Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWorkshop on Personal Wireless Service Facilities~•{ ~ City of Carmel, Indiana Workshop on Personal Wireless Service Facilities Novemlbe~ 13, 2008 ~ Kreines & Kreines, Inc. ~~s~ 58 Paseo Mirasol I Tiburon, CA 94920 ~II (415) 435-9214 ~} Wireless Industry Actors . Carriers . Tower companies . Vendors . Consultants ~Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 Profit Margin - DAS fees = Less profit than with towers ~IKreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 pMM ~'~ Federal Commu~aications Conc,nission Office of Engineering & Technology "YY. Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards. of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields ~`~ ~ .i. ~ OET BULLETIN 56 Fourth Edition ~' NON -IONIZING I o--- IONIZING ---:- I '~ ~ ~ Radiafrequendes ~! ~' ~, r Power Lines I Radio and Mfaowaves I I Television ~ Cellular Radio Frequency ~ ~ 1 I I ~ ! ~~ ~ (Hertz) 10 10z 103 10` 105 10° 10' 10° 10 10t010" 1 Energy (eV) I ~ i i ) I I' I I- ; ~Y 11 10 9 8 7 E 5 a' 3 i0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ;~,~ I ' Visible;' ~•~ light: ' i Infra-red ~'Uttra-vided X-rays i Gamma Rays I 10" 10" 10 ° 1016 10" 10~810/B 10~ 10~ 10a l OZ' 10u 10 1036 V I I I I' I I i 0.1 1 = ° ' s a ~ 'e ~° o n 10 10 10 70 10 ,10 10 10 10 1d 10 ~'IGiJ~ 2. The Electr©magrzetic Spectrum MXths . Trees block the signal. . This is a line-of-sight technology. . The Telecommunications Act requires that wireless coverage be seamless. . Radio Frequency (RF) engineering determines where a cell site "needs" to be. The wireless industry has "needs" and the federal Telecommunications Act requires those needs to be met. A cell site is the same thing as a tower. . There are 250,000 to 300,000 cell sites in the U.S. . Coverage can only be achieved by tall sites. ®Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 ~. ~,' . . 11 Sites er 100 s ware-miles ~, Ce h q 1999 (actual data) ~_ , _ U.S ..........................................2.3 _ u.:__._._Finland .................................... 3.8 Japan ..:........:.......................... 9.4 U.K .......................................20.0 Germany ..........................:.... 35.0 -Cell Sites per. square mile 2005' Belgium/Netherlands ..........116:0 *Estinate by the Strategic Group,. Inc. Kreines & Kreines, Inc;' 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415}'435-9214 E ,. 4, ri. Section 704: of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves local zoning authority: ~. Except as provided in-this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the' ~ authority of a State or local government or instrumentality .thereof over. decisions regarding the placement, construction,- and modifzca#ion of personal wireless service' ~, '' facilities.. . `The limitations of Section-7~-4.on local government are that a local.government s11a11: . _. _. • Not discriminate among providers of functionally :equivalent services. - • Not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the.provision ofpersonal wireless services.. . • Act o^ any request for authorization to. place; construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities:within axeasoriableperiod of.time after the request is filed. • Put any decision to deny, a;,personal wireless service facilities into writing and support such decision by substantial evidence contained in a written record. • Not regulate personal wireless- service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of ..radio frequency emissions to the exfent that such facilities comply. with the FCC Guidelines for :..such emissions. Kreines & Kreines; :Inc., 58.Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 N i ~A d~ .-~. r-+ et+ O N d+ I~ U O .fl .,-, H 0 ~. .~ 0 a~ c~ v v~ a~ .~ a~ v .