Anne Hersch

From Chao Shan [cha01shan2gmailcom] Sent Monday June 24 2013 848 AM To mossarchitect912gmailcom Cc Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject ATampT

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because the following questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April 11 report have not been answered

- Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany If Verizon can cover the whole city from 1 site on San Pablo Ave why does ATampT need 3 sites

- What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Mr Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

What are the radio frequency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their report In particular before considering issuing a permit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on the neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Mr Gruchawkas April report

- How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan from ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and able to ask the hard questions about necessity rather than a consultant who will like RCC has done for the current site simply rubber stamp the wireless companys plans

In addition ATampTs rationale for dismissing Safeway as an alternate location for these antennas is no longer valid now that Safeway has announced that its building will not be torn down but instead will be remodeled in the interior only The roof of Safeway is a preferable location in terms of setback from neighboring residential uses ATampT should be asked to reconsider Safeway as a preferable alternative site

Thank you

Chao Shan amp Xiaoxia Wang 906 Peralta Ave Albany CA 94706

Anne Hersch

From G Netinho [geraldontgmailcom] Sent Monday June 24 2013 901 AM To Nick Pilch Eisenmann Architecture David Arkin doug donaldson Phillip Moss Cc Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject ATampTs proposed cell antennas on the roof of the Sunnyside Cafe

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners

I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because the following questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April II repOli have not been answered

- Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany IfVerizon can cover the whole city from I site on San Pablo A ve why does ATampT need 3 sites

- What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Mr Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

- What are the radio ti-equency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their repOli In particular bcforc considering issuing a pennit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on thc neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Mr Gruchawkas April report

- How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan from ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and able to ask the hard questions about necessity rather than a consultant who will like RCC has done for the cutTent site simply rubber stamp the wireless companys plans

In addition ATampTs rationale for dismissing Safeway as an altemate location for these antennas is no longer valid now that Safeway has announced that its building will not be tom down but instead will be remodeled in the interior only The roof of Safeway is a preferable location in tenns of setback from neighboring residential uses ATampT should be asked to reconsider Safeway as a preferable altemative site

Thank you Geraldo Santana

Pri and Netos Daycare Phone 510-527-1652 Lic013421291

Anne Hersch

From Dan Augustine [danedintlcom] Sent Monday June 24 2013252 PM To Anne Hersch Subject ATampT

Dear Anne

I am a local business owner - Hanabi Judo on San Pablo near Solano - and I think it would be very helpful if I was able to get decent cell coverage in Albany It intereferes with my contacts with clients

It is very unprofessional not to be able to speak clearly with people who are interested in spending their money on my services services which help make Albany such a special place

I hope you will support ATampT getting another cell tower on Solano or wherever it is necessary

Thank you

Dan Augustine President

Educational Development International 841 San Pablo Ave Albany CA 94706 415-837-0723 fax 415-223-3440 wwwedintlcom

1

Anne Hersch

From G Netinho [geraldontgmailcom] Sent Monday June 24 2013 901 AM To Nick Pilch Eisenmann Architecture David Arkin doug donaldson Phillip Moss Cc Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject ATampTs proposed cell antennas on the roof of the Sunnyside Cafe

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners

I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because the following questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April II repOli have not been answered

- Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany IfVerizon can cover the whole city from I site on San Pablo A ve why does ATampT need 3 sites

- What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Mr Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

- What are the radio ti-equency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their repOli In particular bcforc considering issuing a pennit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on thc neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Mr Gruchawkas April report

- How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan from ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and able to ask the hard questions about necessity rather than a consultant who will like RCC has done for the cutTent site simply rubber stamp the wireless companys plans

In addition ATampTs rationale for dismissing Safeway as an altemate location for these antennas is no longer valid now that Safeway has announced that its building will not be tom down but instead will be remodeled in the interior only The roof of Safeway is a preferable location in tenns of setback from neighboring residential uses ATampT should be asked to reconsider Safeway as a preferable altemative site

Thank you Geraldo Santana

Pri and Netos Daycare Phone 510-527-1652 Lic013421291

Anne Hersch

From Dan Augustine [danedintlcom] Sent Monday June 24 2013252 PM To Anne Hersch Subject ATampT

Dear Anne

I am a local business owner - Hanabi Judo on San Pablo near Solano - and I think it would be very helpful if I was able to get decent cell coverage in Albany It intereferes with my contacts with clients

It is very unprofessional not to be able to speak clearly with people who are interested in spending their money on my services services which help make Albany such a special place

I hope you will support ATampT getting another cell tower on Solano or wherever it is necessary

Thank you

Dan Augustine President

Educational Development International 841 San Pablo Ave Albany CA 94706 415-837-0723 fax 415-223-3440 wwwedintlcom

1

Anne Hersch

From Dan Augustine [danedintlcom] Sent Monday June 24 2013252 PM To Anne Hersch Subject ATampT

Dear Anne

I am a local business owner - Hanabi Judo on San Pablo near Solano - and I think it would be very helpful if I was able to get decent cell coverage in Albany It intereferes with my contacts with clients

It is very unprofessional not to be able to speak clearly with people who are interested in spending their money on my services services which help make Albany such a special place

I hope you will support ATampT getting another cell tower on Solano or wherever it is necessary

Thank you

Dan Augustine President

Educational Development International 841 San Pablo Ave Albany CA 94706 415-837-0723 fax 415-223-3440 wwwedintlcom

1

Anne Hersch

From Ty Gale [tgale3yahoocom] Sent Monday June 24 2013 337 PM To Anne Hersch Subject Improved Wireless Reception

I am an Albany resident and I support the construction of a local wireless tower to improve what is unsatisfactory wireless reception There is absolutely no scientific evidence that wireless signals are some type of health hazard

Sent from my jPad

1

Anne Hersch

From Armaanlogisticsaolcom Sent Monday June 24 2013449 PM To Anne Hersch Cc Barbara_Leslie_ATTmailvrespcom Subject Help bring better wireless service to Albany

Dear Anne Hersch

I am part of Albany community who consider himself privileged to live in city of Albany thanks to its wonderful school system peaceful environment love for Solano Ave virtually crime free city and list goes on But the only negative part to live in Albany is having very poor reception of wireless phones In these days technologies are an integral part of our life and we simply depend on it to make our living I am in a business where I must keep in touch with my customer regardless of my location I spend most of my time either at home or running errands in Albany dropping kids etc Cell phone reception is simply next to none at home and in most part of city It would be helpful if we install any device in the city boundaries that will help to improve the signal strength of wireless devices so we can carryon our business uninterrupted We understand there are individuals out there who oppose such step what there are cities across country having multiple antennas There is no proven health risk factor I am firmly voting for installation of new antennas in city of Albany I hope my voice will be heard

