
Proposed LTE Coverage at Option 2 (37.531423, -121.911302)
6 Proposed LTE 1900 RSRP with Option 2 (37.531423,-121.911302) “AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
Legend
Reliable Service Indoors/Outdoors
Reliable Coverage in Transit
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
Proposed site
Existing site
Reliable Coverage Outdoors
Only
Indoor Coverage Less Reliable
• Reduced footprint in coverage in
comparison with the proposed
location, specially on the West
• Inconsistent coverage on Washington
Blvd, the residences across Mission
Blvd and some parts of College
ATTACHMENT F
Coverage Comparison between Current Location and the two (2) other options
7 Option 2 coverage with
better levels than Option 1
but inconsistent indoor
coverage on the
residential homes with
some impact on
Washington blvd as well
Current proposed
candidate location with
most consistent coverage
on and around Mission
blvd, specially the
residential homes
Option 1 coverage with
reduced footprint because
of its geographical
location with reduced
transit coverage on
Washinton blvd
Coverage Comparison on the residential area across Mission Blvd (Indoor, Transit & Outdoor) “AT&T PROPRIETARY -- This information constitutes confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information owned by AT&T and is shared for Critical Infrastructure Protection purposes only. It is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), Exemptions (b)(3)&(4), and its disclosure is prohibited under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 133, and any State or local law requiring disclosure of information or records. This information must not be copied (whether mechanically or electronically through screen shots or other recording) or distributed to others not agreed upon by AT&T, but in all events do not copy or distribute to such others without notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600.”
ATTACHMENT G
Noise Study
April 14, 2023
E
pic Wireless
605 Coolidge Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Re
: Noise Assessment Letter
AT&T Site CCL05050
43630 Mission Boulevard,
Fremont, CA 94539
S
ite CCL05050 – Mission Boulevard is a proposed AT&T macro site located in the City of Fremont; CA.
AT&T is proposing to add a pre-manufactured walk -in cabinet with wall mounted A/C unit, and a new emergency backup generator. Based on our review of the pro ject drawings and technical specifications, the following is a summary of our noise assessment of the proposed equipment.
Per City of Fremont Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18.50 – Industrial Districts; the following excerpt from the code defines noise level performance standards, specifically 18.50.040
18. 50.040 – Performance Standards
(
a) Performance standards are established to ensure that adjoining properties, persons and th e c
ommunity as well as the region are provided protection against adverse conditions which may be created by the various uses operating within the industrial zoning di stricts. All uses within the I -S, I-T, and I-G districts, whether accessory, permitted, or whether requiring zoning administrator or conditional use permit approval, shall comply with the following performance standards:
(1) Noise. At all property lines, as m easured consistent with subsection (c) of this section, the maximum noise level generated by any user shall not exceed an Ldn level of 70 dB(A) when adjacent users are industrial, commercial, business, professional or office. When adjacent to hotels, motel s and other lodging, or outdoor sports and recreation, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, the noise level at all property lines shall be limited to an Ldn level of 65 dB(A).
When users are adjacent or contiguous to residential, institutional uses, or simi lar sensitive uses, the maximum noise level shall not exceed an hourly Leq level of 50 dB(A) during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.), an hourly Leq level of 45 dB(A) during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.), an hourly Lmax level of 70 dB(A) during daytime hours, and an hourly Lmax level of 65 dB(A) during nighttime hours. Excluded from these standards are occasional sounds generated by the movement of railroad equipment, temporary construction activities or warning devices. Each of the noise level standards specified in this section shall be reduced by five dB(A) for single-tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises when the site is adjacent to residential areas. 7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150
Frederick, MD 21703
(703) 596-1022 Office
(540) 242-3195 Fax
www.waterfordconsultants.com
NOISE ANALYSIS
Of the supporting equipment planned for this project, Table 1 below presents the primary noise sources of concern.
T
able 1 – Supporting Equipment Noise Data
N
oise
Source
Equipment
Type Make Model Size
Manufacturer’s
Published Noise
Data (dBA)
Noise Data
Reference
Distance (ft)
A AC Unit Marvair ECUA012ACA 12K BTUs 51.5 5
B Generator Generac SD030 30 kW 66 [1] 23
[1] Sound pressure is based on Gen Set with Level 2 sound attenuated enclosure, full-load operating conditions.
Our review of the equipment package did not reveal any other significant noise sources being proposed other than what is within the scope of this project. The equipment is proposed to be installed on private property inside of an CMU wall on east, south & north sides & 8’ tall chain link fence w/ barbed wire & green privacy slats on west side of the compound area. Ambient noise is not considered in this study.
