WIRELESS RADIO FREQUENCY PLANNING MEMORANDUM

2001 So. Barrington Avenue • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 3570 Camino del Rio North • Suite 102 • San Diego • CA 92108 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com

WIRELESS RADIO FREQUENCY PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Rincon Consultants, Inc. FROM: Telecom Law Firm, P.C. DATE: May 24, 2019 CLIENT: Rincon’s Client – City of Berkeley, California ADDRESS: East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”)

Berryman Reservoir, Berkeley, California CARRIER: Verizon

LOCATION NO: 273566 LOCATION ID: BERKELEY HILLS RINCON JOB #: 19-07869

1. Summary

Telecom Law Firm, PC (“TLF”), subcontractor to Rincon Consultants, Inc. (“Rincon”), recommends that the City of Berkeley (“City”) require Verizon to follow the City’s Municipal Code pertaining to RF safety (BMC 23C.17.090).

Based on the RF emissions data for this project as shown in the Hammett and Edison (“H&E”) Radio Frequency report (“H&E RF Report”), the project does demonstrate planned compliance with the FCC’s RF emissions rules, thus the City has no basis to deny the project based solely on RF emissions concerns.

2. Project Description

The City, through Rincon, requested that TLF review Verizon’s proposal in regard to radio frequency emissions in connection with Verizon’s plan to construct and operate a new wireless site at the East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) Berryman Reservoir in Berkeley, California. This memorandum assesses whether Verizon’s proposal demonstrates planned compliance with the federal radio frequency exposure guidelines.

Verizon proposes to construct a new wireless facility north of the existing water tank on the property. The project plans are most recently dated March 13, 2018 through May 20, 2018 (the “Plans”). Verizon’s Plans show that the facility will be comprised of a 50-foot high monopine and associated equipment at the antenna, and at an associated 25’ x 20’ leased area for additional equipment associated with the antennas and standby powering.

Figure 1 is Verizon’s project description submitted on the face of the Plans.

ATTACHMENT 4a ZAB 06-27-19

Page 1 of 21

Rincon Consultants, Inc. May 24, 2019

Page 2

Telecom Law Firm PC

Figure 1: Verizon’s Project Description (Source: Plans, title page T-1).

Verizon proposes to install on the monopine six panel antennas distributed evenly with two panel antennas in three sectors (Sector A oriented towards 60° true north (“TN”), Sector B oriented towards 145°TN, and Sector C oriented towards 335°TN).

[Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


Page 2 of 21


Page 3

Telecom Law Firm PC

See Figure 2 for the approximate location of the monopine and azimuths.

Figure 2: Approximate (i) location of monopine, and (ii) azimuth orientations for all three sectors (Source: Google Maps; Annotated by Dr. Kramer).



Page 3 of 21


Page 4

Telecom Law Firm PC

Figure 3 depicts the overall location of the monopine and associated base station equipment.

Figure 3: Overall location of the monopine and associated equipment (Source: Plans, Page A-1).



Page 4 of 21


Page 5

Telecom Law Firm PC

See Figure 4 for the proposed antenna layout within the canopy of the proposed monopine.

Figure 4: Antenna Plan (Source: Plans, Page A-4).



Page 5 of 21

2001 So. Barrington Avenue • Suite 306 • Los Angeles • CA 90025 • T 310-312-9900 3570 Camino del Rio North • Suite 102 • San Diego • CA 92108 • T 619-272-6200 TelecomLawFirm.com

The Plans indicate that the emission center of a ‘future’ carrier’s antennas would be at approximately 27' 6". Figure 5 depicts the East elevation of the panel antennas.

Figure 5: East elevation of panel antennas (Source: Plans, Page A-5).

Figure 6 depicts the South elevations of the panel antennas.

Figure 6: South elevations of panel antennas (Source: Plans, Page A-6).


Page 6 of 21


Page 7

Telecom Law Firm PC

3. Planned Compliance with RF Exposure Regulations Under the Telecom Act, the FCC completely occupies the field with respect to RF emissions regulation. The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”).1 State and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines.2

Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines.3 Such demonstrations usually involve a predictive calculation because the site has not yet been built.