Sincerely Jasvir Singh

Armaan Logistics 545-2309 Pierce Street Albany CA 94706 Ph 5105177339

Anne Hersch

From Robert Lieber [honliebergmailcomj Sent Tuesday June 252013920 AM To Anne Hersch Subject Fwd Cell towers

Please forward to PampZ

Thank you

Robert Lieber

Begin forwarded message

From Robert Lieber lthonliebergmailcomgt Date June 24201382356 AM PDT To Nick Pilch Eisenmann Architecture David Arkin doug donaldson Phillip Moss Jeff Bond Anne Hersch ltnickymindspringcomgt Subject Cell towers

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners

I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because the following questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April 11 report have not been answered

- Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany IfVerizon can cover the whole city from 1 site on San Pablo Ave why does ATampT need 3

sites

- What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Mr Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

- What are the radio frequency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their repOli In patiicular before considering issuing a permit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on the neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Mr Gruchawkas April report

- How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan from ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and

1

Anne Hersch

From Armaanlogisticsaolcom Sent Monday June 24 2013449 PM To Anne Hersch Cc Barbara_Leslie_ATTmailvrespcom Subject Help bring better wireless service to Albany

Dear Anne Hersch

I am part of Albany community who consider himself privileged to live in city of Albany thanks to its wonderful school system peaceful environment love for Solano Ave virtually crime free city and list goes on But the only negative part to live in Albany is having very poor reception of wireless phones In these days technologies are an integral part of our life and we simply depend on it to make our living I am in a business where I must keep in touch with my customer regardless of my location I spend most of my time either at home or running errands in Albany dropping kids etc Cell phone reception is simply next to none at home and in most part of city It would be helpful if we install any device in the city boundaries that will help to improve the signal strength of wireless devices so we can carryon our business uninterrupted We understand there are individuals out there who oppose such step what there are cities across country having multiple antennas There is no proven health risk factor I am firmly voting for installation of new antennas in city of Albany I hope my voice will be heard

Sincerely Jasvir Singh

Armaan Logistics 545-2309 Pierce Street Albany CA 94706 Ph 5105177339

Anne Hersch

From Robert Lieber [honliebergmailcomj Sent Tuesday June 252013920 AM To Anne Hersch Subject Fwd Cell towers

Please forward to PampZ

Thank you

Robert Lieber

Begin forwarded message

From Robert Lieber lthonliebergmailcomgt Date June 24201382356 AM PDT To Nick Pilch Eisenmann Architecture David Arkin doug donaldson Phillip Moss Jeff Bond Anne Hersch ltnickymindspringcomgt Subject Cell towers

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners

I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because the following questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April 11 report have not been answered

- Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany IfVerizon can cover the whole city from 1 site on San Pablo Ave why does ATampT need 3

sites

- What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Mr Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

- What are the radio frequency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their repOli In patiicular before considering issuing a permit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on the neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Mr Gruchawkas April report

- How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan from ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and

1

Anne Hersch

From Robert Lieber [honliebergmailcomj Sent Tuesday June 252013920 AM To Anne Hersch Subject Fwd Cell towers

Please forward to PampZ

Thank you

Robert Lieber

Begin forwarded message

From Robert Lieber lthonliebergmailcomgt Date June 24201382356 AM PDT To Nick Pilch Eisenmann Architecture David Arkin doug donaldson Phillip Moss Jeff Bond Anne Hersch ltnickymindspringcomgt Subject Cell towers

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners

I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because the following questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April 11 report have not been answered

- Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany IfVerizon can cover the whole city from 1 site on San Pablo Ave why does ATampT need 3

sites

- What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Mr Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

- What are the radio frequency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their repOli In patiicular before considering issuing a permit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on the neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Mr Gruchawkas April report

- How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan from ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and

1

able to ask the hard questions about necessity rather than a consultant who will like RCC has done for the current site simply rubber stamp the wireless companys plans

In addition AT ampTs rationale for dismissing Safeway as an altemate location for these antennas is no longer valid now that Safeway has announced that its building will not be tom down but instead will be remodeled in the interior only The roof of Safe way is a preferable location in tenTIS of setback from neighboring residential uses ATampT should be asked to reconsider Safeway as a preferable altemative site

Thank you

Robel1 Lieber

734 Kains Ave Albany Ca 94706

2

Anne Hersch

From Abeck Heike [heikeabecknovartiscom] Sent Tuesday June 25 2013406 PM To Cc Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject June 26 Sunnyside Cell Antenna Approval Hearing

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because several questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April 11 report have not been answered

1 Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany IfVerizon can cover the whole city from 1 site on San Pablo Ave why does ATampT need 3 sites

2 What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Me Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

3 What are the radio frequency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their repOi In paIiicular before considering issuing a permit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on the neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Me Gruchawkas April repOi

4 How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan fiom ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and able to ask the hard questions about necessity rather than a consultant who will like RCC has done for the CUITent site simply rubber stamp the wireless companys plans

There also seems to be a conflict of interest in regards to the independent review conducted by RCC Mr Preiser I am a licensed Professional Engineer PE (License 5854) and PMP may be ATampT would like to share their coverage maps with me

I am also concerned what this means in regards to the already approved antennas on 1035 San Pablo

I look forward to talking more at the meeting

Thank you Heike Ab~ck Resident at J037 Kains Ave Albany CA 94706

Anne Hersch

From Abeck Heike [heikeabecknovartiscom] Sent Tuesday June 25 2013406 PM To Cc Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject June 26 Sunnyside Cell Antenna Approval Hearing

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because several questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April 11 report have not been answered

1 Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany IfVerizon can cover the whole city from 1 site on San Pablo Ave why does ATampT need 3 sites

2 What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Me Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

3 What are the radio frequency radiation exposures from this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their repOi In paIiicular before considering issuing a permit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on the neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Me Gruchawkas April repOi

4 How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan fiom ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and able to ask the hard questions about necessity rather than a consultant who will like RCC has done for the CUITent site simply rubber stamp the wireless companys plans

