Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Digital Skylines Site Plan with Certificate of Appropriateness.pdf
Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Tim McHarg, Planning Director SUBJECT: Z-11139 Digital Skylines site plan with a certificate of appropriateness at 705 Bridger Drive. MEETING DATE: August 15, 2011 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the application as modified by the submittal of August 3, 2011 and with the recommended conditions and the code requirements identified in the staff report. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having heard and considered public testimony, the materials presented in the packet, and finding that the application is in conformance with the requirements of the City of Bozeman, I move to approve application Z-11139 as amended by the August 3, 2011 submittal with the conditions and code requirements contained in the staff report.” BACKGROUND: The City received an application on May 24, 2011 to allow construction of a large scale wireless facility at 705 Bridger Drive. The site is located within the M-1, Light Industrial, zone and approval of large scale wireless facilities in this zone is typically under the authority of the Planning Director. The application moved through the review process and public notice was provided. On June 24, 2011 a letter was received by the City requesting the City Commission to reclaim the review of the project. The City Commission acted to reclaim and scheduled consideration of the application for August 15th. A second public notice was distributed with the new date and time for consideration before the Commission. Revised application materials were submitted on August 3rd. The original application included a 90 foot high self supporting (lattice) tower and associated equipment shelter and fencing. The revised application requests approval for an 84 foot high monopole with screening elements to resemble a coniferous tree. Maximum height of the antenna bearing structure is reduced to 75 feet. Microwave dishes have been reduced and additional response to public comments have been provided. The staff report is based on the revised application materials. A background summary of development in the area and certain special restrictions on City authority over telecommunications is presented beginning on page 2 of the staff report. Recommended conditions of approval are provided beginning on page 4 of the staff report. Code requirements are presented beginning on page 8 of the staff report. The application is a site plan 37 with a certificate of appropriateness. Therefore, there is a presumption in the ordinance that a project which conforms to the standards of the City’s regulations will be approved and an action to deny the application must be made on the basis of specific findings where the application fails to conform to the standards. Any action to deny a telecommunication facility must be made in writing and on the basis of written findings approved by the decision maker. There has been considerable public comment on this application. A summary of the public comments is provided beginning on page 16 of the staff report. A copy of the received comment is included with the packet for this project. The applicant has made several changes to the application to respond to the public comment. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None at this time. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the application with conditions and code requirements as recommended. 2) Make specific findings of why the application does not comply with the standards and deny the application. 3) Other action as proposed by the Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: This ordinance does not have a direct expense to the City, the standard fee was paid with the application. Attachments: Staff report; American Planning Association – Zoning Practice report August 2011; Application materials, original and revised; public comment Report compiled on: August 5, 2011 38 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP COA Staff Report Page 1 of 18 Staff Report for Digital Skylines Site Plan/ COA File #Z-11139 Item: A Preliminary Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness Application #Z-11139, for the construction of a large scale wireless facility on property located at 705 Bridger Drive and located within the Bridger Drive Entryway Corridor Overlay District. Owner: D&F Industries 655 Woodland Drive Crystal Lake, IL 60014 Applicant: Verizon Wireless 2730 Bozeman Avenue Helena, MT 59601 Representative: Digital Skylines, Inc. 11340 N 105th Place Scottsdale AZ 85259 Date: Submitted to the City Commission on August 4, 2011 for consideration on August 15, 2011 Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Recommendation: Approval ______________________________________________________________________________ Project Location: The subject property is located at 705 Bridger Drive. The site is approximately 2 acres overall with the telecommunications related area being approximately 1,440 square feet. The property is zoned M-1, Light Manufacturing District. The zoning designations and land uses in the immediate vicinity include: North: Residential, zoned R-3 – Residential Medium Density District, attached and detached dwellings South: Residential, zoned R-2 – Residential Two-Household Medium Density District, vacant East: Industrial, zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing District, offices West: Industrial, zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing District, construction supply sales A project location map is provided below. 39 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 2 of 18 Proposal This application for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness is for construction of a large scale wireless facility. Large scale wireless facilities are principal uses within the M-1 district. A revised application was submitted on August 3rd. The original application included a 90 foot high self supporting (lattice) tower and associated equipment shelter and fencing. The revised application requests approval for a monopole with screening elements to resemble a coniferous tree. Maximum height of the antenna bearing structure is reduced to 75 feet. The maximum height including screening materials reaches 84 feet. Microwave dishes have been reduced and additional response to public comments have been provided. On June 22, 2011 the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommended conditional approval of this application. No other Advisory Board comments were required for this project. Public notice was provided as required by Chapter 18.76, BMC. Background The approximately 2 acre property at 705 Bridger Drive is currently developed with a multi-tenant industrial building. The site has been developed for many years with the main building being constructed in 1972 and remodeled in 2006. The historical zoning maps indicate that the site has been zoned for industrial uses since at least 1984. The Bridger Creek golf course received initial approval from the City Commission on June 1, 1987. The golf course and adjacent property were annexed to the City on August 16, 1993. The Bridger Creek Phase I residential subdivision immediately adjacent to the north was initially platted in 1995. The most recent residential development to the north was approved in November, 2007. The residential area to the south across Bridger Drive has been vacated and no longer has active residential uses although the residential zoning remains. Adjacent industrial use to the west is a building materials supplier and is not within the City boundaries. Adjacent uses to the east are a mix of industrial and office uses in two different buildings. The site is within the Bridger Drive entryway corridor overlay district. The Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors was updated in 2005. The City adopted standards for telecommunications in 1998 through Ordinance 1479 to conform with the federal requirements in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 40 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 3 of 18 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 reserves to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the right to control and manage the nation’s telecommunications systems. Telecommunication companies are licensed and regulated by the FCC. Inquiry to the Public Service Commission confirmed that the MT PSC does not regulate Verizon. No other state agency has jurisdiction on tower locations unless it involves state owned property or a specific issue of concern such as physical interference with an area of state responsibility. Included within the FCC’s jurisdiction is the sole control of regulations having to do with emitted radio frequency energy by wireless facilities such as cell phone towers. The Federal Communications Commission has been established to oversee the use of the telecommunications spectrum. The regulation of frequency allocation and use and related matters has been reserved to them, to the near total exclusion of other government entities including the City of Bozeman. The text of the US Code which applies to local government zoning authority over telecommunications is presented below. “TITLE 47--TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS CHAPTER 5--WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION SUBCHAPTER III--SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO Part I--General Provisions Sec. 332. Mobile services (c) Regulatory treatment of mobile services (7) Preservation of local zoning authority (A) General authority Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) Limitations (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof-- (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the 41 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 4 of 18 environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.” Due to the restrictions of the law cited above, the City can’t mandate that telecommunication providers avoid frequencies which interfere with the City’s equipment or private equipment or limit them because of health concerns due to radio frequency emissions, section (7)(B)(iv). Neither can the City prohibit their construction or prevent the delivery of services because of section (7)(B)(i)(II). The City may establish physical standards for wireless facilities which do not act counter to the cited law. The City Commission has adopted Chapter 18.54 of the Unified Development Ordinance to establish procedures and standards for telecommunication facilities. The standards include preferred locations for location of large scale wireless facilities, establish certain setbacks, and set certain procedures for how wireless facilities are to be reviewed. Chapter 18.54 is integrated into the review processes established elsewhere within Title 18. Review against the established criteria are presented below. Service to an area involves both the ability to receive a signal and the capacity to receive the service carried by the signal. Receipt of service therefore involves a combination of factors of signal availability, antenna height, signal strength, and the availability of capacity on a signal source to accept additional users, i.e. avoiding a ‘busy signal’ from the cell site. The intersection of these service needs with the physical features of an area, density of users, type of services sought by users, and the built environment influence the number, type, and height of wireless sites and site capacity needed to actually provide services to the end user. The application materials describe that the wireless service provider does have coverage within the area of the site. The proposed wireless facility would strengthen the signal in several areas within immediate vicinity of the site as well as into the foothills to the north. The applicant has indicated that the proposed facility will significantly increase the capability to deliver services to additional customers and to provide high intensity services such as video streaming to existing customers. The establishment of the site will also facilitate management of the areas within which each of their sites manages calls. Because of the requirement to enable provision of wireless services in all areas, see subsection (B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 above, the City’s regulations allow for establishment of wireless facilities in ALL zoning districts in the City. The physical locations of facilities can be sited to deliver service is heavily influenced by the nature of other development, density of users, and the physical environment. If necessary to provide service, a large scale wireless facility may be established anywhere in town. There are differences in the review procedures and standards to encourage use of smaller facilities and to encourage the siting of facilities within non-residential areas. Recommended Conditions of Approval Based on the subsequent analysis, the DRC and Staff find that the application, with conditions and code provisions, is in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The following conditions of approval are recommended. Please note that these conditions are in addition to the required code provisions beginning on page 8 of this report. 