3.1. FCC Guidelines, Categorical Exclusions and Exposure Mitigation Measures

FCC Guidelines regulate exposure rather than emissions.4 Although the FCC establishes a maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limit, it does not mandate any specific limitations on power levels applicable to all antennas and requires the antenna operator to adopt exposure-mitigation measures only to the extent that certain persons might become exposed to the emissions. Thus, a relatively low-powered site in proximity to the general population might require more comprehensive mitigation measures than a relatively high-powered site in a remote location accessible only to trained personnel.

The MPE limit also differentiates between “general population” and “occupational” people. Most people fall into the general population class, which includes anyone who either does not know about potential exposure or knows about the exposure but cannot exert control over the transmitters.5 The narrower occupational class includes persons exposed through their employment and able to exert control over their exposure.6 The MPE limit for the general population is five times lower than the MPE limit for the occupational class.

1 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq.; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, ed. 97-01 (1997). 2 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 3 See In re Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 22821, 22828–22829 (Nov. 13, 2000) (declining to adopt rules that limit local authority to require compliance demonstrations). 4 See generally Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites, Consumer Guide, FCC (Oct. 22, 2014), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites (discussing in general terms how wireless sites transmit and how the FCC regulates the emissions). 5 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310, Note 2. 6 See id.


Page 7 of 21


Page 8

Telecom Law Firm PC

Lastly, the FCC “categorically excludes” certain antennas from routine environmental review when either (1) the antennas create exposures in areas virtually inaccessible to humans or (2) the antennas operate at extreme low power. As a general rule, a wireless site qualifies for a categorical exclusion when mounted on a structure built solely or primarily to support FCC-licensed or authorized equipment (i.e., a tower) and such that the lowest point on the lowest transmitter is more than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground.7

Categorical exclusions establish a presumption that the emissions from the antennas will not significantly impact humans or the human environment. Such antennas are exempt from routine compliance evaluations but not exempt from actual compliance. Under some circumstances, such as a heavily collocated tower or when in close proximity to general population members, even a categorically excluded site will require additional analysis.

3.2. Planned Compliance Evaluation and Recommendations

The FCC Guidelines categorically exclude Verizon’s proposal from routine compliance evaluations because Verizon proposes to install its equipment on a new support structure camouflaged as a monopine that is exclusively intended to support FCC-licensed wireless equipment. In addition, the lowest point on the lowest transmitting antenna is proposed to be approximately at 37 feet AGL.

In the instant case, Verizon has submitted to the City the H&E RF Report dated October 17, 2018, sealed by Mr. William F. Hammett, P.E.

Presuming that the H&E RF Report contains the current RF emissions data, it is sufficient to allow us to conduct an independent RF analysis to determine whether the project as proposed will comply under the FCC’s Rules. See Figure 7.


7 See id. § 1.1307(b)(1).


Page 8 of 21


Page 9

Telecom Law Firm PC

Figure 7: Site and Facility Description (Source: H&E RF Report Page 2).

TLF notes that the H&E RF Report contains a footnote on the bottom of page 2 stating, “[f]oliage atop the pole puts the overall height at 50 feet.” Based on the transmitted frequencies and power levels disclosed in the H&E RF Report, Verizon’s emissions will create a worst case “controlled access zone” that extends to a maximum of approximately 100 feet horizontally from the face of the antennas at approximately the same height as the antennas emissions center. Those emission centers are at approximately 40' 9" above ground level (“AGL”) for Sectors A, B and C.



Page 9 of 21


Page 10

Telecom Law Firm PC

See Figure 8 for the approximate azimuths and extents of the controlled zone.

Figure 8: Approximate (i) location of monopine, and (ii) azimuth orientations for all three sectors (Source: Google Maps; Annotated by Dr. Kramer).

The length of the red arrows in Figure 8 is about 100’, which is the limit of the controlled zone, which is at least 41 feet above ground level at the location of the monopine.


Sector A Sector C

Sector B

ATTACHMENT 4a ZAB 06-27-19 Page 10 of 21


Page 11

Telecom Law Firm PC

See Figure 9 for the proposed location and centerline distance of a future carrier’s antennas.

Figure 9: Future Carrier Antenna Locations (Source: Plans, Page A-5, Annotated by Dr. Kramer).