There also seems to be a conflict of interest in regards to the independent review conducted by RCC Mr Preiser I am a licensed Professional Engineer PE (License 5854) and PMP may be ATampT would like to share their coverage maps with me

I am also concerned what this means in regards to the already approved antennas on 1035 San Pablo

I look forward to talking more at the meeting

Thank you Heike Ab~ck Resident at J037 Kains Ave Albany CA 94706

Anne Hersch

From sun yung kim [kimsunnyusyahoocomJ Sent Tuesday June 25 2013904 PM To eisenmannarchmecom mossarchitect912gmailcom davidarkintiltcom

nickymindspringcom Dougd1029aolcom Subject ATampTs Cell Antennas

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners

I am writing to ask you not to approve the proposed ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano (Sunnyside Cafe) at your June 26 meeting because the following questions raised by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka in his April II report have not been answered

Is this site in fact needed to provide coverage now that ATampT antenna sites have been approved a few blocks away at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley and at 1035 San Pablo in Albany If Verizon can cover the whole city from 1 site on San Pablo A ve why does ATampT need 3 sites

- What explains the differences in ATampT coverage Mr Gruchawka pointed out on two sets of maps that ATampT generated within a few days of each other and submitted for its previous application at 1035 San Pablo and the application for 1495 Solano Why does coverage look worse in the 1495 Solano application maps than it does on the 1035 San Pablo maps

- What are the radio frequency radiation exposures fiom this site as redesigned An updated RF exposure analysis is needed for the new design as RCC pointed out in their report In paJiicular before considering issuing a pennit for these antennas we need answers to the question of whether RF exposures will exceed FCC limits on the neighboring rooftop and other locations identified to be potentially at risk in Mr Gruchawkas April repOli

- How does this site fit into ATampTs plan to request a total of 5 sites in Albany Please do not make a decision about this site in isolation request a master plan fiom ATampT for all of its proposed Albany sites and have this master plan reviewed by a consultant who is willing and able to ask the hard questions about necessity rather than a consultant who will like RCC has done for the cunent site simply rubber stamp the wireless companys plans

In addition ATampTs rationale for dismissing Safeway as an aItemate location for these antennas is no longer valid now that Safeway has announced that its building will not be tom down but instead will be remodeled in the interior only The roof of Safe way is a preferable location in tenns of setback fiom neighboring residential uses ATampT should be asked to reconsider Safeway as a preferable aItemative site

Thank you

Sun Yung Kim and Y ongyop Kim 412 Kains Ave Albany CA 94706

Anne Hersch

From Planning Staff Sent Wednesday June 26 2013 855 AM To Anne Hersch Subject FW Contact City Manager

Hi Anne

I received this email I think they meant to send it to you

-----Original Message----shyFrom Eileen Harrington Sent Wednesday June 26 2013852 AM To Planning Staff Subject FW Contact City Manager

Eileen Harrington Secretary to the City Manager CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo A venue Albany CA 94706 5105285710

-----Original Message----shyFrom cityhallalbanycaorg [mailtocityhallalbanycaorg] Sent Wednesday June 26 2013847 AM To City General Mailbox account Subject Contact City Manager

Submission information

Submitter DB ID 9838 Submitters language Default language IP address 701 136153 Time to take the survey 3 min 33 sec Submission recorded on 626201384634 AM

Survey answers

Your Information Name P8ERGOODMAN Email peterlordgoodmangmailcom Subject pis forward to Planning and Zoning What can we do for you I write in support of the placement of An cell towers at Solano X Curtis your agenda item 7 A It is my understanding that health concerns are not to be considered a factor in approval provided the installation meets federal guidelines which this one does in the stated opinion of your hired expert

Anne Hersch

From Planning Staff Sent Wednesday June 26 2013 855 AM To Anne Hersch Subject FW Contact City Manager

Hi Anne

I received this email I think they meant to send it to you

-----Original Message----shyFrom Eileen Harrington Sent Wednesday June 26 2013852 AM To Planning Staff Subject FW Contact City Manager

Eileen Harrington Secretary to the City Manager CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo A venue Albany CA 94706 5105285710

-----Original Message----shyFrom cityhallalbanycaorg [mailtocityhallalbanycaorg] Sent Wednesday June 26 2013847 AM To City General Mailbox account Subject Contact City Manager

Submission information

Submitter DB ID 9838 Submitters language Default language IP address 701 136153 Time to take the survey 3 min 33 sec Submission recorded on 626201384634 AM

Survey answers

Your Information Name P8ERGOODMAN Email peterlordgoodmangmailcom Subject pis forward to Planning and Zoning What can we do for you I write in support of the placement of An cell towers at Solano X Curtis your agenda item 7 A It is my understanding that health concerns are not to be considered a factor in approval provided the installation meets federal guidelines which this one does in the stated opinion of your hired expert

As I live about 200 feet from the installation please accept my opinion as that of someone who would be impacted by the installation I have no health concerns nor do I believe that the installation exceeds any current and accepted standards

Peter Goodman 818 Curtis street

2

Anne Hersch

From Sara Sunstein [sarasun18humboldtmailcom] Sent Wednesday June 26 201311 07 AM To Nick Pilch eisenmannarchmecom davidarkintiltcom Dougd1029aolcom

mossarchitect912gmailcom Cc Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject ATampT antennas at 1495 Solano Av

To the Planning and Zoning Commission

If I were able to be at tonights meeting I would be Please consider this email to be entered into the records of public comment

Please do not vote yet on ATampTs request for cell antenna permit for 1495 Solano There is still much infonnation lacking and additionally conflict of interest of the consulting engineering company

I ATampT says they want to install at 5 different locations in Albany They already have achieved through threat oflawsuit one site at 1035 San Pablo At the time they said that would cover almost all their needs Now they ask for a second site which is about a 114 mile fiom one theyve just been pennitted for at the top of Solano in Berkeley

It only makes sense to see a comprehensive plan before pel111itting anymore sites for them Doing it piecemeal gets everyone into trouble Weve leamed this about development and water usage Piecemeal doesnt work We must see a comprehensive plan fiom ATampT about the 5 sites they want

2 The City of Albany hired Peter Gruchawka to evaluate the site plans and ask ATampT questions ATampT said he wasnt a professional engineer and would not release their plans to him they said they would only let an engineer review them Dieter Preiser of RCC reviewed the plans and made a rep0l1 The problem here is that RCC is a consulting firm hired by ATampT Moreover Dieter Peiser appears to not be a licensed engineer either As was once said Houston we have a problem