~ a~ & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415} 435-9214 ~Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 CITY OF CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE TOWER. A ground or roof-mounted pole, spire; structure, or combination thereof taller than fifteen (15) feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an Antenna, a meteorological device, or other similar apparatus above grade. The term does not include (1) a water tower that is owned by public utility or municipally owned utility; or (2) any pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof on which an amateur radio station antenna is mounted. TOWER, RADIO OR TELEVISION TRANSMISSION. Any ground- mounted pole; spire, structure, or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting a radio or television transmission antenna (other than an amateur radio station antenna) above ground. Chapter 3: Definitions 3-40 as amended per Z-320; Z-339; Z-340; Z-345; Z-365-01; Z-369-02; Z-389-02; Z-415-03; Z-416-03; Z-417-03; Z-419-03; Z-453-04; Z-461-04; Z-471-05; Z-486-06 Spring 2006 v1 WCFs. WTFs. What's the difference? Protection from unwanted lawsuits begins with definitions. Vol. 13, No. 1 Plan Wireless December 2007 & January 2008 A Newsletter About Regulating Personal Wireless Service Facilities American Tower Corporation v. City of San Diego (Part One) It is ironic that local governments tend to fear lawsuits by the wireless industry and then, unknowingly, set themselves up for a lawsuit. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. helps cities and counties to avoid lawsuits in the first place. This case will be discussed in subsequent issues of PlanWireless. American Tower Corporation (ATC) has several facilities within the City of San Diego. 1. The U.S. Constitution, Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act and various case law mandates that a city cannot pre-empt ATC. 2. The California Permit Streamlining Act required the City of San Diego to act in a timely manner, which the City failed to do. 3. ATC's civil rights were violated under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983,1988 and the U.S. Constituion. 4. ATC had vested rights that were taken by the City of San Diego under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 and the U.S. Constitution. • Some were approved by the granting of a Conditional Use Permit with a time limit, in this case an expiration date of 10 years. • Some now exist past the expiration dates of the Conditional Use Permits. The City is now requiring applicants with past expirafion dates either to bring the facilities into compliance with existing regulations by re-applying (anew) for Conditional Use Permits or to remove the facilities. According to the City, those aze the only two options available to ATC. hz two cases, ATC claims that the City of San Diego held out the prospect of "renewing" the two Conditional Use Permits rather than make ATC reapply.for new Conditlonal Use Permits. The distinction is crucial, since a renewal would mean the Conditional Use Permit is still in force, while a new application means the original Conditional Use Permits are no longer valid. • The City of San Diego denies ever considering a "renewal" as an option, but the City did accept ATC's applications to renew. ATC has filed aten-count complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. P1nnWireless reviews the ten counts below in the very brief representation of ATC's claims and the laws involved (the reader should keep in mind that these claims have yet to be heard by the. Court): 5. The City of San Diego rents space to carriers on facilities owned by the City that are exempt from City regulations, thereby violating the Telecommunications Act. 6. Removal of some ATC facilities will cause substantial impacts on some of ATC's tenants' networks in the San Diego market, thereby violating the Telecommunications Act. 7. Denial of two of ATC's "reapplications" for Conditional Use Permits as lacking in "camouflage" and "adding to visual clutter;' where no substantial evidence is presented by the City of San Diego, is a violation of the Telecommunications Act. 8. Denial of the same two reapplications for Conditional Use Permits is a rescission of a fundamental vested right under the California Code of Civil Procedures. The two towers provide the backbone of Sprint and Verizon's networks and therefore they cannot be removed. 9. The City of San Diego must reissue the expired Conditional Use Permits without substantially changing the original terms of both original applications. 