While the site as currently proposed is categorically excluded under the FCC Guidelines, TLF notes that another round of independent RF analysis will be needed to determine whether a future carrier’s antennas will comply under the FCC’s Rules since the future carrier’s antennas will be installed lower than 10 meters AGL. For this reason, we recommend that the City direct Verizon to strike all ‘future’ elements from the Plans and the Application so that any future changes to this site only occur upon a subsequent planning application and then-current RF emissions analysis of the then-existing Verizon emissions and the proposed emissions of the future carrier(s).



Page 12

Telecom Law Firm PC

We recommend the City consider adopting the following conditions of approval to promote compliance with the FCC Guidelines in the event that the City approves the application in its current form:

1. The permittee shall keep all access points to the site locked at all times, except when active maintenance is performed on the equipment.

2. The permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition an “RF Notice” sign and a network operations center sign adjacent to all access points of the site. The signs required in this condition must be placed in a location where they are clearly visible to a person approaching the access point(s) whether in the open or closed positions.

3. The permittee shall ensure that all signage complies with FCC OET Bulletin 65 and ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter shut-down control over this site as required by the FCC.

These recommended conditions are based on the site in its proposed location and equipment configuration. To the extent that any changes are made to the proposal, a revised analysis may be necessary.

3.3. RF Compliance with City of Berkeley Municipal Code

Finally, TLF recommends that the City also require that Verizon expressly agree to follow all of the City’s Municipal Code pertaining to RF safety, including but not limited to:

• BMC 16.10.100 Maintenance of facilities--Continuing obligations § G

• BMC 23C.17.040 Minimum Application Requirements § D (sworn statement)

• BMC 23C.17.090 Requirement for Certification of Facilities in its entirety (post construction)

/TLF


Verizon Wireless • Proposed Base Station (Site No. 273566 “Berkeley Hills”) Euclid Avenue • Berkeley, California

L6H7 Page 1 of 3

Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers

The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Verizon Wireless, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. 273566 “Berkeley Hills”) proposed to be located at Euclid Avenue in Berkeley, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields.

Executive Summary

Verizon proposes to install directional panel antennas on a tall pole to be sited at the EBMUD Berryman Reservoir facility, located on Euclid Avenue in Berkeley. The proposed operation will comply with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy.

Prevailing Exposure Standards

The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC’s exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless services are as follows:

Wireless Service Frequency Band Occupational Limit Public Limit Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5–80 GHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 WiFi (and unlicensed uses) 2–6 5.00 1.00 BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 MHz 5.00 1.00 WCS (Wireless Communication) 2,300 5.00 1.00 AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,100 5.00 1.00 PCS (Personal Communication) 1,950 5.00 1.00 Cellular 870 2.90 0.58 SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0.57 700 MHz 700 2.40 0.48 [most restrictive frequency range] 30–300 1.00 0.20

General Facility Requirements

Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called “radios” or “channels”) that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height



L6H7 Page 2 of 3

above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. This means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.

Computer Modeling Method

The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation,” dated August 1997. Figure 2 describes the calculation methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna’s radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations very close by (the “near-field” effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the “inverse square law”). The conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests.

Site and Facility Description

Based upon information provided by Verizon, including zoning drawings by Streamline Engineering and Design, Inc., dated March 13, 2018, it is proposed to install six JMA Wireless Model MX06FRO840-02 directional panel antennas on a new 45-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a pine tree,* to be sited about 70 feet north of the water tank at the EBMUD Berryman Reservoir facility, located on Euclid Avenue in Berkeley. The antennas would employ up to 16° downtilt, would be mounted at an effective height of about 40½ feet above ground, and would be oriented in pairs toward 60°T, 145°T, and 335°T. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 51,870 watts, representing simultaneous operation at 20,900 watts for AWS, 10,000 watts† for PCS, 10,970 watts for cellular, and 10,000 watts for 700 MHz service. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations at the site or nearby.

Study Results

For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation is calculated to be 0.32 mW/cm2, which is 60% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence‡ is 12% of the public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level for a worker on the water tank is 84% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several “worst-case” assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels from the proposed operation.