3 The radiation emissions in toto are not clear There are neighbors very near by Accurate infonnation about cell antennas needs to be obtained--from 1035 San Pablo which has never even been monitored for the current antennas as I understand and from all of ATampTs proposals Period

4 ATampT had been considering Safeway as a potential site but eliminated it due to Safeways plans to tear down and rebuild Since Safeway is now planning to reconstruct within the present building it can again be considered as a potential site if indeed a site is needed in that vicinity Safeway is preferable to the Sunnyside Cafe because it has higher roof and more clearance between it and neighbors

In summary Safefway and any other sites are to be considered only after ATampT submits a comprehensive antenna plan stops its shell games and honest accurate analysis of radiation exposures are made public and detelmined to be safe

Sincerely Sara Sunstein Ortho-Biol1omyreg Somatic therapy 5105265414

httpwwwsara$unsteincom As the so(i yield owater deares obstinate stone so fO Field 11jfh life sores fhe insoluble Lao Tu

Anne Hersch

From Sara Sunstein [sarasun18humboldtmailcom] Sent Wednesday June 26 201311 07 AM To Nick Pilch eisenmannarchmecom davidarkintiltcom Dougd1029aolcom

mossarchitect912gmailcom Cc Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject ATampT antennas at 1495 Solano Av

To the Planning and Zoning Commission

If I were able to be at tonights meeting I would be Please consider this email to be entered into the records of public comment

Please do not vote yet on ATampTs request for cell antenna permit for 1495 Solano There is still much infonnation lacking and additionally conflict of interest of the consulting engineering company

I ATampT says they want to install at 5 different locations in Albany They already have achieved through threat oflawsuit one site at 1035 San Pablo At the time they said that would cover almost all their needs Now they ask for a second site which is about a 114 mile fiom one theyve just been pennitted for at the top of Solano in Berkeley

It only makes sense to see a comprehensive plan before pel111itting anymore sites for them Doing it piecemeal gets everyone into trouble Weve leamed this about development and water usage Piecemeal doesnt work We must see a comprehensive plan fiom ATampT about the 5 sites they want

2 The City of Albany hired Peter Gruchawka to evaluate the site plans and ask ATampT questions ATampT said he wasnt a professional engineer and would not release their plans to him they said they would only let an engineer review them Dieter Preiser of RCC reviewed the plans and made a rep0l1 The problem here is that RCC is a consulting firm hired by ATampT Moreover Dieter Peiser appears to not be a licensed engineer either As was once said Houston we have a problem

3 The radiation emissions in toto are not clear There are neighbors very near by Accurate infonnation about cell antennas needs to be obtained--from 1035 San Pablo which has never even been monitored for the current antennas as I understand and from all of ATampTs proposals Period

4 ATampT had been considering Safeway as a potential site but eliminated it due to Safeways plans to tear down and rebuild Since Safeway is now planning to reconstruct within the present building it can again be considered as a potential site if indeed a site is needed in that vicinity Safeway is preferable to the Sunnyside Cafe because it has higher roof and more clearance between it and neighbors

In summary Safefway and any other sites are to be considered only after ATampT submits a comprehensive antenna plan stops its shell games and honest accurate analysis of radiation exposures are made public and detelmined to be safe

Sincerely Sara Sunstein Ortho-Biol1omyreg Somatic therapy 5105265414

httpwwwsara$unsteincom As the so(i yield owater deares obstinate stone so fO Field 11jfh life sores fhe insoluble Lao Tu

Anne Hersch

From Eileen Harrington Sent Wednesday June 26 2013 207 PM To Jeff Bond Anne Hersch Subject FW Contact the City of Albany

Eileen Harrington Secretary to the City Manager CITY OF ALBANY 1000 San Pablo Avenue Albany CA 94706 5105285710

-----Original Message----shyFrom Cityhalalbanycaorg [mailtoCityhalalbanycaorg] Sent Wednesday June 26 2013 1 50 PM To City General Mailbox account Subject Contact the City of Albany

Submission information

Submitter DB ID 9843 Submitters language Default language IP address 6923617380 Time to take the survey 12 min 4 sec Submission recorded on 6262013 1 5021 PM

Survey answers

Your Information Name Alan and Judy Wei Email alanwei22gmailcom Subject Cell phone antenna What can we do for you To Whom it May Concern

We live at 843 Pomona Ave in Albany and want to go on record as supporting cell phone tower installation at Sunnyside Cafe or elsewhere to facilitate having wireless reception in the city

Alan and Judy Wei 843 Pomona Ave Albany CA

1

ARROW -) Albany Residents for Responsible Oversight of Wireless

June 27 2013

RE Request that Commission resolve contradictions and obtain missing information related to ATampT antenna permit application for 1495 Solano before voting on the permit

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners

We write to ask you

I) not to vote on a pennit for new ATampT cell antennas at 1495 Solano Ave (item 7 A on your 62713 agenda) until the contradictions missing information and unanswered questions related to the application which are detailed in this letter are resolved

2) to require that ATampT release to the citys consultant Accord Communications (Peter Gruchawka) the data he requested in his April 112013 report (attachment 7 for tonights agenda) in view of the fact that ATampT refused to give Mr Gruchawka the data because he is not a licensed engineer but then apparently provided the same data to Mr Dieter Preiser who is evidently not a licensed engineer so that Mr Preiser could prepare the RCC Consulting engineering report dated June 17 2013 which attachment 13 is in your packet for tonight

Given ATampTs contradictory actions regarding release of the requested data there is no justification for their not providing the data to Mr Grllchawka whose qualifications are essentially the same as Mr Preisers as we explain in more detail below In addition as we also explain below there is a serious conflict of interest in having Mr Preiser and his firm RCC Consulting prepare this report

3) to require that the engineering report for the site provide specific and substantive answers to the questions posed by Mr Gruchawka in his April 11 2013 analysis of the site which the PreiserRCC rep0l1 does not do the questions in Mr Gruchawkas report attempt to resolve ATampTs conflicting asse11ions about coverage in the area remedy the absence infonnation (including several referenced attachments) in ATampTs application and obtain the data to determine whether ATampTs need for the site is justified And now there is another question that needs to be answered how the recent approval of an ATampT site a few blocks east at the Oaks Theater in Berkeley alters the need for the 1495 Solano site