10. The City of San Diego unfairly interfered with ATC's ability to compete by causing some carriers to locate on other towers, including towers belonging to the City of San Diego. Published by Kreines &Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities 8 Counties on Wireless Planning 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 phone and (415) 435-1522 fax e-mail: mail@planwireless.com -web site: http:/hnvw.planwireless.com You may not practice in San Diego, but if your jurisdiction grants Conditional Use Permits with expiration dates, this is about you Vol. 13, No. 6 Plan Wireless QctoberlNovember 2008 A Newsletter About Planning for Personal Wireless Service Facilities ATC v. City of San Diego (Parfi Two) The City of San Diego's Pr emise This article builds on ~ ~'~` F" ~ ''~ ~'~" `' ~ ~~ ' ~~~"' ~' "~ ' The City finally has a the December - ~;... ~ set of regulations it can 2007~January 2008 issue ,~:;. g z ~e F. „. ., :-~~ ~ live with and ATC of PlanWireless where ; ~ doesn t meet them in at the complicated lawsuit A least ten Conditional by American Tower ^~ Use Permit locations. Corporation (ATC) s- ': 3 The City wants ATC to against the City of San t ;E ~, bring the Wireless Diego was described. '~'~"~~~ ~ -~'"~~~i. `~~~- ~' ,`' ~ " "' ~, Communication One of the t ~ .~~' ~ „_~ , . ,~ ~ .,~,~ ~.,~,.,= Facilities (WCFs) (that is advantages of reporting ~ ~ ? 1 what the City calls on a lawsuit in limbo c "~°' ~, g them) into compliance ' , which this one is, lies in ~` - ° ~~ct . s new with the City time. PIanTNireless ' ~ ~, . regulations so the City needEd this time to go i. , - . 3?' ~~ B ~. B W~~~ can give ATC new to San Diego to visit the i l d ~ '"~~~ ~ r r = ' Conditional Use Permits. The first of the tes invo ve . ATC v. s City of San Diego is ~ , ,~ - ; ~-r -~ ,,..i u~ ~ ~~X.r, Conditional Use Permits currently an hold. ~~.;~ . , ~ ~~: ~~ expired in 2004 and all , „ .~ ..~ ~ of the towers are still up. ATC's Premise ; ~ *`' ~'~~~ ~,~,,, ~ ~ What P1anWireless ATC has made a ~V~ . ,. N r_ . Believes This Case is major investment in 1 , ' 1~` ~ r Really About what most people call ~= The "towers." At least ten , ~~ ~~} Telecommunications Act of ATC's Conditional ~'~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~~", {~~ ~ . ~ . fi ~ 1a ~ ' ~~ w~ ~ ~ ?' of 1996, which is Use Permits have s ~~ . ~ ~ .~ ;~ , ~ ,.~ . ~" , r , expired and no longer ATC's disputed tower at 2222 Verus St. shows only one invoked by both sides rn meet the City's personal wireless service facility. The only thing ATC owns is this lawsuit, is about the monopole topped out at "A." The T-arms for 12 antennas "personal wireless regulations. All ten of are empty at "B" and probably intended for Sprint, which never service facilities." It is ATC's towers now installed its antennas. The antennas at "N" are for Nextel, .not about "towers" exceed the City's height which is a different carrier than Sprint. (The company "Sprint- which merely serve as limits, although they Nextel" is not a carrier but a holding company for two separate and distinct carriers. if ATC cut its mono ole at "C "the Cit structures, nor is it did not exceed height wou d give them a new CUP. ~ y about "WCFs," which limits when originally approved. ATC claims If height is so important to ATC why is the top of the according to the City in the lawsuit that they monopole empty? Is it because no carrier wants to be there? mix the tower and the have a vested right to maintain their original structures and they refuse to shorten their towers just because the City lowered itv height restrictions. ATC has sued on a variety of claims, but the expired CUPS are the major issue. personal wireless service facility, nor is it about Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (WTFs), which is ATC's preferred term. By conferring the title of "WCF" on a tower, the City focused its attention on the infrastructure, rather than what was on it. ATC was allowed to add or Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc,, Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 phone and {415) 435-1522 fax e-mail: mail@pfanwireless.com -web site: htfp://www.planwiretess.com You may not practice in San Diego, but if your Jurisdiction grants Conditional Use Permits with expiration dates, this is about you Vo!