42 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 5 of 18 Recommended Conditions: 1. The scheduled exercise time for the on-site generator shall be limited to times between 8 am and 5 pm on Monday through Friday. Emergency activation to allow continued service during a grid power failure is not limited. 2. Emergency vehicle circulation meeting the standards of the Uniform Fire Code shall be maintained around the perimeter of the existing industrial building. 3. The access and utility easement shall be worded so that it remains in effect so long as the tower is physically present on the site and shall not expire until the tower is removed. 4. That the applicant upon submitting the Final Site Plan for approval by the Planning Director and prior to issuance of a building permit, will also submit a written narrative outlining how each of the conditions of approval and code provisions have been satisfied. 5. The Final Site Plan shall be adequately dimensioned. This includes a specific dimension from the property line of the adjacent residential area to the nearest point of the wireless facility. A complete legend of all line types used shall also be provided. Conclusion/Recommendation The DRC and ADR staff have reviewed the Digital Skyline Preliminary Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness and recommends to the City Commission approval of this application with the conditions and code provisions outlined in this Staff Report. Staff has identified various code provisions that are currently not met by this application. Some or all of these items are listed in the findings of this Staff Report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, which are applicable to this project, prior to receiving Final Site Plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or State law. The revised application materials submitted on August 3rd do not affect most of the DRC’s areas of responsibility. Therefore, they were not requested to review the revised materials although they were informed of the changes and given opportunity to review the materials. Review Criteria & Staff findings 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy. The City of Bozeman adopted the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) as its growth policy on June 1, 2009. The BCP replaces all prior versions of the growth policy. A growth policy establishes ideals and policies for implementation by the City’s adopted regulations. The growth policy itself is not a regulation and does not provide sufficient grounds for denial of an application on its own. Reliance on the growth policy alone to approve or deny an application is not adequate and support for any action must be supported with references to compliance or non-compliance with adopted regulations. The growth policy can provide support for a decision. When regulations are uncertain, the growth policy provides a policy basis to aid in the interpretation of the regulations. A number of the established goals or objectives of the Bozeman Community Plan are relevant to the proposed wireless facility. These are presented below in the order in which they appear in the document. Page numbers are shown in parentheses before each item. The first number is the chapter number followed by the page within the 43 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 6 of 18 chapter. (page 1-3) Goal G-1: Growth Management - Promote the unique history and character of Bozeman by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the overall quality of life within the planning area. Rationale: To ensure that Bozeman remains a great place to live, work, operate a business, and play we need to protect the qualities that make people and companies want to be here in the first place. (page 3-9) Objective LU-4.2: Protect the viewshed, including ridgelines, surrounding and within Bozeman to preserve the natural character and mountain setting which helps to make Bozeman unique. (page 8-4) Objective ED-1.2: Coordinate the provision of infrastructure necessary to support economic development. Objective ED-1.3: Foster a positive economic climate through a well managed and aesthetically pleasing built environment, and by maintaining a beautiful and healthy natural environment to promote and attract businesses with a desirable impact on the community. Objective ED-1.4: Encourage ongoing improvements in private infrastructure systems, such as telecommunications, and promote state-of- the-art facilities. (page 9-8) Objective E-5.4: Work with utility providers to ensure appropriate locations for new installations. (page 12-5) Goal PS-2: The City shall work with other service and utility providers to ensure the adequate and safe provision of services. Rationale: Public and private utilities often are located within the same rights-of-way and easements. Coordination between providers is essential to prevent conflicts, damage, and injury. Services are necessary to support urban development Objective PS-2.3: Private Utilities — Facilitate the provision of adequate private utility services within the City while respecting the character of Bozeman. (page H-17) H.4 PRIVATE UTILITY PROVIDERS Obviously, many services within the City are provided by private utility providers instead of by the City, including: electric power, natural gas, cable television, phone services and wireless communications. It is important that the City work closely with these various service providers to ensure that citizens’ utility needs are adequately provided into the future. The community values expressed in the growth policy represent a wide scope of issues and concerns. To give importance and effect to all of them a balance must be found between those which influence one another. This approach is described in Section 18.02.050, BMC in discussing how to apply development standards. The City needs utilities, including wireless communications, in order to have a healthy economy and to deliver desired services to its citizens. Wireless communication is also essential to emergency services needed to protect the public health and safety. Utility equipment is often visually prominent. The City supports infill and development on existing sites to reduce sprawl and bring services in proximity to those who use them. The City establishes limits of intensity to constrain the impacts between users, especially at boundaries between zoning districts. 44 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 7 of 18 The City has established standards through its land development regulations for the purpose of balancing between these competing interests. In the development of the regulations the City conducted an analysis of whether the proposed regulations were consistent with the growth policy. The adoption of the regulations is proof positive that the Commission who adopted the ordinance considered the regulations as consistent with the growth policy. The intent and purpose of the adopted telecommunications regulations are presented in Section 18.54.010. When an application conforms to the adopted relevant standards of the City and other regulatory agencies it is presumed to have complied with the growth policy. Site specific facts can be provided to show that this is not the case. The application materials responded to the submittal requirements of Chapter 18.78 to provide data upon which the analysis can be based. There was a public process provided to enable comment and provision of information as to whether the application was consistent with the regulations. Several writings of public comment were received in opposition to the proposed facility. Some of the comments referred to the growth policy. A summary of the public comments is presented in Criterion 19. Applicant submitted a revised proposal on August 3rd in response to the concerns identified in the public comments. The revisions include changes to reduce visual impacts which are the primary component of the public comment relating to the growth policy. The proposed site is located within an industrially planned area and the facility conforms to the general description of industrial areas from the Bozeman Community Plan. “Industrial. This classification provides areas for the uses which support an urban environment such as manufacturing, warehousing, and transportation hubs. Development within these areas is intensive and is connected to significant transportation corridors. In order to protect the economic base and necessary services represented by industrial uses, uses which would be detrimentally impacted by industrial activities are discouraged. Although use in these areas is intensive, these areas are part of the larger community and shall meet basic standards for landscaping and other site design issues and be integrated with the larger community. In some circumstances, uses other than those typically considered industrial have been historically present in areas which were given an industrial designation in this growth policy. Careful consideration must be given to public policies to allow these mixed uses to coexist in harmony.” 2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations The application for a large scale wireless (LSW) facility is reviewed as a site plan per Section 18.54.030. The site lies partly within the Bridger Canyon Entryway Corridor Overlay District and therefore requires a certificate of appropriateness per Section 18.30.030.B. Application was made on May 24, 2011. After corrections to the adjacent property owners address list for public notification the application was deemed adequate for review. The DRC considered the application on June 15th and 22nd. Review of the application was reclaimed by vote of the the City Commission and scheduled for consideration on August 15th. The LSW is located on approximately 1,440 square feet of a much larger previously developed host site. The application establishes a second principal use on the site and is therefore not eligible to be considered as a further development subject to Section 18.34.170. There are no known zoning violations at the host site. Discussion of specific review criteria is included in the materials below. Some items as listed in the code provisions must be addressed in order to be fully compliant with the City’s regulations. Code citations may also be made to identify future steps in the process after conclusion of this preliminary site plan 45 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 8 of 18 review. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The following code provisions are cited to provide emphasis or must be addressed prior to Final Site Plan approval: Cited Code Provisions: a. Section 18.34.130 requires the applicant to submit seven (7) copies of a Final Site Plan within 6 months of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. b. Section 18.34.140 states that a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. c. Section 18.38.050.F requires all mechanical equipment to be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. The final site plan shall contain a notation that no ground mounted mechanical equipment, including, but not limited to utilities, air exchange conditioning units, transformers, and meters shall not encroach into the required yard setbacks and will be properly screened from public right-of-way with an opaque solid wall and adequate landscape features. d. Section 18.42.130.F specifies that all fences shall be constructed with the “finished” side out. e. Section 18.54.040.B.6.e(2) specifies that all large scale wireless facilities adjacent to residentially zoned areas shall maintain a setback of at least 50% of their height from the residential property line or zoning boundary. f. Section 18.78.170.B.7 requires an explanation of how a financial security will be provided to secure the removal of the tower when no longer needed for wireless facilities. g. Section 18.78.170.A.3 requires the submitted documentation of environmental impacts o be notarized. h. A Storm Water Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations), storm water detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations, and discharge structure details), storm water discharge destination, and a storm water maintenance plan. i. A Storm Water Management Permit (SMP) must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to Final Site Plan Approval. The SMP requires submittals of an application form and a Storm Water Management Plan in compliance with the City of Bozeman’s Storm Water Management Ordinance #1763. The SMP is independent of any other storm water permitting required from the State of Montana, and does not fulfill the requirement to obtain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) if they are required for this development. j. All existing utility and other easements must be shown on the FSP. k. Adequate snow storage area must be designated outside the sight triangles, but on the subject property (unless a snow storage easement is obtained for a location off the property and filed with 46 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 9 of 18 the County Clerk and Recorder's office). l. The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site developments, or with the infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes. m. All construction activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2. of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified. Note: Future Impact Fees - Please note that future building permit applications may require payment of the required transportation, water, sewer and fire impact fees according to the City of Bozeman adopted impact fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. If you desire an estimate of the required impact fees (according to current rates) please contact the Planning Department. The primary review criteria for this application are established in Chapter 18.54, Telecommunications, of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The intent and purpose of these regulations are set forth in Section 18.54.010. As noted in that section, the City must balance a variety of competing interests in its regulations and decision making. The standards established in the remainder of the chapter are to implement the intent and purpose; and compliance with the standards inherently demonstrates that the intent and purpose have been met. However, as shown in the quote from Section 18.02.050, the City may require performance above and beyond the minimum requirements based on site specific review and when demonstrated that more than minimum compliance is needed to protect the community and balance the variety of interests affected by development. “18.02.050 INTERPRETATION AS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS A. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this title shall be held to be minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the health, safety and general welfare of the community. In some instances the public interest will be best served when such minimums are exceeded. Wherever the requirements of this title are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules or regulations, or wherever there is an internal conflict within this title, the most restrictive requirements, or that imposing the higher standards, shall govern. C. When interpreting the meaning of this title, subsections of the ordinance shall be construed in a manner that will give effect to them all as the ordinance derives its meaning from the entire body of text taken together.” “18.20.010 INTENT AND PURPOSE OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS The intent and purposes of the industrial zoning districts is to establish areas within Bozeman that are primarily industrial in character and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas. The purpose in having more than one industrial district is to provide opportunities for a variety of employment and community service functions within the community while providing predictability. There is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible with each other when the standards of this title are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. 47 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 10 of 18 A. The intent of the M-1 light manufacturing district is to provide for the community’s needs for wholesale trade, storage and warehousing, trucking and transportation terminals, light manufacturing and similar activities. The district should be oriented to major transportation facilities yet arranged to minimize adverse effects on residential development, therefore, some type of screening may be necessary.” Review of development requirements from Chapter 18.54, Telecommunications. The full text of each standard is not presented but each is numbered in accordance with the Chapter. These begin on page 54- 3 of Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC. Section 18.54.030. B 1. The application is for a large scale wireless facility and is reviewed as a principal use in the M-1 district. A site plan application has been submitted. Standard is met. 2. Facility is not proposing to co-locate. Not applicable 3. Facility is not accessory to another use on the site. Not applicable. 4. Entryway Corridor – Facility is subject to overlay review, see Criterion 18. A certificate of appropriateness review is included in the application for site plan. 5. Consultation was requested and conducted as required. Standard is met. 6. Pre-application materials were provided. Standard is met. 7. Extra consultants – need has not yet been established. Procedural, not included with the application materials. 8. Site is not an existing facility and therefore cannot be subject to Chapter 18.60 which addresses existing structures. Section 18.54.040.A Safety 1 Fencing is proposed which will comply and a building permit will be required before construction. Standard is met. 2. FCC/FAA standards – No evidence of non-compliance has been provided. Prospective compliance is required for future changes to the site to maintain compliance. Standard has been met. 3. Required fencing has been included on the site plan. Standard is met. Section 18.54.040.B Aesthetics 1. All wireless. Standards can be waived by the City Commission as the approval body. a. Procedural provision. No request has been made to waive any standard. Not applicable b. Visually unobtrusive as possible. The proposed facility is not mounted on an existing structure but is free standing. The City, as described in #2.d and #6 below, has established a preference for lattice tower structures as less visually intrusive. A key word in the standard is ‘feasible’. There are limited options to camouflage or conceal a large structure. Replacement of the lattice tower with a monopole will narrow the structure which may benefit the immediately adjacent viewer but will make it solid and visible at a further distance which disadvantages other viewers. The determination of what is feasible must come after the determination of whether the proposed facility can otherwise be approved on a site. The revised application proposes to use a shorter monopole construction with screening to resemble a faux coniferous tree to reduce visual obtrusiveness. c. No lighted signage is proposed. Standard is met. d. Building code will be complied with during construction. Standard will be met. e. Visual screening of ground mounted equipment is provided by enclosure in a structure and by a solid wood fence. Standard is met. f. Equipment shelter is not in a residential area and is screened by an opaque fence. Standard is met. 2. Preferences. Threshold tests to determine when larger facilities are allowed. 48 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 11 of 18 a. Size. Smaller facilities are preferred and before moving to a larger sized facility the applicant need to show evidence of investigation of alternative options. The applicant reports evaluating three alternates; Story Mill, KMMS radio tower, and the Pea Cannery water tank. They found the three unsuitable as described in the application materials. The revised application materials submitted on August 3rd are responsive to this criteria. b. Stealth. This term is defined in section 18.80.2900. There do not appear to be viable options to conceal a large scale wireless facility in the manner described in the definition for the original proposed lattice tower. The revised submittal has changed tower type to be a monopole, reduced the height, and proposes to configure the monopole as a faux coniferous tree. This appears to meet the intent of the standard although the strict letter of the definition of “stealth” in Section 18.80.2900 remains unattainable for a facility of this scale. c. Alternative evidence. This is an option to submit data in support of the request, but is not required. Applicant’s materials indicate that other suitable facilities do not exist in the area. d. Structure type – a lattice structure is the preferred default type of structure as it allows visual transparency which reduces overall visual impact. Lattice structures are also easier to retrofit to handle additional or altered antennae. An alternative to a lattice tower is allowed when it would better meet the purposes of the standards. The August 3rd revised submittal changes the structure type to a monopole to enable configuration of the structure as a faux coniferous tree. The standard is met under either proposal. 3. Special standards – the facility height complies with the maximum wireless facility height and the others are not applicable. 4. Stealth – Not applicable as the facility is not located in the neighborhood conservation overlay district. 5. Small scale wireless facilities – Not applicable to this application. 6. Large scale wireless facilities a. Co-location – application includes statement of willingness to allow co-location. b. Removal – applicant is willing to provide guarantee of removal of facility. Actual mechanism will be decided with the final site plan. c. Height – proposed facility complies with the required height limits. d. Coordinated area for support equipment – The enclosure area currently depicts just the Verizon shelter. Additional space is available on the site to the west and outside of the circulation area for additional support equipment. An example of this type of detached support equipment is the wireless site at the Gallatin Valley Mall location by the Macy’s store. Standard is met. e. Special setbacks. The minimum required distance from the boundary to a residentially zoned area appears to be met although the scale of the drawings makes absolute verification by measuring the drawing difficult. A condition has been recommended to verify this distance before any approval of a final site plan. If the condition and code requirement cannot be met the final site plan will not be approved. See also Criterion 10. The standard is met. f. Multiple users on facilities greater than 50 feet. The applicant indicates the tower is structurally designed to accommodate additional users and that they are willing to allow co-location. The standard is met. g. Separation distance from other large scale facilities. The applicant indicates they have examined alternative existing structures and they are not suitable for their use. The City Commission may waive this requirement if they make findings that one or more of the criteria in 18.54.040.B.6.i is met. The application materials indicate that criteria (1) and (2) are satisfied. Standard is met. h. Need for large scale facility. If the requirements of 18.54.040.B.2 (preferences) are met 49 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 12 of 18 then this requirement is satisfied. As shown above, the requirements under the preference for facility type have been satisfied. i. Findings. This is a procedural requirement for the City, not the applicant, based upon the materials provided elsewhere in the application and public hearing. j. Height and number of users. This is not applicable as Verizon is a direct user of the facility. Applicant has indicated a willingness to allow co-location on the facility. 