* Foliage atop the pole puts the overall height at 50 feet. † Verizon indicates it will operate at reduced power in this band so as not to exceed the emission limit in §24.232 of the

FCC Rules. ‡ Located at least 290 feet away, based on photographs from Google Maps.



L6H7 Page 3 of 3

No Recommended Mitigation Measures

Due to their mounting locations and height, the Verizon antennas would not be accessible to unauthorized persons, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. It is presumed that Verizon will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its employees or contractors receive appropriate training and comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is required near the antennas themselves.

Conclusion

Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that operation of the base station proposed by Verizon Wireless at Euclid Avenue in Berkeley, California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating base stations.

Authorship

The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2019. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.

_________________________________ William F. Hammett, P.E. 707/996-5200 October 17, 2018


FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide

FCC GuidelinesFigure 1

Frequency (MHz)

1000

100

10

1

0.1

0.1 1 10 100 103 104 105

Occupational Exposure

Public Exposure

PCSCell

FM

Pow

erD

ensi

ty(m

W/c

m2 )

The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, havea significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, “BiologicalEffects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” published in 1986 by theCongressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (“NCRP”).Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generallyfive times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, “SafetyLevels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to300 GHz,” includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources andare intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, orhealth.

As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposureconditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:

Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz) Applicable

Range(MHz)

ElectricField Strength

(V/m)

MagneticField Strength

(A/m)

Equivalent Far-FieldPower Density

(mW/cm2)

0.3 – 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 1001.34 – 3.0 614 823.8/ f 1.63 2.19/ f 100 180/ f2

3.0 – 30 1842/ f 823.8/ f 4.89/ f 2.19/ f 900/ f2 180/ f2

30 – 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2300 – 1,500 3.54 f 1.59 f f /106 f /238 f/300 f/1500

1,500 – 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0

Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six orthirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higherlevels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do notexceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculationformulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) forprojecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program thatcalculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from anynumber of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneventerrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.


RFR.CALC™ Calculation Methodology

Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines

MethodologyFigure 2

The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) toadopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have asignificant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudentmargin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed forshort periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, foroccupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.

Near Field. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed inthe near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones.

For a panel or whip antenna, power density S = 180��BW

�0.1� Pnet� �D2 � h

, in mW/cm2,

and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 0.1 � 16 � � � Pnet

� � h2 , in mW/cm2,

where �BW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, andPnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,

D = distance from antenna, in meters,h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and� = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).

The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density.

Far Field. OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:

power density S = 2.56 �1.64 �100 � RFF2 � ERP

4 �� D2 , in mW/cm2,

where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and

D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.

The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming areflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipolerelative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units ofpower density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each locationon an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individualradiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, toobtain more accurate projections.



October 17, 2018

L6H7 URS Supplemental

Supplemental Information for Review by URS Corporation

Underlying RF Exposure Report: dated October 17, 2018

Attached are antenna manufacturers’ specification documents, showing antenna patterns and highlighted to show half-power beam width, front-to-back ratio, and aperture height

for the following antennas proposed for use at this base station:

JMA Wireless MX06FRO840-02

The applicable Pnet values are as follows (referencing the panel antenna near-field calculation formula in Figure 2 of Report):

Pnet Frequency Band

285 watts AWS 150 watts PCS 285 watts cellular 285 watts 700 MHz


MX06FRO840-02_v3

Page 1

©2017 JMA Wireless. All rights reserved. This document contains proprietary and confidential information. All products, company names, brands, and logos are trademarks™ or registered® trademarks of their respective holders. All specifications are subject to change without notice. Revised: May 21, 2018

Product Specifications

MX06FRO840-02NWAV™ X-Pol Antenna | Hex-Port | 8 ft | 40°

X-Pol, Hex-Port 8 ft 40o Fast Roll Off with Smart Bias T

(2) 698–894 MHz & (4) 1695–2180 MHz

▪ Fast Roll Off (FROTM) Azimuth beam pattern improves Intra- and Inter-cell SINR

▪ Excellent Passive Intermodulation (PIM) performance reduces harmful interference

▪ Fully integrated (iRETs) with independent RET control for low and high bands for ease of network optimization