4) to require an updated radio-frequency (RF) emissions report that documents exposures from the redesigned ATampT plans for 1495 Solano and specifically analyzes exposures in the areas identified in the April 11 2012 site by Mr Gmchawka as potentially exceeding federal standards (including the neighboring rooftop) or any other areas he may identify based on the proposed new position of the antennas on the rooftop

More details related to items 2-4 above and the problems with the engineering report prepared by Mr Preiser are below

~Tamp Tsgmtra(lilttory llci()lsregarcJilgJheiL~J~tecJI~qlk~me~nJtl1Ji~hek coverage and other data bereleased onlyJQ a licensed engineer

In an email dated April 122013 (attachment 8 to your June 2013 packet) ATampT expressed the following legal position regarding information requested by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka to enable him to assess ATampTs application for 1495 Solano site ATampT may release the requested information upon entering in to an N DA [nonshydisclosure agreement] with a third party consultant licensed as a Cel1ified Professional Engineer in the State of California

Mr Gruchawka is wireless site manager and consultant 110t a licensed engineer so the city negotiated to retain a third-party consultant to whom ATampT apparently released the requested data That consultant Dieter J Preiser of RCC Consulting is the author of the RCC engineering report that is attachment 13 in the packet for your June 27 2013 meeting

If Mr Preiser is a licensed engineer in California he is keeping his credentials secret He does not appear in the stales database oflicensed professional engineers (hJtRIwww2dcagaqovplswllpublllgrlJ9$lc~y2startuplp gte codEl=ENG~-P9m code= ZtiQQ) and he signs his report as a PM P hich is a Project Management Professional PE is the designation for a licensed engineer

The citys chosen consultant Mr Gruchawka has credentials that are similar and perhaps more extensive and directly relevant than Mr Preisers Mr Gruchawka has more than 40 years experience in design construction and management of wireless and other telecommunication sites He is also an FCC-licensed radiotelephone operator is qualified by the FCC to conduct radiation hazard compliance (N1ER) studies and is a licensed contractor

ATampTs disclosure of the requested data to Mr Preiser leaves them 110 justification for refusing to give the same data to Mr Gruchawka It is in the citys best interest for Mr Gruchawka to perform the analysis for which he requested ATampTs data particularly in view of the rather general and vague nature of the conclusions Mr Preisers report provides

Even if RCC were to argue that they have another licensed engineer on staff that does not explain why Mr Preiser who is not a PE would be in a position to write and sign a report analyzing ATampTs data which ATampT stated would be provided only to a licensed engineer under a non-disclosure agreement Either Mr Preiser is -Titing about data that were disclosed to an engineer but not disclosed to him which undermines the validity of his analysis or the data were disclosed to him and therefore there is no legitimate reason that those data could not also be disclosed to Mr Gruchawka

RCCPreiser Conflict of Interest

2

Mr Preisers firm RCC consulting has a conflict of interest in this case RCC works for ATamp T (see for example httpwwwrccltQmresourcesyasestudiesCS=ATT -EkoTowershtml) and provides software site design products to ATampT for use in designing sites just like the proposed site (see bttpllwwwrcccomcomsitecomsitedesignshtml) In light of these affiliations to ATampT vhy would RCC render an opinion contrary to ATampTs interests and thereby potentially jeopardize RCCs own business relationship with ATampT

Mr Preisers report is therefore not an independent evaluation as required by city code 20201 00E2f emphasis added states the Community Development Director may require an independent third-pa1Y review at the expense of the project sponsor to identify potential impacts on the surrounding area to confirm the radio frequency needs of the project sponsor and to identify potential alternative solutions

In addition Mr Preiser has a long and growing track record of providing positive and somewhat generic favorable rep0l1s on ATampT sites In pm1icular Mr Preiser prepared repo11 for Albany on a previously proposed ATampT site at 1035 San Pablo Ave It is notable that ATampT used conclusions from that report by Mr Preiser to support their claims in a lawsuit against the city challenging the original denial of the permit for the 1035 San Pablo site This history suggests that it is not in the citys best interest to obtain services from Mr Preiser related to another ATampT application

Moreover Mr Preiser also prepared the third-party review for the city of Berkeley of the recently approved ATampT antennas at the Oaks Theater (that review also supported ATampTs application) This raises the question of why in his analysis of the coverage questions related to the 1495 Solano Ave site Mr Preiser did not address the impact of the approval ofthe Oaks Theater site on coverage and on the justification for the 1495 Solano site Since ATampT also now has a permit fora site at 1035 San Pablo Ave to the west so that the 1495 Solano site is sandwiched between the San Pablo and Oaks Theater site there is a velY real question regarding whether the 1495 Solano site is still necessmy

Mr Preisers reports for J035 San Pablo and the Oaks Theater ATampT sites offer generalized conclusions much like those in his CUlTent report for 1495 Solano stating in effect that if ATampT says coverage is poor and a site is needed then it must be so Mr Preisers analyses appear to be somewhat predictable unquestioning of and favorable to ATampT Perhaps this track record along with the involvement of Mr Preisers firm in helping ATampT build sites explain why ATampT wished to have Mr Preiser rather than Mr Gruchawka prepare the engineering report for 1495 Solano However the choice of a qualified consultant to evaluate ATampTs application is the citys prerogative not the applicants

The generic conclusions in Mr Preisers June J 7 2013 report do not answer the questions Mr Gruchawka raised on the city s behalf in his April 11 2013 analysis nor do they inspire confidence that meaningful analysis of ATampTs data took place For example the PreiserRCC rep0l1 concludes that

3

More details related to items 2-4 above and the problems with the engineering report prepared by Mr Preiser are below

~Tamp Tsgmtra(lilttory llci()lsregarcJilgJheiL~J~tecJI~qlk~me~nJtl1Ji~hek coverage and other data bereleased onlyJQ a licensed engineer

In an email dated April 122013 (attachment 8 to your June 2013 packet) ATampT expressed the following legal position regarding information requested by the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka to enable him to assess ATampTs application for 1495 Solano site ATampT may release the requested information upon entering in to an N DA [nonshydisclosure agreement] with a third party consultant licensed as a Cel1ified Professional Engineer in the State of California