7. Nonbroadcast. Not applicable since the proposal is not for this type of facility. 18.54.040.C Administrative. 1. Inventory. A map of the existing Verizon sites was provided with the application. Standard is met. 2. Public land exemption. Not applicable, this is a privately owned parcel. 3. Removal. This addresses a future event and is not relevant at this time. 4. Emergency power. Applicant indicates a willingness to comply and a condition has been recommended to limit the hours of operation for the generator in non-emergency situations. Applies to future operations and appears to have been met at this time. 5. Employee restrictions. Not applicable, site is not residentially zoned. 6-8. These are procedural requirements and are not relevant to the determination of whether the application conforms to the adopted standards. The application as amended by the August 3rd submittal appears to conform to the relevant standards of Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, including Chapter 18.54 Telecommunications. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations As a telecommunications provider, Verizon is subject to licensing and regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. A copy of the FCC license was provided as part of the application materials. They are also subject to the environmental controls established by the FCC for radio frequency emissions. A copy of an RF emissions compliance report has been provided as part of the application. Persons in disagreement with either of these documents should contact the FCC. The construction plans for the structure will be further evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at the time application is made for a Building Permit. There are no locally adopted regulations relevant to this application in addition to zoning and building codes. The applicant’s indicate in their application that they are in compliance with applicable federal and state regulations. Inquiry to the State of Montana has indicated that there are no applicable state regulations for this facility. 4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property The proposed facility is wholly contained on the host site and does not depend on other private properties for services. There are no elements of the proposal that alter connections to public streets or the industrial property to the east. The proposed construction does not interfere with existing structures or use of the site. Circulation around the existing building may need to be adjusted to maintain 360 degree emergency service access, however there is adequate space to do so. A condition of approval has been drafted to require protection of needed access and compliance will be demonstrated with the final site plan. The relationship of the elements of the proposal to off-site conditions is primarily visual. Questions of radio frequency impacts or related health effects are beyond the authority of the City to address. The base of the facility is approximately 470 feet from the right of way for Bridger Drive. The host site 50 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 13 of 18 is at a boundary between industrial and residential property. The base of the facility is approximately 45 feet from the residential boundary line and approximates 65-70 feet from future residences. Public comment includes concerns on impacts to adjacent properties from the visual effects of the proposed facility. The residential property in the vicinity is developed as a blend of attached and detached single and two story residences. Portions of the development approved on the adjacent property are not yet constructed. The proposed facility will be visually prominent but the impact will vary considerably depending on the viewpoint. Greatest impact will be when viewed from the west and north. The visual impact will also vary depending on proximity. When viewed from 100 yards away, the antenna band at the top will occupy approximately 2.9 degrees of the view. If viewed from 200 yards away it would occupy less than 1.5 degrees of view or less than 1% of the field of view. Other viewing points will be affected proportionately to their location. The revised submittal of August 3rd directly acts to reduce the visual impact on adjoining persons by reducing the tower height and proposing to configure the site as a faux coniferous tree. 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions The site is located on existing paved area which is currently used for on-site circulation. The ability to access all sides of the building must be maintained. There are no components of the project which are configured for daily occupancy. No material impact on off-site traffic and circulation is anticipated. A condition has been proposed that emergency access to all sides of the existing building be preserved. Compliance must be demonstrated on the final site plan. 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress The proposed LSWF does not generate pedestrian traffic. The host site is industrial in character and has no interconnections for pedestrian with adjacent sites. Right of way does exist along Bridger Drive for future installation of pedestrian facilities when the Montana Department of Transportation widens the street. Preliminary design has been prepared for the widening however, no date is yet scheduled for that work. No additional access points to streets are proposed and anticipated traffic is very low volume. There is no anticipated material impact on this criteria. 7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation The existing site and building has landscaping consistent with its original date of development. There is no substantial mature landscaping on the site. Required yards along Bridger Drive have been landscaped. There is presently no boulevard and sidewalk along Bridger Drive and therefore there are no street trees along the frontage. There are no proposed changes to the site that landscaping would affect such as parking islands. No changes to the landscaping are proposed with this application. Screening of the base of the facility will be provided by the existing fence and not by landscaping. 8. Open space There is no requirement for open space as part of the existing building other than the provided yard setbacks. The application is not residential and there is no additional open space or parkland requirements. 9. Building location and height 51 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 14 of 18 The M-1 district allows a maximum building height of 45 feet. The existing building is less than this height. The original proposed height of the LSWF was 90 feet and is now at 84 feet for the stealthing elements and 75 feet for the structural elements. Section 18.54.040 establishes special height limits specifically for wireless facilities. The maximum allowed height for a wireless facility at the site is 190 feet. The proposed structure is therefore within the maximum limit for height. The support equipment shelter is a single story and meets the height limit. It is located within the allowed building envelope for the site. 10. Setbacks The M-1 zone district yard setbacks for the host site are 25 feet for the front yard; and for the rear and side yards are 3 feet for buildings and 0 feet for parking and loading areas. There are special setbacks established in Section 18.54.040 for wireless facilities, especially large scale wireless. The LSWF must maintain at least one-half its height from a residential property line. In this circumstance with the revised application, that requires a minimum setback of at least 37.5 feet for the structure and 42 feet if the stealthing materials are included. Measurement of the submitted drawings with a scaled ruler indicates that the setback distance is adequate but not significantly greater than the minimum. The setback from the adjacent industrial properties is less than that for the residential separation and is therefore met with the larger special requirement. Given the scale of the drawings, the separation distance should be field verified before any construction and the final site plan shall include a specific dimension from the property line to the nearest point of the tower demonstrating compliance with this standard. 11. Lighting No street lighting is present on Bridger Drive. No street lighting is required with this application. No site lighting is proposed with this application. No lighting is proposed on the LSWF. 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities The private utilities suitable to serve the proposed use are located within the adjacent streets or existing easements. Easements have been proposed for extensions from the existing location to the site. The applicant will need to coordinate with Northwest Energy, Qwest, or other private providers for their individual services. The utilities and easements are located within existing developed areas. All final utility locations, both public and private are required to be shown on the future final site plan for approval. No public water or sewer services are required for this use. Service do presently existing to the host site. 13. Site surface drainage and stormwater control The site placement area is already paved and will generate no new impervious surface. Storm water control facilities are in place with existing development. 14. Loading and unloading areas There are not specific loading or unloading areas required for the wireless uses to be constructed on the pad site. The existing development on the site has circulation and backing distances necessary to access the industrial building. 15. Grading 52 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 15 of 18 Only minor site grading should be required for construction on the site due to the existing grades and the developed nature of the site. The site placement area is already paved and will generate no new impervious surface. Storm water control facilities are in place with existing development. A stormwater permit application has been submitted for review in accordance with municipal ordinance. 16. Signage No signage is proposed as part of the application. Any future signs would be subject to the requirements of Title 18. 17. Screening Site screening for the base of the facility will be provided with the existing opaque wood fence along the property line between the site and the residential development to the north. This screening meets the requirements of Chapter 18.54 for screening from residential development. Screening for the base of the facility from Bridger Drive will be provided by the existing building. No further screening of the base of the facility is required. The regulations do not require the screening of the facility as a whole. As a 90 foot high structure it can perhaps be altered in form but cannot be hidden. 