To p
roperly present this assessment, our noise modeling has assumed following scenarios: 1) This facility is not occupied; 2) Heat Exchanger on the pre-manufactured equipment cabinet runs continuously; 3) the generator is operating in the full load condition; 4) Ambient noise is not considered; 5) other existing on-site equipment creating noises are ignored and 6) fencing/landscaping currently on site is not taken into consideration.
The site and its adjacent properties are located within the City of Fremont, and the telecommunication site sits within APN 513-0742-001. The nearest adjacent property line is located to the east within APN 513-0742-002. The measurement of sound shall be taken from the nearest private site’s property line, towards the source of the sound, which equates to 354 ft distance from cabinet A/C unit to the property line and 351 ft from the generator to property line.
G
enerator is for emergency backup during power failure conditions. Generator is exercised once a week for one half hour maximum during daytime hours only. A/C unit on t he pre-manufactured cabinet will run continuously during day and nighttime hours. Noise levels measurements per Table 1, calculated to the property line of the nearest residence, is as follows:
No
ise Source ‘A’ – A/C Unit = 2.6 dBA
Noise Source ‘B’ – Generator = 27.8 dBA
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150
Frederick, MD 21703
(703) 596-1022 Office
(540) 242-3195 Fax
www.waterfordconsultants.com
Digitally signed by Robert Lara
Date: 2023.04.14 12:33:04-04'00'
Combined Sources – Total of 27.8 dBA
Based on City of Fremont ordinance, the anticipated noise level of the equipment meets the hourly average noise nighttime levels of 45 dBA’s; and the combined anticipated levels of the equipment plus the Generator meets the maximum noise levels of 50 dBA’s . As sound pressure levels attenuate with increasing distance from the sound source, noise levels due to the supporting equipment at all remaining surrounding property lines, are anticipated to be less than the Municipal code requirements, meeting the noise standards outlined in this report.
CO
NCLUSION
Based on the project documentation, our noise assessment indicates that the proposed AT&T Telecommunications Facility complies with requirements mandated by City of Fremont at all adjacent properties per stated noise metrics outlined in the requirements above. To avoid any misunderstanding, I hereby state that to the best of my knowledge, belief and professional judgment, this report represents an accurate appraisal of the combined equipment, based upon careful evaluation of Manufacturer’s data to the extent reasonably possible.
Please reach out if I can be of further assistance.
Respectfully Submitted
For the Firm,
Robert J Lara,
7430 New Technology Way, Suite 150
Frederick, MD 21703
(703) 596-1022 Office
(540) 242-3195 Fax
www.waterfordconsultants.com
ATTACHMENT H
Relator Evaluation
Wireless Communications Initiative Study
Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values
November 2012
Background
Wireless technology has dramatically changed the way the world communicates. There are over 6 billion wireless phones being used worldwide. In the United States the number of wireless phones is greater than the population. Conversely, with the advent of smart phones and wireless devices, there is increasing strain being put our already stressed wireless infrastructure. The goal of the Wireless Communications Initiative (WCI) is to enable the deployment of a 21st century wireless infrastructure. Silicon Valley is clearly driving wireless innovation and the region has consistently been an early adopter of these products.
However, compared to feature phones, smartphones place 24 times the demand on wireless networks, and smart devices such as tablets command 120 times as much. Carriers are trying to respond to this revolution in technology by deploying what is called Next Generation technology. Carriers tout the capacity of their 4G or LTE (Long Term Evolution) networks as significantly more efficient in managing the burgeoning demand placed on networks by applications such as streaming video.
The significant challenge facing the next phase in technology deployment is the need to place wireless facilities in residential neighborhoods. These facilities need to be closer to consumers to allow signals to be accessible within homes. This is increasingly important given that about 30 percent of homes rely solely on wireless phone service. In addition, almost 400,000 calls to 911 are made each day using wireless phones. Access to a wireless network has now become a public safety imperative.
Carriers are working with cities to identify neighborhood sites for wireless facilities. However, this task has been made more difficult in some cases when a few residents raise concerns about the placement of wireless towers. These residents oppose carrier applications because of
trepidations related to Radio Frequency (RF) emissions or suspicions about a negative impact on property values. The anxiety that wireless towers impact property values has been a powerful argument used by opponents to carrier applications. Oftentimes, anecdotal evidence is used to bolster these arguments, absent any factual evidence regarding the veracity of these claims.
Carrier and city attempts to address these concerns can lead to long delays in deploying and upgrading wireless facilities. It isn’t unusual for a single application to be delayed for a year or more while community concerns are being addressed.
This study has been designed to assess the actual effects of wireless facilities on property values.