Mr Gruchawka is wireless site manager and consultant 110t a licensed engineer so the city negotiated to retain a third-party consultant to whom ATampT apparently released the requested data That consultant Dieter J Preiser of RCC Consulting is the author of the RCC engineering report that is attachment 13 in the packet for your June 27 2013 meeting

If Mr Preiser is a licensed engineer in California he is keeping his credentials secret He does not appear in the stales database oflicensed professional engineers (hJtRIwww2dcagaqovplswllpublllgrlJ9$lc~y2startuplp gte codEl=ENG~-P9m code= ZtiQQ) and he signs his report as a PM P hich is a Project Management Professional PE is the designation for a licensed engineer

The citys chosen consultant Mr Gruchawka has credentials that are similar and perhaps more extensive and directly relevant than Mr Preisers Mr Gruchawka has more than 40 years experience in design construction and management of wireless and other telecommunication sites He is also an FCC-licensed radiotelephone operator is qualified by the FCC to conduct radiation hazard compliance (N1ER) studies and is a licensed contractor

ATampTs disclosure of the requested data to Mr Preiser leaves them 110 justification for refusing to give the same data to Mr Gruchawka It is in the citys best interest for Mr Gruchawka to perform the analysis for which he requested ATampTs data particularly in view of the rather general and vague nature of the conclusions Mr Preisers report provides

Even if RCC were to argue that they have another licensed engineer on staff that does not explain why Mr Preiser who is not a PE would be in a position to write and sign a report analyzing ATampTs data which ATampT stated would be provided only to a licensed engineer under a non-disclosure agreement Either Mr Preiser is -Titing about data that were disclosed to an engineer but not disclosed to him which undermines the validity of his analysis or the data were disclosed to him and therefore there is no legitimate reason that those data could not also be disclosed to Mr Gruchawka

RCCPreiser Conflict of Interest

2

Mr Preisers firm RCC consulting has a conflict of interest in this case RCC works for ATamp T (see for example httpwwwrccltQmresourcesyasestudiesCS=ATT -EkoTowershtml) and provides software site design products to ATampT for use in designing sites just like the proposed site (see bttpllwwwrcccomcomsitecomsitedesignshtml) In light of these affiliations to ATampT vhy would RCC render an opinion contrary to ATampTs interests and thereby potentially jeopardize RCCs own business relationship with ATampT

Mr Preisers report is therefore not an independent evaluation as required by city code 20201 00E2f emphasis added states the Community Development Director may require an independent third-pa1Y review at the expense of the project sponsor to identify potential impacts on the surrounding area to confirm the radio frequency needs of the project sponsor and to identify potential alternative solutions

In addition Mr Preiser has a long and growing track record of providing positive and somewhat generic favorable rep0l1s on ATampT sites In pm1icular Mr Preiser prepared repo11 for Albany on a previously proposed ATampT site at 1035 San Pablo Ave It is notable that ATampT used conclusions from that report by Mr Preiser to support their claims in a lawsuit against the city challenging the original denial of the permit for the 1035 San Pablo site This history suggests that it is not in the citys best interest to obtain services from Mr Preiser related to another ATampT application

Moreover Mr Preiser also prepared the third-party review for the city of Berkeley of the recently approved ATampT antennas at the Oaks Theater (that review also supported ATampTs application) This raises the question of why in his analysis of the coverage questions related to the 1495 Solano Ave site Mr Preiser did not address the impact of the approval ofthe Oaks Theater site on coverage and on the justification for the 1495 Solano site Since ATampT also now has a permit fora site at 1035 San Pablo Ave to the west so that the 1495 Solano site is sandwiched between the San Pablo and Oaks Theater site there is a velY real question regarding whether the 1495 Solano site is still necessmy

Mr Preisers reports for J035 San Pablo and the Oaks Theater ATampT sites offer generalized conclusions much like those in his CUlTent report for 1495 Solano stating in effect that if ATampT says coverage is poor and a site is needed then it must be so Mr Preisers analyses appear to be somewhat predictable unquestioning of and favorable to ATampT Perhaps this track record along with the involvement of Mr Preisers firm in helping ATampT build sites explain why ATampT wished to have Mr Preiser rather than Mr Gruchawka prepare the engineering report for 1495 Solano However the choice of a qualified consultant to evaluate ATampTs application is the citys prerogative not the applicants

The generic conclusions in Mr Preisers June J 7 2013 report do not answer the questions Mr Gruchawka raised on the city s behalf in his April 11 2013 analysis nor do they inspire confidence that meaningful analysis of ATampTs data took place For example the PreiserRCC rep0l1 concludes that

3

Mr Preisers firm RCC consulting has a conflict of interest in this case RCC works for ATamp T (see for example httpwwwrccltQmresourcesyasestudiesCS=ATT -EkoTowershtml) and provides software site design products to ATampT for use in designing sites just like the proposed site (see bttpllwwwrcccomcomsitecomsitedesignshtml) In light of these affiliations to ATampT vhy would RCC render an opinion contrary to ATampTs interests and thereby potentially jeopardize RCCs own business relationship with ATampT

Mr Preisers report is therefore not an independent evaluation as required by city code 20201 00E2f emphasis added states the Community Development Director may require an independent third-pa1Y review at the expense of the project sponsor to identify potential impacts on the surrounding area to confirm the radio frequency needs of the project sponsor and to identify potential alternative solutions

In addition Mr Preiser has a long and growing track record of providing positive and somewhat generic favorable rep0l1s on ATampT sites In pm1icular Mr Preiser prepared repo11 for Albany on a previously proposed ATampT site at 1035 San Pablo Ave It is notable that ATampT used conclusions from that report by Mr Preiser to support their claims in a lawsuit against the city challenging the original denial of the permit for the 1035 San Pablo site This history suggests that it is not in the citys best interest to obtain services from Mr Preiser related to another ATampT application

Moreover Mr Preiser also prepared the third-party review for the city of Berkeley of the recently approved ATampT antennas at the Oaks Theater (that review also supported ATampTs application) This raises the question of why in his analysis of the coverage questions related to the 1495 Solano Ave site Mr Preiser did not address the impact of the approval ofthe Oaks Theater site on coverage and on the justification for the 1495 Solano site Since ATampT also now has a permit fora site at 1035 San Pablo Ave to the west so that the 1495 Solano site is sandwiched between the San Pablo and Oaks Theater site there is a velY real question regarding whether the 1495 Solano site is still necessmy