_ 13, No. ~ Plan Wire) ess ~ October/November 2008 A Ne~nrsietter About Planning for Personal Wireless Service Facilities ,4 ~'C v. City of San This article builds on the December 2007/January 2008 issue of PlanWireless where the complicated lawsuit by American Tower Corporation (ATC) against the City of San Diego was described. One of the advantages of reporting on a lawsuit in limbo, which this one is, lies in time. PlanWireless needed this time to go to San Diego to visit the sites involved. ATC v. Cztt~ of San Diego is currently on hold. ATC's Premise TWO} The City of San Diego's Premise ATC has made a -~ major investment in what most people call "towers." At least ten -~.~„ _ - ~ - R ~ ' of ATC's Conditional ; , t ~; ~; ~ - Use Permits have °' ~~•' The City finally has a set of regulations it can live with and ATC doesn't meet them in at least ten Conditional Use Permit locations. The City wants ATC to bring the Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) (that is what the City calls them) into compliance with the City's new regulations so the City can give ATC new Conditional Use Permits. The first of the Conditional Use Permits expired in 2004 and all of the towers are still up. What PlanWireless Believes This Case is Really About The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is invoked by both sides in expired and no longer ATC's disputed tower at 2222 Verus St. shows only one this lawsuit, is about " meet the Cit~s personal wireless service facility. The only thing ATC owns is " " personal wireless regulations. All ten of the monopole topped out at A. The T-arms for 12 antennas " " service facilities:' It is are em at B and robabl intended for 5 rint which never ptY p y p ~ ~~ » not about towers ATC s towers now ' installed its antennas. The antennas at "N" are for Nextel which " " which merely serve as exceed the City s height is a different carrier than Sprint. (The company Sprint-Nextel limits, although they is not a carrier but a holding company for two separate and structures, nor is it " " did not exceed height distinct carriers.) If ATC cut its monopole at "C," the City would about WCFs, which limits when originally give them a new CUP. according to the City approved. ATC claims if height is so important to ATC why is the top of the mix the tower and the in the lawsuit that the monopole empty? Is it because no carrier wants to be there? personal wireless Y have a vested right to maintain their original structures and they refuse to shorten their towers just because the City lowered its height restrictions. ATC has sued on a variety of claims, but the expired CUPS are the major issue. service facility, nor is it about Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (WTFs), which is ATC's preferred term. By conferring the title of "WCF" on a tower, the City focused its attention on the infrastructure, rather Published by Kreines ~ Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities R Counties on Wireless Planning 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415J 435-92?4 phone and (415) 435-7522 fax e-mail: mai!@planwireless. coin -web site: http:!/www. planwireless. coin ~3 ~~. ~Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 Weak Signals Do Not n-Star reports that eellu- ~lar iufrastntcture~ is usut~l- - Work #or Data ly not one of dle most es- citing topics todiscuss in wireless, but that has shart- ed to change.:~s wireless operators have begun to deploy 3G and other wire- less broadband technology tltev have discovered that the~grid of cell towers that worked fine for voice area not tur ideal solution fur data. The reasons are numerous aatd complex, but the top rea- sons are the higher frequencies which most wirc:lrss broadband teclmologiss are using and which do not pene- trate bui]dutgs as well as the lower fregtacncits. and the IZigher signal to noise; rexluiremeuts these technologies have if subscx?bers are to get data~specds an~~~here. near those advertised by operators. A voice call that is suffe+ing lram a poor sigatal tt~ll'usuttlly stag connected until the; signal is sa lrul that the dell is dropped. T1te user might out get an indication that the sigeta] is wuting until tlx<; end when