▪ SON-Ready array spacing supports beamforming capabilities

▪ Suitable for LTE/CDMA/PCS/UMTS/GSM Air interface technologies

▪ Integrated Smart BIAS-Ts reduces leasing costs

1 Typical value over frequency and tilt

Electrical Specification (Minimum/ Maximum) Ports 1,2 Ports 3,4,5,6

Frequency bands, MHz 698–798 824–894 1695–1880 1850–1990 1920–2180

Polarization ± 45° ± 45°

Average gain over all tilts, dBi 17.6 18.0 19.9 20.4 20.8

Horizontal beamwidth (HBW), degrees1 42° 37° 39° 36° 34°

Front-to-back ratio, co-polar power @180° ± 30°, dB >22.0 >22.0 >25.0 >25.0 >25.0

X-Pol discrimination (CPR) at boresight, dB >18.0 >15.0 >18 >18 >15

Sector power ratio, percent <4.5 <3.5 <3.7 <3.8 <3.6

Vertical beamwidth, (VBW), degrees1 9.0° 8.3° 6.0° 5.7° 5.3°

Electrical downtilt (EDT) range, degrees 2-12 2-12 0-9

First upper side lobe (USLS) suppression, dB1 ≤ -15.0 ≤ -15.0 ≤ -16.0 ≤ -16.0 ≤ -16.0

Minimum cross polar isolation, port-to-port, dB 25 25 25 25 25

Maximum VSWR/ return loss, dB 1.5/ -14.0 1.5/ -14.0 1.5/ -14.0 1.5/ -14.0 1.5/ -14.0

Maximum passive Intermodulation (PIM), 2x 20W carrier, dBc -153 -153 -153

Maximum input power per any port, watts 300 250

Total composite power all ports, watts 1500


Leah

MX06FRO840-02_v3

Page 2

©2017 JMA Wireless. All rights reserved. This document contains proprietary and confidential information. All products, company names, brands, and logos are trademarks™ or registered® trademarks of their respective holders. All specifications are subject to change without notice. Revised: May 21, 2018

Product Specifications

MX06FRO840-02NWAV™ X-Pol Antenna | Hex-Port | 8 ft | 40°

Ordering Information

Antenna Model Description

MX06FRO840-02 8F X- Pol HEX FRO 40° 2-12°/ 0-9° RET, 4.3-10 & SBT

Optional Accessories

992100-CA030-SC Optional AISG jumper cable, M/F, 3.0 meters

PCU-1000 Primary control unit, USB

Mechanical Specifications

Dimensions height/ width/ depth, inches (mm) 95.9/ 19.8/ 10.7 (2436/504/ 271)

Shipping dimensions length/ width/ height, inches (mm) 106/ 26/ 15 (2692/ 660/ 381)

No. of RF input ports, connector type & location 6 x 4.3-10 female, bottom

RF connector torque 96 lbf·in (10.85 N m or 8 lbf·ft)

Net antenna weight, lb (kg) 75 (34.0)

Shipping weight, lb (kg) 105 (47.6)

Antenna mounting and downtilt kit included with antenna 91900318, 91900319 (middle bracket)

Net weight of the mounting and downtilt kit, lb (kg) 18 (8.2)

Range of mechanical up/ down tilt -2° to 12°

Rated wind survival speed, mph (km/h) 150 (241)

Frontal, lateral & rear wind loading @ 150 km/h, lbf (N) 355 (1581), 152 (677), 355 (1581)

Equivalent flat plate @100 mph and Cd=2, sq. ft. 8.17


Leah

Leah


October 17, 2018

L6H7 City Planner Supplemental

Supplemental Information for Review by City Planner

Underlying RF Exposure Report: dated October 17, 2018

RE EME STUDY DATA

Uncontrolled Controlled

Subject Equipment

Accumulative Equipment

Subject Equipment

Accumulative Equipment

Power density

mW/cm2

% FCC limit

Power density

mW/cm2

% FCC limit

Power density

mW/cm2

% FCC limit

Power density

mW/cm2

% FCC limit

Subject structure

Base horizontal plane (1)

In front 0.32 60

Behind

Horizontal planes within 12 ft

Above

Below

Roof surface (main)

Adjacent locations

Any structure within 30 ft ___ ft

NOTES: (1) Defined as the ground


Documents

WIRELESS RADIO FREQUENCY PLANNING MEMORANDUM