Mr Preisers reports for J035 San Pablo and the Oaks Theater ATampT sites offer generalized conclusions much like those in his CUlTent report for 1495 Solano stating in effect that if ATampT says coverage is poor and a site is needed then it must be so Mr Preisers analyses appear to be somewhat predictable unquestioning of and favorable to ATampT Perhaps this track record along with the involvement of Mr Preisers firm in helping ATampT build sites explain why ATampT wished to have Mr Preiser rather than Mr Gruchawka prepare the engineering report for 1495 Solano However the choice of a qualified consultant to evaluate ATampTs application is the citys prerogative not the applicants

The generic conclusions in Mr Preisers June J 7 2013 report do not answer the questions Mr Gruchawka raised on the city s behalf in his April 11 2013 analysis nor do they inspire confidence that meaningful analysis of ATampTs data took place For example the PreiserRCC rep0l1 concludes that

3

The coverage map depicting existing coverage in the proposed target area clearly indicates total lack of in-building coverage and minimal in-transit coverage Based on the written statement by Michael Quito Principal RAN Engineer for ATampT Mobility dated November 292012 the gap is considered significant from ATampTs perspective

This conclusion is not based on the data that Mr Gruchawka requested from ATampT but on the incomplete information ATampT had already publicly provided Mr Preiser appears to be accepting without question ATampTs coverage map which Mr Gruchawkas April report pointed out is contradicted by another ATampT coverage map generated at almost the same time for the 1035 San Pablo site application Furthermore based on that map Mr Preiser appears to conclude that if ATampTs map shows a coverage gap there must be a coverage gap This is not a meaningful analysis of the data on which the coverage map is based nor does it detennine which (if either) of ATampTs conflicting coverage maps accurately reflects coverage in the area

The other conclusions in Mr Preisers repOli largely rest on the notion that what ATampT has presented is reasonably consistent with wireless industry practice This opinion does not address the question of whether what ATampT has presented for this particular application is justified or supported by facts

The generic conclusions in the RCC report also do not answer a number of criticaL specific questions raised in Mr Gruchawkas April I 1 2013 report 1n that repoli Mr Gruchawka identifies contradictory and missing information (including missing attachments) in ATampTs application and concludes that it is not possible to reach a conclusion as to the need for the site because there is significant missing and possibly conflicting information The repOli states that he also could not evaluate the validity of ATampTs analysis of potential altemative locations for the antennas because of the missing infol111ation

The purpose of Mr Gruchawkas request for information from ATampT which ATampT refused was to obtain the missing infonnation to allow him to perfom1 the analysis requested by the city which Mr Preisers report does not do The missing and conflicting information needs to be provided and the citys chosen consultant Mr Gruchawka who posed the original questions about the data should be the one to analyze the info1111ation to answer the questions he raised

Need for an updated RF repor

As Mr Preisers repOli notes an updated RF emissions report is needed that reflects ATampTs proposed design changes to the site

In addition with regard to the RF emissions report previously supplied by ATampT Mr Gruchawkas April 112013 report states

The report does not cOllsider porkers or others on the roofothe building il71mediate~l to the lvest 1491 Solano Avenue (See Alfachment 5) Given the location ofthe proposed antennas i17 the SW corner olthe site the roolol1491 Solano Avenue should be

4

specfica~J considered in the stuC(F Ilthe 1491 50ano Alel7l1e roofis 170t lIlIder the direct c01Iro ofthe applicant the roololthat hiliding should he considered and analyzed as a Puhlic Exposure area

Now that ATampT is proposing a change in the placement of the antennas on the rooftop these issues should be specifically addressed in a revised RF emissions report along with any other locations where Mr Gruchawka determines emissions limits might be exceeded based on the new antenna positions

Resolving the missing and conflicting information for this application and enabling the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka to complete his peer review are especially important in view of ATampTs stated intention (in application materials for the 1035 San Pablo ATampT site) to seek a total of 5 new antenna sites in Albany That is a large number of sites for a flat l-square-mile area that is not dense1y populated with high-rise multi-occupant buildings and that other carriers cover well with many fewer sites (for example Verizon covers the entire city excluding the freeway with a single site)

In addition ATampT is aggressively pursuing dozens of sites far more than any other wireless carrier has in neighboring communities As an example at a recent public meeting in Oakland ATampT maps showed that ATampT is pursuing a total of38 sites in North Berkeley 5 sites in Claremont Canyon and 41 in Montclair

Given this context it is important for Albany to set a clear precedent that the city will not act on applications that have missing attachments and contain unresolved conflicting data that questions about the facts of applications must be answered transparently by the applicant and that the applicant does not get to dictate the qualified expert whom the city uses to analyze legitimate technical questions about an application

Conclusion

City decision makers and the public deserve an independent analysis as required by city code and honest transparent answers to the legitimate questions that have been raised about the proposed 1495 Solano antenna site and the data supporting ATampTs application

The Commission can remedy the problems identified above by requiring that the citys wireless siting consultant Mr Gruchawka be provided the information he has identified is needed in order to be able to complete his analysis and that a revised RF emissions report also be prepared

Sincerely on behalf of ARROW

Nan Wishner Albany

5

post office box 6100 albany ca 94706 usa voice 510 526 0800

mobile 510 526 2800~yenJ~ER daviddavidsangercomP HOT 0 G RAP H Y wwwdavidsangercom

David Arkin ltdavidarkintiltcomgt Doug Donaldson ltDougd1029aolcomgt Stacy Eisenmann lt stacyeisenmannarchitecturecomgt Phillip Moss ltpmosssbcglobalnetgt Nick Pilch ltnickymindspringcomgt Anne Hersch ltaherschalbanycaorggt Jeff Bond ltjbondalbanycaorggt

Albany Planning and Zoning Commission 1000 San Pablo Ave Albany CA 94706

June 26 2013

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners and Staff

I am writing to urge you to approve the pending application of ATampT for a Wireless Facility at 1495 Solano Ave and offer the following items for your consideration

1 As indicated in the RCC report there is no coverage for this part of Central Albany ATampT is seeking to provide in-building coverage in the search area The courts have recognized in-building coverage as an essential part of cellular service Furthermore there is no LTE coverage at all

The coverage map depicting existing coverage in the proposed target area clearly indicates total lack of in-building coverage and minimal in-transit coverage

2 The approved sites at 1035 San Pablo Ave and 1861 Solano Avenue will not cover this area This is clear from the coverage maps submitted with those two applications Slight differences in ATOLL model runs are irrelevant and are based on minimally different traffic history and network loads used as input