the. caller's void starts to break up and the iite~irahle drop c<ill acci,ars. ~•t~ith a t~ia-eless daxta coamecti~in, a weak or noisy sib+al results in ii slowe-r data cannectian. As long as a ~: cake earl stays connected, the voice user fceLs like: hc; or she is getting his moneys worth, but the data user who is getting a 5t) Kbps data rate instead o{~ the advertised 1.5 VIbps naay not ha rety happy turd ltis impres- sionwill ha drat ltis seni,ce is not li~~ing tap to that advertised. Operators tuc_ <uvanr: erf this problean, but getting a si~ong signal et=ernrhere is utuc,]t r.asu:r trdked about tltau accxaan- plislaed. In 20f7r', ufi-eless operators wurld~vidc; spent ou av- c>.rage $74 LJS on total inf~rastruc~inrr.. costs per cellular cus- tamex-. Micro :and picocell bztse statioaas ctua get the: sigrxal closer to the user acrd ~xrill be use<I mare urthe futm-c;, latzt w--bile tyre base stations tlicanselves are- mudt cheaper Haan a macro base station, their capacitg and cuvc~rzage are much less. Sti11, operators anav oat have a choice Duce: wireless data iase becomes much stare widespread. Anod~er option that the operators c~n+ t<rkc_ ad>>atatag<? of is fenttucells. These devices, ntstaallcd in a home b}' the subsc giber, etas support three or fate- simulttnu~ottis sttbsexiheis, ta-hile the subscribrar. foots most of d1e bael.haul casts, an operatax=s ch-cam. l 41 `# ,~~ ~ r~ ~ '~ ~a~~it~~ ~,,` qqs (R„ ~ r r 4 3^, §~4r~ .~ f ..W ~~..+.~f' c-...~.: 1. ~ + rn ~ ~ a d ti ~ ~~~~.... l'/' '- a-- ~~ e ~~ra~ ~~: v' ,F ~* ~Flf ~ ~bb`~-t,-t~ ., ia'. ,f d ~'4 .h'er'. r= Source: United States Geolagica! Survey 36 Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS). Wireless Industry Actors ~Krenes & Kreines, -Inc:, 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 . Legal/ Institutional. . Planning & Zoning.. Kreines & Kreines, Inc:; 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920,.(415) 435-9214 ~~ ~. ~~ ' ~~ g ~~ ~ 5~~ ~~ 'd Electric transmission towers: are another type of Opportunity Site. i, Pictured is an antenna array on top of a transmission tower There aze many more opportunities on , along Barracks Rd: While this represents useof an opportunity transmission towers in Albemarle County site, the resulting. design has visibility impacts that could have such as this example along Barracks Road. been reduced or eliminated by using al4emative types of equipment and mounting techniques.. Attachment to existing structures should compliment -not overwhelm -the structure. Design Manual for Personal Wireless Service Facilities - Albemazle County -Page 25 Location ®ICreines & ICreine. s; Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 ;._ 'i Kreines & Kreines, Inc;, 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 ~ ~.` 1 ~l Y ~ t ~ ~ 1 - ~ ~ ~1 S ~ .. .. Ry , ~] ~ ~ ~ _ '1 ' ~ l ,.^ ~ Satellite. , , ,:' dishes - Broadband ,, .. ._. . .c ...... .. ~ ~ ~'" " j - -.Personal ,. 'a . ;, ._ „_ .. ,: wireless ~ , ,:a service .,. , ,, g - ~ _ facilities . <. , ~. , - - rt. .:_ ,4: ,., 's: .:; is ` ®Kreines & ICreines,.Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 Sprint FCS E. rnr Harbor' ~:. ~ 8@ns pp,,~~ini ~, t"': - } .- ~ y, y~~ s x ~r i.: » : ~ ~ ~ ang Beacfl ~ Beefh P~Oxfn1 : ~LonO > ~ 1Jl ,,,, ~sy •: ~ , ry~ 5 4'.K~ _ ZiFM1RlpR~Bi f x a k43;- ) < ~ ~ < ~~ 7: a: ri ` '.. 4 `y i ~\ _ m~{slentl rq k V Plrrbw BN:~ .. , ~ 1, ~~ ilh Cnre~ `# GlDsona Bea ~l~ MaJor :Ltr ~Ah Haren ~ ~ ~` etler Point' '' '~ w..• M apton Design at 60ft 1 /'\ Tai 1 t w`a ~~~2' ~tt~ rx' ?I ~ 3' L F °5t z ~ x ~~~~ r x~ a ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ a. _ e t t ~~. ~r d ! ~ ~ J e j~ l`S ~ ~: ~SS ~ ~ ~ t ~ # S ~ i.., 3.. r }r, . P aS. v.. - __ - ,v.. ._, . ~ ~5 ~~'E~, 4 ~ ' ~ ma ~s`°"'a"r ~ n Kx"~ estS,itea t 1~IS~Y i e i S~µ~ ~~ y.'"~F.S~~Y. 1 ~ . E ~ ~ ~, R16 ~ ~ ~x l' r~~ , I'e ~'~y„-r"' u rs ~y p' ~ s~` q z .,~T 1~, r in ~~'~t~~~.akSrN"~.'+£~d~`l~~ v "IDS Sy,'~.