We have the capability to consider wireless facilities that have been in place for several years.
We can look at hundreds of recent real estate transactions to determine what effects are present.
The Study Partners
The Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS® and the Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® (SILVAR) partnered with WCI to produce the study. The members of these two organizations are involved with most transactions involving single family residences in Silicon Valley. The Associations are over 100 years old and have a rich history paralleling the growth of the region. The organizations represent thousands of real estate agents who have a deep commitment to furthering the professionalism of the industry.
In addition, WCI partnered with MLS Listings to perform the actual data analysis. MLSListings, Inc. was founded in 2007 by a collaboration between several established regional multiple listing services, notably Silicon Valley’s RE InfoLink and California’s Central Valley MLS. The company created by this merger, MLSListings Inc. serves nearly 16,000 subscribers and 6,000 firms. MLSListings typically handles listings totaling nearly $70 billion annually.
See Appendix B for more information about these organizations.
The Methodology
The data was compiled using over 1600 single-family home transactions from January to September 2012. A total of 70 wireless sites were selected in Palo Alto, Redwood City, Saratoga and San Jose. The survey compared the “list” and “sale” price for transactions based on the distant from the wireless facility. The transactions were grouped by those 1) within 1/8th of a mile, 2) 1/8 to a quarter mile and 3) a quarter to one-half mile.
In addition, the study included all types of wireless facilities. These facilities may be A) a wireless tower, B) equipment placed on buildings (e.g. church, offices) or C) placed on a utility structure (e.g. pole, tower).
See Appendix D for sample photographs of the sites.
Sample MLS listing data query
The chart below displays the aggregated results for the study. The list and sale prices are an aggregate of the all of the transactions that occurred within the specified distance from the wireless site during January to September 2012. The fourth column is derived as a percentage of the sale price to the list price.
Total List Price Total Sale Price %List to Sale
Palo Alto
0-0.125 mile $ 33,093,000 $ 34,243,125 103%
0.125-0.25 $ 219,641,507 $ 233,276,629 106%
0.25-0.5 $ 1,058,288,821 $ 1,094,507,081 103% Redwood City
0-0.125 mile $ 9,111,888 $ 9,306,000 102%
0.125-0.25 $ 36,670,398 $ 36,738,500 100%
0.25-0.5 $ 91,938,794 $ 92,571,249 101% Saratoga
0-0.125 mile $ 11,116,000 $ 11,168,000 100%
0.125-0.25 $ 77,914,560 $ 77,601,045 100%
0.25-0.5 $ 353,092,390 $ 350,550,126 99% San Jose
0-0.125 mile $ 29,024,249 $ 28,695,250 99%
0.125-0.25 $ 57,135,400 $ 57,075,940 100%
0.25-0.5 $ 157,404,541 $ 158,404,215 101%
A listing of the addresses for the wireless sites is in Appendix A.
Conclusion
It is quite clear from the data that the distance from a wireless facility has no apparent impact on the value or sale price of a home. The relationship between the list and sale price remained the same no matter how close the property was to the wireless facility. In addition, we see that all the cities in the survey had similar results. The sites across all cities represent a variety of properties including those in neighborhoods with higher priced homes versus those in communities with more moderately priced homes.
Most real estate professionals believe there are multiple factors that affect property values.
These professionals still believe in the old adage that there are three factors: location, location, location. However, it is quite obvious that the overall economic climate can have an overriding effect on the real estate market. This year has seen a significantly stronger market for home sales, both in the number of transactions and sellers’ ability to obtain their asking price. Other factors that tend to impact property values include schools and access to transportation.