3 Suggestions to reconsider the nearby Safeway building are inappropriate This application is for 1495 Solano It is neither reasonable nor required to require an applicant to continually revisit previously analyzed alternative locations every time there is a change in circumstance Further the reasons the Safeway site was ruled out still apply

specfica~J considered in the stuC(F Ilthe 1491 50ano Alel7l1e roofis 170t lIlIder the direct c01Iro ofthe applicant the roololthat hiliding should he considered and analyzed as a Puhlic Exposure area

Now that ATampT is proposing a change in the placement of the antennas on the rooftop these issues should be specifically addressed in a revised RF emissions report along with any other locations where Mr Gruchawka determines emissions limits might be exceeded based on the new antenna positions

Resolving the missing and conflicting information for this application and enabling the citys consultant Mr Gruchawka to complete his peer review are especially important in view of ATampTs stated intention (in application materials for the 1035 San Pablo ATampT site) to seek a total of 5 new antenna sites in Albany That is a large number of sites for a flat l-square-mile area that is not dense1y populated with high-rise multi-occupant buildings and that other carriers cover well with many fewer sites (for example Verizon covers the entire city excluding the freeway with a single site)

In addition ATampT is aggressively pursuing dozens of sites far more than any other wireless carrier has in neighboring communities As an example at a recent public meeting in Oakland ATampT maps showed that ATampT is pursuing a total of38 sites in North Berkeley 5 sites in Claremont Canyon and 41 in Montclair

Given this context it is important for Albany to set a clear precedent that the city will not act on applications that have missing attachments and contain unresolved conflicting data that questions about the facts of applications must be answered transparently by the applicant and that the applicant does not get to dictate the qualified expert whom the city uses to analyze legitimate technical questions about an application

Conclusion

City decision makers and the public deserve an independent analysis as required by city code and honest transparent answers to the legitimate questions that have been raised about the proposed 1495 Solano antenna site and the data supporting ATampTs application

The Commission can remedy the problems identified above by requiring that the citys wireless siting consultant Mr Gruchawka be provided the information he has identified is needed in order to be able to complete his analysis and that a revised RF emissions report also be prepared

Sincerely on behalf of ARROW

Nan Wishner Albany

5

post office box 6100 albany ca 94706 usa voice 510 526 0800

mobile 510 526 2800~yenJ~ER daviddavidsangercomP HOT 0 G RAP H Y wwwdavidsangercom

David Arkin ltdavidarkintiltcomgt Doug Donaldson ltDougd1029aolcomgt Stacy Eisenmann lt stacyeisenmannarchitecturecomgt Phillip Moss ltpmosssbcglobalnetgt Nick Pilch ltnickymindspringcomgt Anne Hersch ltaherschalbanycaorggt Jeff Bond ltjbondalbanycaorggt

Albany Planning and Zoning Commission 1000 San Pablo Ave Albany CA 94706

June 26 2013

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners and Staff

I am writing to urge you to approve the pending application of ATampT for a Wireless Facility at 1495 Solano Ave and offer the following items for your consideration

1 As indicated in the RCC report there is no coverage for this part of Central Albany ATampT is seeking to provide in-building coverage in the search area The courts have recognized in-building coverage as an essential part of cellular service Furthermore there is no LTE coverage at all

The coverage map depicting existing coverage in the proposed target area clearly indicates total lack of in-building coverage and minimal in-transit coverage

2 The approved sites at 1035 San Pablo Ave and 1861 Solano Avenue will not cover this area This is clear from the coverage maps submitted with those two applications Slight differences in ATOLL model runs are irrelevant and are based on minimally different traffic history and network loads used as input

3 Suggestions to reconsider the nearby Safeway building are inappropriate This application is for 1495 Solano It is neither reasonable nor required to require an applicant to continually revisit previously analyzed alternative locations every time there is a change in circumstance Further the reasons the Safeway site was ruled out still apply

post office box 6100 albany ca 94706 usa voice 510 526 0800

mobile 510 526 2800~yenJ~ER daviddavidsangercomP HOT 0 G RAP H Y wwwdavidsangercom

David Arkin ltdavidarkintiltcomgt Doug Donaldson ltDougd1029aolcomgt Stacy Eisenmann lt stacyeisenmannarchitecturecomgt Phillip Moss ltpmosssbcglobalnetgt Nick Pilch ltnickymindspringcomgt Anne Hersch ltaherschalbanycaorggt Jeff Bond ltjbondalbanycaorggt

Albany Planning and Zoning Commission 1000 San Pablo Ave Albany CA 94706

June 26 2013

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners and Staff

I am writing to urge you to approve the pending application of ATampT for a Wireless Facility at 1495 Solano Ave and offer the following items for your consideration

1 As indicated in the RCC report there is no coverage for this part of Central Albany ATampT is seeking to provide in-building coverage in the search area The courts have recognized in-building coverage as an essential part of cellular service Furthermore there is no LTE coverage at all

The coverage map depicting existing coverage in the proposed target area clearly indicates total lack of in-building coverage and minimal in-transit coverage

2 The approved sites at 1035 San Pablo Ave and 1861 Solano Avenue will not cover this area This is clear from the coverage maps submitted with those two applications Slight differences in ATOLL model runs are irrelevant and are based on minimally different traffic history and network loads used as input

3 Suggestions to reconsider the nearby Safeway building are inappropriate This application is for 1495 Solano It is neither reasonable nor required to require an applicant to continually revisit previously analyzed alternative locations every time there is a change in circumstance Further the reasons the Safeway site was ruled out still apply

Sanger re ATampT application 1495 Solano Avenue

antennas placed at this location fail to achieve reliable in-building coverage throughout the Significant Cap The height of neighboring buildings and trees adjacent to this property will block antenna signals

4 Consideration of other potential ATampT applications and sites at this time is inappropriate There is no provision in our ordinance that a carrier submit multiple coverage applications at the same time ATampT has made no secret of its intention to serve a Albany customers and that may we involve additional facilities However this application is only for 1495 Solano and has to be evaluated on its own merits

5 In conclusion I urge you to approve the ATampT application for 1495 Solano Avenue promptly so that improved wireless service can be expedited for the citizens and businesses of Albany

Thank you for your consideration

David Sanger David Sanger Photography LLC Albany CA