~ .y 4qF, b . Cc~:~n''4RALr~rd~.F~..Yi~". wh eYe ~i~ac ,~\~.,. ?. sA .. Weak Signals Do Not' ~n-Stat reports that-cello lar infrastructure istisual Work for Data ly not one•of the most ex- citing topics to discuss in wireless,':but that leas start- ed to change. As wireless operators have begun to deploy 3G and other- wire- , less broadband technology, they have discovered that ahe grid`:of cell towers that worked fine for voice are not an ideal solution for data. The reasons are numerous and complex,:but the top rea- sons are the higher frequencies wliich most wireless broadband technologies are using and which do not pene- trate buildings as well as the lower frequencies, and the higher signal to noise regrrirements these technologies have if subscribers are to get data speeds anywhere near those advertised by.operators, A voice call that is suffering firom a poor signal will.usually stay connected until the signal is>so bad that the call is dropped. The user might not get an indication that the signiil is tivaning until the end wheia the caller's voice starts to break up and the inevitable dro~':call' occurs. Willi a wireless connection, a weak, or noisy signal results .in a slower data connection. As long as a voice call stays connected; the voice user feels like he or she is getting his moneys words, buff the data user who is getting a 5U':Kbps data rate instead of the advertised 1:S Mbps .may not lie very happy and-his unpres- lionwill be that his'service is trot livirig up to that advertised. Operators are a~v~are. of this'problem, but getting a strong signa>I ever}~vhere is much'easiertallced.about than accom- plished. Tn 200:r, wireless operators worldwide spent on av- erage $74 US on tot<~l infiastivcture costs per cellular :c~s- tomes: Micro arid.picocell.base stations can. get the .signal ; closer to the user grid wi1T be used more in the future, but while the base stations themselves are much cheaper than° a rnaero base station; their eapacit)~ and c~vc;rage are much less. Still; operators may.not',have a choice once wireless data use becomes much more widespread. Another option .:. that the operators Can take advantage. of is femtocells. These devices, installed in a home by the, subscriber; can support three or four simultaneous subscribers, while the subscriber. foots most of the backhaul costs, an operatoa's dream.- ^ '~ .. ea ;. ~+a~ss M~a-~ n-MnrraAal~a~w~n.e~ ~.:;:_. 6. ..Height should be .kept to. a minimum a. Heights of PWSFs-or WCFs should be no higher. than the height of-the .uppermost heighfiof neazby structures (within 300 honzontal feet (when measured along the ground) of.the proposed PWSF'or WCF regardless of ,, , - - prevailing heightlimits in the zone district. '- -b: ---- Inthe event there aze no nearby buildings (within 300 horizontal feet when measured on the ground) of he proposed site of the PWSF or WCF the following should apply: i.. All ground-mounted PWSFs or WCFs (including the security barrier) shouldle surrounded by neazby-dense tree, growth''for a radius of 20 horizontals feet (when trunk centerlines aze measured on the ground) from the PWSF or WCF in any direction. These trees can be existing on the subject property or installed to meet the twenty {20) foot requirement as part of the proposed PWSF or WCF or they can be a combination of both. ii. Ground-mounted PWSFs or WCFs should not project. more than ten (10) feet above the average tree height. 7. These standazds applyregazdless of RF engineering considerations. ® ICreines & ICreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol; Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 ~: k.. .. Sitng_ & Design Element YR. j ~. ,~:. S -Siting is different than .. ,___ . Design. . Performance standards. Alternatives. ~`; Kreines & Kreines, Iric; 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214. . I- ~'- e ~I Use-sensitive fall zone radius equals ~--- twice the height of the personal wireless service facility Fall zone is =--~ ~ 200% Of toweP height Use-Sensitive Fall Zone (not toscale) Property-sensitive fall zone radius equals ~- the height of,the -personal wifeless service facility' 100% of.the tower height Property-Sensitive Fall Zone (naf to scale) J ~ tornado or the severest of hurricanes ®Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435-9214 F: k:. .. N.'- ~, .. ~. i ~ ~ U $' ~ ~ 'h ~ ~.. ~ t,,, ~..~ ~ ~.. ~ f::: ~, s . ~ ~;. s -r M1 t~~ ii ~ d ~~ Yy~~~~ ' I i< .o .+~ ..~.- Q ~ ~~ ~ r~ # t °"~' ''~ ''~ ~'?