This study should provide a data-based explanation of the relationship between home values and the proximity to wireless facilities. The conclusions can be understood to suggest that communities and carriers have done well in considering the placement of the technology. The Wireless Communications Initiative believes this continued commitment to resolving deployment issues will benefit our region and its neighborhoods. (Appendix A)
Wireless Facilities Included In Study
Palo Alto
1082 Coronado
101 Alma St
1985 Louis Road
3990 El Camino
305 N California
10950 Channing
1501 Page Mill Rd
200 Page Mill Rd
2047 bayshore
2300 Geng Rd
260 Sheridan
2666 E Bayshore Rd
2675 Hanover St
2701 Middlefield Rd
300 Pasteur Dr
3000 Alexis
3141 Maddux Dr
3401 & 3431 Hillview
345 Hamilton Ave
3475 Deer Creek Rd
3600 W Bayshore Rd
3600 Middlefied
3672 Middlefied
3862 Middleflied
4009 Miranda
4243 Manuela Ave
4249 El Camino Real
488 University Ave
525 University Ave
531 Stanford Ave
695 Arastradero
711 Colorado
724 Arastradero
850 Webster St
855 El Camino
900 Blake Wilbur Dr
799 Arastradero
760 Porter
3000 El Camino Real
675 El Camino Real
2595 E Bayshore
Junipero & Stanford
Page Mill & Foothill
Redwood City
3025 Jefferson Ave
468 Grand St
1175 Palomar
1251 Annette
2900 Whipple Ave
Saratoga
14407 Big Basin Way
14000 Fruitvale
13000 Glen Brae
13750 Prune Blossom
14091 Quito Rd
12770 Saratoga Ave
1777 Saratoga Ave
13601 Saratoga Ave
20508 Saratoga Los Gatos
19491 Saratoga Los Gatos
12393 Saratoga Sunnyvale
12413 Saratoga Sunnyvale
Hwy 9 & Quito
San Jose
2827 Flint Ave
930 Remillard Ct
3675 Payne Ave
144 S Jackson
366 Saint Julie Dr
1529 Newport Ave
1200 Fleming Ave
2110 Story Rd
1635 Park Ave
1700 Moffat St
Disclaimer: the data was pulled on 10/2/2012 pulling only single family residence (class 1 in MLSListings, Inc.) with a time frame of all sales from 1/1/2012 to 10/2/2012
Appendix B
Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS®
History
Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS®, established in 1896, has a long and rich history paralleling the history of Santa Clara Valley. SCCAOR, the first trade association in California, is the largest real estate board in Northern California, and was listed as one of the nation's top 20 associations by the Foundation of the American Society of Association Executives. It has come a long way since its first members took potential buyers to preview properties in horse-drawn buggies.
Over the years, its members have made very significant contributions, both in the real estate industry and to the quality of life in Santa Clara County, through their community service activities. Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS®'s history is one of recognizing changing needs in the real estate industry, economy, and technology, and leading the way in responding to those needs.
Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS® was the first real estate board in California to employ a Government Affairs Director to represent the interest of property owners, REALTORS® and the real estate industry, at all levels of government. Threats to property rights remain an increasingly "hot" item on legislative agendas.
The Board's educational activities for members and the public consistently win state and national awards for high quality and leadership, including the Real Estate Assistants Program, developed in 1994. Ongoing classes and seminars provide Members with the most current, professional education for the benefit of their clients and their careers.
In support of the many communities our members serve, SCC REALTORS® FOUNDATION, a nonprofit corporation designed to direct Member's monetary contributions to the most vital community needs, was formed in 1991.
Integrity, strength and innovation are the foundation of Santa Clara County Association of REALTORS®'s history. In the same tradition, established during the past century, we are committed to being an industry leader, bringing positive action and service to our Members and communities for the next 100 years.
The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS®
The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® (SILVAR) is a professional trade organization representing over 4000 REALTORS® and Affiliate members engaged in the real estate business on the Peninsula and in the South Bay. SILVAR promotes the highest ethical standards of real estate practice, serves as an advocate for homeownership and homeowners, and represents the interests of property owners in Silicon Valley.
It is the duty and responsibility of every REALTOR® member of this Association to abide by the "Code of Ethics" of the National Association of REALTORS®. The term "REALTOR®" is a registered collective membership mark which identifies a real estate professional who is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® & who subscribes to its strict Code of Ethics.
MLSListings, Inc. was founded in 2007 as a collaboration between several established regional multiple listing services, notably Silicon Valley’s RE InfoLink and California’s Central Valley MLS. As the company created by this merger, MLSListings Inc. serves nearly 16,000 subscribers and 6,000 firms in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Mateo, San Benito, Merced, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties – an area of approximately 28,000 square miles, reaching from San Francisco to Big Sur, and including some of the most valuable real estate in the world. MLSListings typically handles listings totaling nearly $70 billion annually.
In April, 2008, MLSListings, Inc. joined with three other Northern California MLS services – San Francisco MLS, Bay Area Real Estate Services, and MetroList Services – in an unprecedented alliance to share multiple listing data throughout Northern California. This new alliance serves nearly 50,000 brokers in 19 Northern California Counties, a total population of nearly 9 million people.
Appendix C
Wireless Site Photographs (Sampling)
366 St. Julie Drive, San Jose
2110 Story Road, San Jose
3675 Payne, San Jose
12770 Saratoga Ave, Saratoga
14407 Big Basin Way
675 El Camino, Palo Alto
1082 Colorado St. Palo Alto
1985 Louis Road, Palo Alto
4009 Miranda, Palo Alto
4243 Manuela, Palo Alto, CA
2575 Hanover, Palo Alto