18. Overlay district provisions This site is located within the Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive Entryway Corridor Overlay District which is a Class II Entryway Corridor. This designation is established in Section 18.30.030. For this corridor, the overall vision as described on page 86 of the Design Objective Plan is to “...convey a connection with the agricultural and light industrial heritage of these outlying areas, while accommodating new development.” Although the physical location of the wireless facility is outside of the standard 330 foot distance from the centerline of the road, Section 18.30.030.B states that the overlay district provisions apply to all developments which lays wholly or partially within the distance specified. The host site for the wireless facility does have direct frontage on Bridger Drive and is within the 330 foot distance from the centerline of the road. Therefore, the design objectives plan is applicable to this application. The purpose of the Entry Corridor is established in Section 18.30.020 which reads in part “There are several arterial corridors entering Bozeman that introduce visitors and residents alike to Bozeman. The visual attributes of these roadways provide a lasting impression of the character of Bozeman. It is the intent and purpose of this chapter to ensure that the quality of development along these corridors will enhance the impression and enjoyment of the community both by guiding development and change that occurs after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this title, and by stimulating and assisting, in conjunction with other provisions of this title, improvements in signage, landscaping, access and other contributing elements of entry corridor appearance and function.” The purpose of the entryway corridor program is to attain, where possible, improvements in the appearance and function of those uses of land and development of structures which are authorized to be located within the corridors. The entryway corridor program itself does not prohibit any use or type of structure. The site for the proposed wireless facility has already been lawfully developed. No changes are proposed to the existing building. This application is not the first application for a large scale wireless facility within the entryway corridor areas of the community. The City has previously approved such a facility in the I-90 entryway corridor. Two additional wireless facilities are located adjacent to the West Main entryway corridor in a manner 53 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 16 of 18 similar to the present application at the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and JC Billion’s site on Cottonwood Rd. The City has also approved multiple small scale and micro-scale installations within the entryway corridors. These smaller scale facilities are typically mounted on existing structures. Examples of such smaller facilities are located at a light pole mount at the Gallatin Valley Mall and a rooftop mount at Town and Country Foods. The Design Objectives Plan has five chapters. The first, Neighborhood is focused on large scale layout issues which have been established by the existing building and surrounding site developments and are not applicable to the current proposal. The second chapter, Site Design covers a range of issues such as incorporation of natural features into a site, historic resources, site drainage and others. Most of these items are not being changed with the proposed project and are not applicable to this project. The third chapter, Building Design Guidelines, are intended to address the actual design of a building such as primary entrances, street level interest, roof forms, and other standards which are not applicable since the only building is the equipment shelter which is not visible from the corridor being placed behind the existing building. Color, utilities and mechanical equipment are addressed in this section and are relevant to the proposed project. Utilities and mechanical equipment are proposed to be enclosed within a small building which will prevent them from being visible. The proposed configuration of the facility as a faux coniferous tree will provide screening, color, and other controls to meet the applicable provisions of this section of the Design Objectives Plan. The fourth chapter, Sign Design Guidelines, is not applicable as no signage is proposed with the project. Chapter five is the portion of the document that addresses the specifics of each individual entryway corridor. The section regarding Rouse Avenue and Bridger Drive begins on page 86. The standards specific to the corridor have little application to the type of facility being reviewed with this application. Review of the Design Objectives Plan and its specific criteria shows that for this application many of the criteria are not applicable or are met by the application. This leaves the general intent and purpose of the entryway corridor overlay district as the basis for review. Section 18.30.020, Intent and Purpose, includes the following statement: “It is the intent and purpose of this chapter to ensure that the quality of development along these corridors will enhance the impression and enjoyment of the community...” The site is in proximity to a well travelled roadway and is within the entryway corridor overlay. The question of whether the facility conforms to the City’s adopted standards is best addressed under Criterion 2. If the facility does comply with the City’s base standards for a large scale wireless facility, the question then becomes, whether the facility as proposed is of the best available quality of facility of its type recognizing the unavoidable visually noticeable nature of the facility. The revised submittal received on August 3rd proposes to configure the facility as a faux coniferous tree and reduces the height of the facility. This is a significant effort to reduce the visual impact of the facility. The intent and purpose as well as the actual standards of the Design Objectives Plan appear to be met with the new proposal. 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties Fourty-three written comments have been received to date. For the full text of the comments see the attachments. The subjects of the comments have been summarized below. Many of the items are discussed under one or more of the criteria presented above. Many of the comments addressed more than one of the identified issues. 1. Issue: City must carefully adhere to the adopted regulations to minimize impacts on the community from placement of wireless facilities. 2. Issue: Wireless facility should comply with setbacks and not be reduced. 3. Issue: Verizon is not in compliance with federal, state, and local laws. 4. Issue: Negative impact on all users of Bridger Drive due to visual intrusion into the entryway corridor. 54 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 17 of 18 5. Issue: City should retain experts to review the application materials. 6. Issue: Applicants should provide full build-out plan for the City area so this facility can be considered in the overall context and avoid proliferation of towers. 7. Issue: City preference is for co-location on existing facilities and smaller installations. Applicants must prove need for large facilities before City can approve new towers. 8. Issue: This facility will worsen the problem with distracted drivers. City should not approve until there are means in place to reduce distraction. City should require Verizon to take steps to combat distracted driving. 9. Issue: There are alternate sites which have less community impact which should be used instead. 10. Issue: The abandoned trailer park and Story Mill should be cleaned up, don’t need more eyesores along Rouse Avenue. Don’t add to visual blight in the Rouse entryway corridor. 11. Issue: Impact on property values from the very visible wireless tower. 12. Issue: If the facility is placed at 705 Bridger Drive it should be required to be “stealthed” to be less visually intrusive. 13. Issue: Health hazard from radiation. 14. Issue: Proximity of the large scale wireless facility to a residentially developed area. 15. Issue: Support for improving emergency services communications in the Bridger Canyon area. 16. Issue: Application submitted is inconsistent with the stated reasons for the facility. 17. Issue: Notice of the project to the public was inadequate. 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. Not applicable, the application applies to only a single lot. 21. Compliance with Title 17, Chapter 2, BMC. Not applicable, the application includes no residential development. Attachments: Applicant’s Original and Revised Submittal Materials Written public comment Report Sent to: Owner: D&F Industries 655 Woodland Drive Crystal Lake, IL 60014 Applicant: Verizon Wireless 2730 Bozeman Avenue Helena, MT 59601 Representative: Digital Skylines, Inc. 55 #Z-11139 Digital Skylines SP/COA Staff Report Page 18 of 18 11340 N 105th Place Scottsdale AZ 85259 56 are your cell tower standards in compliance with federal law?8Zoning PracticeAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION205 N. Michigan Ave.Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601–59271030 15th Street, NWSuite 750 WestWashington, DC 20005–1503zoning Practice August 2011 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION issue number 8 Practice telecommunications 857 zoningpractice 8.11 AmericAN PlANNiNg AssociAtioN | page 2 Federal Cell Tower zoning: Key Points and Practical Suggestions By John W. Pestle Congress first became involved with cell tower zoning with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which added provisions entitled “Preservation of Local zoning Authority” (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)) to the principal federal telecommunications statute, the Communications Act of 1934. This article summarizes key points regarding the Act as it has actually been interpreted and applied by the courts and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the 15 years since it was passed. As interpreted by the courts, the Act does not affect many or most substantive provisions of local zoning law. However, it does impose procedural and administrative requirements that are unique to cell tower zoning. it is on these requirements where cell phone companies have been most suc- cessful in claims against local governments for violations of the Act. The stakes are high for planners and public officials because, generally, the rem- edy imposed by federal courts for violations of the Act is an order approving a zoning application “as applied for” without any of the restrictions that might ordinarily have been imposed in the public interest during the zoning process. Finally, how the Act is actually applied varies geographically due to different federal appeals courts’ interpretations. in addi- tion, how to comply with the Act can vary based on local ordinances and state laws. Accordingly, this article only provides an overview of the main points regarding the Act. Planners and local officials should con- sult with their municipal attorneys on how best to comply with the Act. Why More cell toWers? A cellular tower is a free-standing structure supporting one or more cellular antennas. Cellular antennas also can be mounted on buildings, water towers, or other structures. For convenience, the terms cell tower and cellular tower are used to refer to cell tow- ers, cellular antennas, and associated equipment. There were over 256,000 cell towers in the United States at the end of 2010. installations of cell towers continue to in- crease at a rapid pace due to the demand for increased capacity as cell phones evolve into small mobile computers used to surf the web, receive and transmit videos, pic- tures, and other data, as well as carry con- ventional voice conversations. Web surfing, videos, pictures, and data use far more cell tower and provider network capacity than do phone calls. in addition, approximately 100,000 new towers are being added for WiMax, which uses cell phone-type anten- nas to provide high-speed wireless internet access on a city or countywide basis, usually for a fee. Finally, the federal government is promoting the expansion of wireless service as one of the main ways to achieve its goal of expanding broadband service availability nationwide. Background on the act At the time Congress was considering the Act, the FCC had a proceeding under way to preempt local zoning of cellular towers. The Act terminated that proceeding, and Congress did not generally preempt local zoning or turn the FCC into a federal zoning authority for cellular towers. instead, the Act basically preserves local zoning while add- ing some additional federal requirements. Many communities encourage or require colocation of cell towers. This example shows how cellular antennas can be added to existing electrical transmission towers.Wikimedia Commons/Therearenospoons58 ASK THe AUTHor Join US onLine! about the authors John W. Pestle is an attorney and chair of the Telecommunications group at Varnum LLP. He represents municipalities across the country on cable and telecommunications matters. He is a graduate of Harvard, Yale, and the University of Michigan Law School and received the Member of the Year award from the national Association of Telecommunications officers and Advisors for his representation of municipalities on