~ :~ =.r~tf14,`t ~. ~: :. ~~~ '~ya.. ~ C. ;- B~r~l~ line ,~~~~~`~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ o_ ~. J,~~ ®j~.6ru62 ~ ~.6ru62' ~tc•` 28 ~g26o ~a~.g2oj' ,I,rpn~.ou` C`~ a~as0~ (~12) ~32-as~~ ~~~ ®~ ~~~~~n INDIANA RETAIL TAX EXEMPT J'1 CERTIFICATE NO. 003120155 002 0 FEDERAL EXCISE TAX EXEMPT 35-60000972 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032-2584 FORM APPROVED BY STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS FOR CITY OF CARMEL - 7997 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER i~ 7~ ~ THIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON INVOICES, A/I VOUCHER, DELIVERY MEMO, PACKING SLIP: SHIPPING LABELS AND ANY CORRESPONDENCE 1RCHASE ORDER DATE DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION G ~~ ~O Krei~t ~ s ~- ~r~~~ ~S Sn c. G'~y o-F CC~m ~/ 58 f~as~o VENDOR ~1/rQSo / ~ ' Qryo~ of~ SHIP ~am~'r~ur~r~y SvS' /~,' f ~CJtM O/~ / /~//n 7 C~~ l7'7 4~O /N ~I TO `j'~ (.r~UIL SCYGLQ/~F C'ar~m e/ , S/~ x(03 2 oNFlRMAnoN BLANKET CONTRACT PAYMENT TERMS FREIGHT QUANTITY ~ UNIT OF MEASURE DESCRIPTION ~ UNIT PRICE E%TENSION ~,G~rk.~ho~ on f ~rs~na-l Gt~rrQ lQ~s ~ ,~ Oo0.0 0 ~~~Irrc¢ ~cullPies ~~ ~ .• •~ •~ •°~; :~ ~ °~ •. Send Invoice To: Sup ~ ~~"`-'--''`~/f ~ ~~ I ~ pn~ CrVIG SC~cu~f'2 ~u-m~! /N ~f6032 /1q,2-,~~~s PLEASE INVOICE IN DUPLICATE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECT ACCOUNT AMOUNT SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS SHIP REPAID. C.O.D. SHIPMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL SHIPPING LABELS. THIS ORDER ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 99, ACTS 1945 AND ACTS AMENDATORY THEREOF AND SUPPLEMENT THERETO. PAYMENT • NP VOUCHER CANNOT BE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT UNLESS THE PO. NUMBER IS MADE A PART OF THE VOUCHEfl AND EVERY INVOICE AND VOUCHER HAS THE PROPER SWORN AFFIDAVIT ATTAC D • I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THERE IS AN UN LIGATE NCE IN THIS APPROP ION SUFFICIE ~ AV RT A VE ORDER. ORDERED BY /y~ TITLE r/ Q~ ~~ ~, ~ ( ~, ~F CLERK-TREASURER DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. vENDQR copy AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CARMEL (CITE AND KREINES & KREINES, INC. (PLANNER) This Agreement, effective as of_ j ~ (~, b~ , 2008 is between the City of Carmel, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana 46032 (City) and Kreines & Kreines, Inc., 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920 (Planner) for the following Project: Workshop on personal wireless service facilities. Article 1. Planner's Basic Services A. Planner's Basic Services are: Conduct Workshop in Cannel: a. Prepare graphics for presentation at Workshop. b. Workshop length can be from one hour to all day or evening on any day of the week convenient to City officials and staff. c. City staff to determine venue or group for Workshop. This could be the City Council, Plan Commission, training workshop or study session. d. City staff to provide location, arrangements (including overhead projector and screen) and notice for the Workshop. Review materials sent to Planner including: a. Wireless regulations in Zoning Ordinance. b. Applications for towers previously approved in Carmel. c. Cell Cower leases on City property. d. other applicable cell tower, antenna information Meet with City staff to report verbally and in writing on the review of the items listed above. B. Plaimer agrees to provide its professional services in accordance with generally accepted standards of its profession. C. Excluded Services are not a part of Planner's Services and are the responsibility of others. Excluded Services are legal services and engineering services. Article 2. City's Responsibilities A. City agrees to provide Planner with all information, surveys, reports, and professional recommendations and any other related items requested by Planner in order to provide its professional services. Planner may rely on the accuracy and completeness of these items. B. City agrees to provide the items described in Article 2.A and to render decisions in a timely manner so as not to delay the orderly and sequential progress of Planner's Basic Services. Article 3. Estimated Schedule A. Planner shall conduct the Workshop within 30 days of receipt of signed agreement on a date mutually convenient to City and Planner. B. The Workshop date maybe rescheduled by either party, upon forty-eight (48) hours written notice, should unanticipated events require cancellation of mutually agreed upon date. Article 4. Compensation and Payments A. City agrees to pay Planner as follows: l . Basic Services: The total cost for the Basic Services outlined in Article l .A is $5,000. This fee includes all time, materials and expenses. 