matters concerning the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Pestle provides model cell tower leases to municipalities (www.varnumlaw.com/lease) and has a frequently updated paper for municipal attorneys that summarizes and provides citations to the various cases that formed the basis for this article. He can be contacted at 616-336-6000, ext. 6725, or by e-mail at jwpestle@varnumlaw.com. Go online during the month of August to participate in our “Ask the Author” forum, an interactive feature of zoning Practice. John W. Pestle will be available to answer questions about this article. Visit the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links to the Ask the Author section. From there, submit your questions about the article using the e-mail link. The author will reply, and zoning Practice will post the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of zoning Practice at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA zoning Practice web pages. zoningpractice 8.11 AmericAN PlANNiNg AssociAtioN | page 3 Wikimedia Commons Although the cell tower zoning amend- ments focused principally on “cell phone service,” technically the Act covers “per- sonal wireless services” and facilities used to provide personal wireless services as de- fined in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C). The terms include the antennas and facilities used to provide not just cell phone service but also “fixed wireless” (similar to microwave point- to-point) services and other similar services. Finally, municipalities must comply with state and local zoning laws applicable to cell towers. if the state or local law is more restrictive then the Act, then the more restrictive law controls. This follows from the basic principle that the Act is an overlay on traditional zoning law, which is largely pre- served. For example, in one case, a federal court reversed a local zoning decision be- cause it used aesthetics to deny an applica- tion for a cell tower to be located in a public right-of-way. Aesthetics are allowed under the Act, but under the applicable state law, municipalities could not consider aesthetics for utility fixtures located in public rights-of- way (cell phone companies were public utili- ties in the state in question). reMedies The most troubling aspect of the Act relates to remedies for violations. in contrast to many state laws, the remedy that wireless providers usually request, and which courts frequently impose, is an order granting the cell tower zoning application “as applied for.” The rationale for this result is a provi- sion that directs the courts to handle cell tower zoning cases “on an expedited basis.” Cell phone companies contend this means the remedy for violations must be approval of the zoning application, not a remand with consequent delay. in many instances the courts have agreed. Such decisions can cause well-inten- tioned municipal actions to have adverse effects. For example, in a 2005 case, the City of Chattanooga found that seven cell tower zoning applications did not comply with a recent zoning ordinance change. rather than rejecting them and allowing them to be re- filed, the city delayed action on the applica- tions to allow the provider a chance to bring them into compliance with the revised ordi- nance. After the applications sat for a period of time, the provider sued the city, and the federal court ordered all seven applications to be approved as applied for because the city had been too slow in acting! More recent federal decisions show some tendency to move away from the “approval order” remedy toward the more traditional remedy of a remand for proceed- ings in compliance with the court’s order. However, as a practical matter, municipali- ties are well advised to be careful to comply with the Act so as to make sure they do not receive the harsh remedy described above. on the bright side, it is clear that pro- viders cannot get attorney fees or damages either under the Act itself or Section 1983 (Civil rights Act) for violations. This was resolved in 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court, supplemented by later decisions of the fed- eral appellate courts. procedural rules As interpreted by the courts, the Act creates procedural requirements for cell tower zon- ing applications that often differ significantly from typical local practices. As a result, pro- cedural challenges are one of the areas where cellular companies have been most success- ful in appealing local zoning decisions. Written decision/separate record Municipalities can inadvertently violate the Act by running afoul of its “written deci- sion/separate record” requirement. These requirements derive from a provision stating that cell tower zoning decisions “be in writ- ing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record” (47 U.S.C. § 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii)). Most courts that have con- sidered this issue have adopted a require- ment that a municipality’s written decision simply must provide a sufficient explanation for the court to be able to conduct a mean- ingful review of it. in a significant deviation from local practice in many municipalities, some courts have required that the written zoning decision be separate from the written record or transcript of the local zoning proceed- ing. This means that local decisions may be open to challenge by providers if they are not clearly separated from the hearing or proceeding at which evidence is taken. Until there is a clear resolution on the “separate record” issue, a practical approach is for a municipality not to make a formal deci- sion at the zoning meeting or city council meet- ing where the zoning hearing occurs or an ap- peal is heard. instead, following the hearing or the close of an appeal the municipality should direct counsel or staff to prepare a written order or decision along specified lines (for example, denying the application generally or approving 59 zoningpractice 8.11 AmericAN PlANNiNg AssociAtioN | page 4 it with conditions) for the municipal body to consider at its next meeting. Then, at the next meeting, the municipal body considers the proposed decision, modifies it as necessary, and adopts it. Meeting minutes should reflect this. Proceeding in this fashion ensures that the municipality’s decision complies with the written decision/separate record requirement. Perhaps more important, using the two-step approach helps ensure that a mu- nicipality’s decision is well documented and conforms with local, state, and federal law, thus providing the maximum assurance that it will be upheld on appeal. For example, in a recent California case, a municipality’s carefully reasoned decision resulting from the use of the two-step approach appears to have contributed significantly to a federal court’s decision to uphold the municipality’s denial of several cell tower zoning applica- tions predominantly on aesthetic grounds. timely actions and Fcc shot clocks The Act contains a requirement that cell tower zoning decisions occur in a timely fashion, specifically “within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed . . . taking into account the nature and scope of such request.” However, the FCC has effec- tively rejected this individualized time period approach by setting blanket time frames for action on all cell tower zoning requests through two orders that have come to be known as the “shot clock” orders. in late 2009 the first FCC order imposed a 90-day shot clock for colocations and 150 days for new cellular towers, and in August 2010 it followed this up with an order clarify- ing certain points (and rejecting requests for changes). Because the orders are declara- tory rulings, no “rule’” was issued. instead, municipalities and providers have to exam- ine the approximately 40 pages of text that comprise the two FCC orders to attempt to understand and interpret them. And the two orders are not always entirely consistent. The FCC decided that 90 days (not 150) was reasonable for colocations because they often are easier to process than new towers and may involve little or no new construc- tion. The FCC defined colocations in footnote 146 of its initial shot clock order. Because the definition is both highly detailed and adapted from an unrelated proceeding, it is unlikely to coincide exactly with the defini- tion of colocation in local ordinances. in general, under the shot clocks a zon- ing application for an additional antenna at a given location is not a colocation if it involves more than a 10 percent increase in height, more than four new equipment cabinets or one new equipment shelter, extends more than 20 feet from the tower, or if excavation is needed outside the current tower site. Under the shot clocks municipalities must act on a cell tower zoning application within the 90/150-day time frame. if they take longer, the burden is on them to justify to a court why it was reasonable to take longer. in recognition that zoning applications can be incomplete, the orders state that the time frames do not include the time for an applicant to respond to a request for additional information. However, this extension only applies if the municipality notifies the applicant within 30 days of filing that the application is incomplete, which cre- ates practical problems when the need for additional information only appears after the review is well under way. Due to the short time periods involved, municipalities should require a provider to state in its zoning application which shot clock (90- or 150-day) it contends applies to its request. And if the provider contends that it is the 90-day shot clock, it should be required to identify the specific criteria in the FCC shot clock order it meets. By doing this, municipali- ties will know which time frame the provider contends is applicable and will be able to de- cide if the claim is accurate. More importantly, municipalities will avoid the harmful situation where the municipality believes that it has 150 days to act while the provider contends that the 90-day shot clock applies. The FCC orders state that the shot clocks can be extended (“tolled”) by mutual agreement. As a practical matter, both par- ties may want to extend the applicable time periods to avoid a provider having to refile because a municipality believes it needs to deny a zoning application (without preju- dice) due to incompleteness, or to prevent a shot clock from expiring. in response to the shot clocks, some municipalities have adopted detailed ap- plication forms for cell tower zoning matters to better ensure that all requisite documents and other information are provided at the outset. in addition, some municipalities are conducting a more detailed check for the presence and completeness of all relevant attachments and signatures at the filing counter before a cell tower zoning applica- tion will be accepted. in seminars about the FCC shot clocks, the most frequently asked question is how the shot clocks apply when a municipality has a two-step zoning process—for example a planning commission makes an initial zoning decision and a disaffected party has the option of an internal (not court) appeal to a board of zoning appeals or city council. Municipalities frequently ask: Do the shot clocks apply just to the first step—the plan- ning commission decision—or do they apply to the entire process? The short answer is that the FCC has refused to address this question, although it was asked do so in its August 2010 order. With this in mind, municipalities should carefully calendar and compute the 90- and 150-day time periods from the out- set and then work backward to make sure that they act within the requisite time period after allowing for all notices, possible inter- nal appeals, preparation of written orders, and the like. Under the Act there are good legal grounds (not as yet ruled on by the courts or FCC) for contending that the shot clocks legally can only apply to a municipality’s initial zoning decision (the planning com- mission decision in the example above). if it is not possible to complete the second step (appeal to board of zoning appeals or equivalent) of the zoning process within the appropriate time frame, then municipalities should seek a mutually agreed-upon exten- sion from the provider. it may help to point out to the provider that under the Act it has only 30 days from the expiration of a shot clock to file suit for exceeding the clock. in some cases it may be possible to get the provider to agree to an extension (including where only the board of zoning appeals has the authority to grant a needed variance) because the municipality will otherwise contend that the shot clock was met when the planning commission is- sued its decision. And by the time the board of zoning appeals rules, which is more than 30 days later, the provider will have lost its right to go to federal court, unless it agrees to an extension. Additionally, the municipality should carefully keep track of any events that might cause the shot clocks to be exceeded. For ex- ample, if additional information is needed from the provider, the municipality should request it in writing with a very short time to respond, stating that this is due to the shot clocks and that any delay may cause a delay in the munici- pality’s decision. Careful records such as this can provide a solid basis for either a mutually agreed-upon extension or for justifying to a court the reasonableness of a municipality tak- ing more than 90 or 150 days to act. 60 zoningpractice 8.11 AmericAN PlANNiNg AssociAtioN | page 5 Finally, some courts have specifically allowed the “written decision” by a munici- pality explaining the reasons for denying a zoning request to occur after it acts on a zoning request by denying it. in the appro- priate circumstance, this may allow a mu- nicipality to comply with the shot clocks by issuing a denial within the appropriate time period and then issuing the separate written decision shortly thereafter. even though, as of mid-2011, the shot clock orders are currently in effect, there is serious doubt as to their validity. in part this is due to language at the start of the Act preventing any provision of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 from being used to “limit or affect” a municipality’s zoning authority other than as set forth in the Act. The Act also indicates that there should be individualized time periods for each application, and the committee report accompanying the Act states that in terms of timing it is not intended to give “preferential treatment” to cell tower zoning applications compared to other zoning matters. Finally, the committee report emphasizes that the time for action should be the “usual time period under the circumstances.” A court appeal of the shot clock orders on these (and other) grounds is currently pending and is likely to be decided in late 2011. Municipalities should periodically check as to the outcome of this appeal, City of Arlington v. FCC, no. 10-60039 (5th Cir.). substantial evidence The Act requires that there be “substantial evidence” supporting a municipality’s cell tower zoning decisions. The cases are all in agreement on this; specifically, the courts have formulated the standard that there must be “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance” of evidence in the written record supporting a municipality’s decision. The courts have emphasized that this stan- dard means they must uphold a municipal- ity’s decision if the facts meet the preceding low standard even if the court would have reached a different conclusion were it free to consider the matter afresh. in other words, the courts have stated that they cannot substitute their judgment for that of the municipality and try the zon- ing case anew. However, this deference only applies to factual support for substantive matters such as the impact of a cell tower on property values, the environment, or fragile environmental areas. it does not apply to claims for violations related to the radio fre- quency emissions or “prohibition of service” provisions of the Act. The federal court covering mid-Atlantic Coast states has emphasized that the views of residents or laymen should be consid- ered and may be given some weight by a municipality. it also emphasized that the “predictable barrage” of expert testimony from a cell phone provider does not neces- sarily trump or mandate approval of a cell tower zoning request over the objections of residents. other courts have also allowed citizen testimony to be used as evidence to support a denial of a cell tower zoning request. However, the issue of how much weight to give to the testimony of ordinary citizens tends to be case-specific and can vary greatly depending on factors such as effects from “cell tower radiation” will not be allowed (because federal law prohibits the municipality from considering them). Second, if a speaker attempts to raise such issues, he or she should promptly be stopped on the same grounds. Third, if at- tempts persist, it may be desirable to point out that allowing testimony against the tower based on rF health effects actually increases the likelihood that the cell tower will be approved. This is because the cases are clear in holding that if the court be- lieves the real reason for denial of a zoning application was on rF-emissions grounds, it will usually order that the zoning applica- tion be granted. At a minimum, allowing such testimony gives the cell tower ap- plicant clear grounds to appeal a denial to federal court. numerous cases under the Telecommunications Act hold that the allowable grounds for local zoning decisions on cellular towers include aesthetics, impact on property values, proximity to a historic district, safety, environmental impacts, and the impact of a commercial operation on a residential neighborhood. the number of statements and how detailed and persuasive they are in terms of their facts and reasoning. radio Frequency emissions preemption The Act (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)) pre- vents municipalities from denying or con- ditioning cell tower zoning based upon the “environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” (often pejoratively termed “ra- diation”) from cell towers, to the extent they comply with FCC emission rules (47 C.F.r. § 1.1307 et seq.). This provision is part of the more general federal preemption of states and municipalities from regulating matters relating to radio frequency (rF) emissions. What municipalities may do is enforce the FCC’s emission rules, including reviewing a tower’s planned compliance with the rules. Municipalities can face emotional requests that a cellular zoning applica- tion be denied due to rF-related health concerns. The best legal advice in these circumstances is three-fold: First, state at the start of a zoning hearing that com- ments or claims about the adverse health suBstantive Zoning rules Because the Act does not affect traditional local substantive zoning principles, it is gen- erally a local decision to choose between having fewer, taller towers with more colo- cations or more, shorter towers with less colocation. Similarly, numerous cases under the Act hold that the allowable grounds for local zoning decisions on cellular tow- ers include aesthetics, impact on property values, proximity to or view from a historic district or structure, safety (if the tower fell, property or persons could be hurt, especially on adjacent properties), environmental impacts (e.g., fragile areas, wetlands), and the impact of a commercial operation on a residential neighborhood. The courts have rejected tower company complaints that local zoning requirements can increase the cost of a tower, for example, by requiring that it be camouflaged, or reject- ing a single tower to be placed at the top of the scenic ridge in favor of shorter towers on either side that have a less prominent visual impact. Aesthetic objections tied to scenic vistas, proximity to historic districts, or views 61 zoningpractice 8.11 AmericAN PlANNiNg AssociAtioN | page 6 from national parks are particularly likely to be upheld by the courts. The Act prohibits “unreasonable dis- crimination” in cell tower zoning. The courts have interpreted this to mean that differ- ences in the treatment of cell towers are allowed as long as there is a valid, articu- lated basis for the difference. For example, just because a cell tower has been allowed in one residential area does not mean that they must be allowed other residential areas if there are legitimate reasons for the differ- ence (e.g., visibility, height, impact on the neighborhood or property values, etc.). caMouFlaging Well-camouflaged cell towers are nearly invisible. Cellular companies can object due to their increased cost, but camouflaged towers are a very effective way to allow a cell tower to be placed where it is needed with little or no impact on aesthetics, historical sites and views, or property values. in urban settings, cell phone anten- nas are routinely concealed in sculptures, signs, billboards, church steeples, water tanks, crosses, and parapets of buildings. Meanwhile, in rural and suburban areas, towers are effectively concealed as trees and are nearly indistinguishable from the real thing (apart from being taller than nearby trees). in the southwest, cell towers are effectively camouflaged as large cactuses (e.g., saguaro cactuses). Many pictures of camouflaged cell towers are available at http://CellularPCS.com/gallery. From a legal standpoint, there have been virtually no cases under the Act chal- lenging camouflaging requirements in local zoning decisions. However, municipalities are well advised to be highly specific in any camouflaging requirements they impose and to require compliance with photo simu- lations, as there are examples of unsuccess- ful camouflaging. gaps in service and alternate sites The Act bars municipalities from taking zon- ing actions that “prohibit or have the effect of” prohibiting personal wireless services. As a practical matter this provision usually refers to claims by providers of gaps in cov- erage and that there are no feasible alter- nate sites for the tower proposed to fill the gap. Several points should be noted. First, small gaps in coverage are expressly allowed by the FCC, and the courts have noted this. it is only “significant” gaps that typically trigger a “prohibition in service” requirement. Second, there are differences between the federal appellate courts on how they apply the “prohibition of service” provi- sion. Municipalities should consult their attorneys to make sure they are following the Act as interpreted by the federal courts in their area. Third, and perhaps most important, gap analysis deals with radio frequency propagation and computer models that try to predict both whether there is a gap and the height and location of the cell tower that will fill the gap. These maps are comparable to a weather map for the day after tomorrow—predictions based upon a range of factors—and for that reason are rarely completely accurate. The computer programs used to generate the map take the topography and buildings in the area and then apply a range of “typical” factors and assumptions selected by the wire- less applicant to generate a map showing how rF signals will likely propagate in the area in question. The resulting map costs relatively little to create, is sensitive to its inputs, and can be skewed in favor of the provider’s zoning request. Municipalities should require provid- ers to set forth all evidence supporting a gap/prohibition of service claim so that the municipality can consider it. This will pre- vent providers from withholding significant evidence until a court challenge, or, if they do, will allow the municipality to seek a re- mand so it can consider the new evidence. requiring the applicant to make actual rF measurements in the field is the only way to accurately determine the actual size and contours of a gap and the shortest tower at a specific location that will fill it. Typically, a small antenna is suspended from a crane at a given location and height; technicians then measure the signal strength in a variety of directions and distances. They repeat the pro- cess with the antenna at different heights to determine the shortest tower height that will (Left) Although taller than surrounding trees, towers camouflaged as evergreens can be a logical aesthetic compromise in rural new england. (Below) This 100-foot cross at epiphany Lutheran Church in Lake Worth, Florida, houses a cell tower. After the new camouflaged tower was completed, the church removed the smaller cross in the foreground.Wikimedia Commons/SayCheeeeeeseWikimedia