2. Planner shall bill City for Basic Services at the completion of the Workshop. 3. All payments for Basic Services shall be processed by the City immediately upon receipt of invoice, unless invoice is subject to the provisions in Article 6. Article 5. Termination A. Either City or Planner may terminate this Agreement upon seven days written notice prior to Workshop. B. If terminated, City agrees to pay Planner for any Basic and/or Additional Services rendered up to the date of termination. C. Upon not less than seven days' written notice, Planner may suspend the performance of its services if City fails to pay Planner in full for services rendered. Planner shall have no liability because of such suspension of services or termination due to City's nonpayment. Article 6. Dispute Resolution A. City and Planner agree to mediate claims or disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement before initiating litigation. The mediation shall be conducted by a mediation service acceptable to the parties. A party shall make a demand for mediation within a reasonable time after a claim or dispute arises, and the parties agree to mediate in good faith. hi uo event shall any demand for mediation be made afer such claim or dispute would be barred by applicable ]aw. Mediation fees shall be shared equally. Article 7. Use and Ownership of Planner's Documents A. Upon the parties signing this Agreement, Planner grants City a nonexclusive license to use Planner's doctunents as described in this Agreement, provided City performs in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. No other license is implied or granted under this Agreement. Article 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. A. This Agreement is the entire and integrated agreement between City and Planner. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a written instrument signed by both City and Planner. B. In the event that any term or provision of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, and the parties agree that any unenforceable or invalid term or provision shall be amended to the minimum extent required to make such term or provision enforceable and valid. C. Neither City nor Planner shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other. D. City agrees to indemnify, and hold Planner harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, suits, demands, losses, costs and expenses, arising out of the Project and/or this Agreement, except that the Planner shall not be entitled to be indemnified to the extent such damages or losses are found by a court or forum of competent jurisdiction to be caused by Planner's negligent, errors or omissions. E. If this Agreement is not signed and returned to Planner within thirty days, the offer to perform the described Basic Services may, in Planner's sole discretion, be withdrawn and be null and void. KR FINES & KREINES, INC. (PLANNER) ~t""'~_~ Ted Kreines, AICP, President Date: October 13, 2008 CITY OF CARMEL C TY) Signature: Print Name: ~tCN~iB ~ i~,~l,.~~, Title: ~r-,~r - ~.S _J Date: l S C~-}~6-~.r" ~~~ Kreiues & Kreines, Inc. Fee Schedule Category Hourly Rate Principal $250.00 Planner $125.00 Drafting/Graphics $100.00 Wordprocessing $50.00 Outside services are billed at cost plus 15 percent. In-house services are charged as follows: Faxes $1.50 each page Copying (8-I/2" x ll" black and white) $0.20 each page Copying (8-1/2" x 11"color) $2.00 each page Copying (over 8-1/2 x 11") varies Computer disks or CDs $15.00 per disk/CD Time is billed in quarter-hour increments. Travel and subsistence are billed at cost. Copies of receipts for travel and subsistence will be provided. Court appearances are billed at $2,500.00 pins expenses per day, payable in advance.