Commons/it122462 vol. 28, no. 8 Zoning practice is a monthly publication of the american planning association. subscriptions are available for $90 (u.s.) and $115 (foreign). W. paul Farmer, f a i c p , chief executive officer; William r. klein, a i c p, director of research Zoning practice (issn 1548–0135) is produced at apa. Jim schwab, a i c p, and david Morley, a i c p , editors; Julie von Bergen, assistant editor; lisa Barton, design and production. Missing and damaged print issues: contact customer service, american planning association, 205 n. Michigan ave., suite 1200, chicago, il 60601 (312-431-9100 or customerservice@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable. copyright ©2011 by american planning association, 205 n. Michigan ave., suite 1200, chicago, il 60601–5927. the american planning association also has offices at 1030 15th st., nW, suite 750 West, Washington, dc 20005–1503; www.planning.org. all rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the american planning association. printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. “Truly Twisted Cell Tower” is a multi- carrier cell tower constructed in Albuquerque, new Mexico, by architect Dekker/Perich/Sabatini. Photograph © 2010 Kramer.Firm, inc. Used with permission; design concept by Lisa Barton. zoningpractice 8.11 AmericAN PlANNiNg AssociAtioN | page 7 fill the gap. often this test is combined with a “balloon test,” where a balloon approximat- ing the cubic footage of the antennas is sus- pended at different heights to determine the visual impact of the proposed tower. related technical analyses are needed when the claim is that existing antennas are overloaded and a tower must be added to increase the capacity of the system in the area. in these cases the courts typically re- quire a showing by the provider (or rebuttal by the municipality) to the effect that there are “no feasible alternate sites” for the cell tower in question. This analysis usually in- volves both technical and economic consid- erations. From an engineering perspective there rarely is only one site for an antenna that would fill a gap. However, while a given site may be technically feasible, the provider may reject it because the cost to build or rent is too high. Municipalities are not bound to approve the “least cost” site if a reasonable alternate site (or sites) with greater cost or rent is preferable. Also, some courts give consideration to minimizing the impact or intrusion by the cell tower. The bottom line is that in “significant gap” or “prohibition of service” cases a mu- nicipality usually needs technical assistance to knowledgeably review, comment on, and (where appropriate) challenge a provider on the issues of whether and to what extent there is a gap, its contours, the location and minimum height of a tower necessary to fill a gap, and the feasibility of alternate sites. in a number of states, municipalities can obtain this technical assistance at the provider’s expense through local ordinances requiring a deposit for experts and studies at the time of application. A qualified expert can evaluate a cellular zoning application and provide an analysis and recommendations (e.g., camouflaging suggestions) that will assist in deciding the zoning application. However, because there are cases where municipalities have lost in the courts due to assistance from unquali- fied experts, municipalities should obtain the names of cases where proposed experts have testified and review any opinions where a court has commented on their credentials. This will help ensure that the experts’ work for the municipality will be persuasive with the provider and stand up in court. distriButed antenna systeMs Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) are of- ten an attractive alternative to cell towers. essentially, they involve a series of micro- cells, each with a small antenna and box mounted on a utility pole. The boxes often are smaller than other boxes or transformers on utility poles and sometimes can be put underground. DAS is an attractive alternative for providing cell phone service, especially in residential areas, although multiple DAS antennas are required to serve the same geographic area typically served by one cell tower. Another advantage of DAS systems is that one set of DAS antennas can serve all cell phone companies licensed to serve a community. The downside is that DAS systems are sometimes more expensive to install than towers because of the need for multiple DAS sites to cover the same area as a tower, with the sites interconnected by fiber optic cables. The cellular industry has resisted some municipal attempts to encourage or force the use of DAS. in one case, the industry mounted a major challenge and was successful in overturning (on federal preemption grounds) a local ordinance that expressed a preference for DAS. The court found that a municipality could not impose such a blanket legislative requirement; how- ever, later decisions from the same court upheld a community’s right to consider DAS on a case-by-case basis. notice oF inquiry in April 2011 the FCC issued a notice of inquiry on “key challenges and best prac- tices in expanding the reach and reducing the cost of broadband deployment by im- proving government policies for access to rights of way and wireless facilities siting” (emphasis added). Such notices are nor- mally followed by rulemakings addressing issues revealed by the notice. Among many other things, the notice asks about challenges or problems that the wireless industry claims has occurred with local zoning and with leasing land from municipalities for cell towers. in the notice, the FCC basically claims that it has the legal authority to further restrict local zoning of cell towers. Likely areas for rulemaking flowing from this notice are (a) preventing municipalities from allowing cell towers in residential areas only by variance; (b) greatly restricting or eliminating zoning approvals for colocations; and (c) putting limits on what must be included in a cell tower zoning application and the fees that may be charged. conclusion in 1996 Congress for the first time created federal requirements for cell tower zoning. As interpreted by the courts, the Act creates some challenges for municipal compliance, in part because some of the procedural pro- visions are quite different from local zoning practice and in part because federal courts often order zoning applications approved when the Act is violated. By careful attention to the matters described in this article, and by paying at- tention to the specific interpretations of the Act by the courts in their area, municipalities can ensure that cell tower zoning decisions comply with federal, state, and local law as well as the public interest. 63 are your cell tower standards in compliance with federal law?8Zoning PracticeAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION205 N. Michigan Ave.Suite 1200Chicago, IL 60601–59271030 15th Street, NWSuite 750 WestWashington, DC 20005–1503zoning Practice August 2011 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION issue number 8 Practice telecommunications 864 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Verizon Wireless Supplemental Materials 705 Bridger Drive MT8 Bridger View Verizon Wireless is pleased to have the opportunity to present these supplemental materials to the City of Bozeman Planning Department and to the City Commission. We appreciate the questions and comments from City staff and from the public participation process. We are using these supplemental materials to give additional information on the proposed site. There has been talk in the press that this wireless site should not be rushed through zoning. Verizon Wireless has been working on the zoning package for this site for a year and with supplemental materials will have submitted to the City around 100 pages of materials. Verizon Wireless believes the City of Bozeman has an extensive list of submittal requirements and thorough planning process for wireless towers. Verizon Wireless has been prompted by the zoning code and the neighbors to collocate on an existing structure. In fact, Verizon Wireless collocates whenever feasible. The two nearest Verizon Wireless sites are collocations. One is on top of the building at 300 North Willson Avenue and the other is on an existing tower on the north side of I-90 at about the 10th Street alignment. Verizon Wireless has been clear that this site is intended to add additional wireless capacity on the northeast side of Bozeman and improve its coverage up Bridger Canyon. There is not an existing structure that fulfills both of those requirements. Both the existing water tank and existing AM tower have been mentioned as collocation possibilities. Both sites are blocked by the ridgeline behind Story Mill from having a direct of site up Bridger Canyon, one of the Verizon Wireless objectives. In addition the water tank is too close to the existing Verizon Wireless MT8 Bozeberg site to provide enough capacity relief. Please see the location of these sites and the ridgeline on the attached map. 73 RIDGE 74 Verizon Wireless 705 Bridger Drive The difference in coverage with and without the proposed site is illustrated on the following maps. Yellow is the strongest signal, followed by blue, then red. On the map named Bridgerview Coverage without the Site please note the lower signal strength in the area north of the freeway and all the way up Bridger Canyon. Using Bozeman’s wireless preference matrix, Verizon Wireless modeled the proposed location using a tower that is less than 50’. In order to get a tower of less than 50’ the center of the antennas would be approximately 45’. On the map named Bridgerview Coverage with the Site at 45’ you will see that the signal strength in Bridger Canyon along the road is improved, but much of urban area along the freeway is not improved. On the map named Bridgerview Coverage with the Site at 90’ you will see that the signal strength in all of Bridger Canyon, including the hiking trails on the mountain, is improved as well as the area along the freeway. This height allows the site to cover its objectives of adding capacity north of the freeway while also providing enhanced coverage and capacity up Bridger Canyon. 75 010203010203MACKENZIEBOZEBURGProprietary and ConfidentialGeoPlan v5.8.5Scale: 1:59146 >= -95 >= -85 >= -75Clr: RSSI (dBm)B1CDMA Ec Multiple Carrierscounty_boundarymon_msa_rsabtasecondary_highwaymajor_highwayCDMA Lbl: SectorSectors850 MHz CDM A Lbl: Cell NameCellsCenter Lon: 111-02-30.01 WCenter Lat: 45-41-35.45 NDatum: NAD83Default SquareSun Jul 31 10:47:16 2011User: moyerarSession: BIL_CLUSTER73111BRIDGERVIEW COVERAGE WITH OUT THE SITE.76 010203010203010101020202030303MACKENZIEBOZEBURGBRIDGER VIEWProprietary and ConfidentialGeoPlan v5.8.5Scale: 1:62397 >= -95 >= -85 >= -75Clr: RSSI (dBm)B1CDMA Ec Multiple Carrierscounty_boundarymon_msa_rsabtasecondary_highwaymajor_highwayCDMA Lbl: SectorSectors850 MHz CDM A 1900 MHz CDMA700 MHz CDMALbl: Cell NameCellsCenter Lon: 111-02-30.01 WCenter Lat: 45-41-35.45 NDatum: NAD83Default SquareSun Jul 31 10:53:47 2011User: moyerarSession: BIL_CLUSTER73111BRIDGERVIEW COVERAGE WITH THE SITE AT 45’.77 010203010203010101020202030303MACKENZIEBOZEBURGBRIDGER VIEWProprietary and ConfidentialGeoPlan v5.8.5Scale: 1:62397 >= -95 >= -85 >= -75Clr: RSSI (dBm)B1CDMA Ec Multiple Carrierscounty_boundarymon_msa_rsabtasecondary_highwaymajor_highwayCDMA Lbl: SectorSectors850 MHz CDM A 1900 MHz CDMA700 MHz CDMALbl: Cell NameCellsCenter Lon: 111-02-30.01 WCenter Lat: 45-41-35.45 NDatum: NAD83Default SquareSun Jul 31 10:50:57 2011User: moyerarSession: BIL_CLUSTER73111BRIDGERVIEW COVERAGE WITH THE SITE AT 90’.78 Verizon Wireless 705 Bridger Drive Residential usage of wireless phones is exploding. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) studies “wireless-only” homes on an ongoing basis. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201106.htm#tables In the second half of 2010, the CDC found that 3 in 10 homes have no landline service. In certain demographic groups the numbers are much higher. 53.5% of adults aged 25-29 live in households with no landlines. The percentage was 43.8% in the 30-34 age group. Age is not the only demographic area to focus on for wireless-only homes. Adults living in poverty (42.8%) and adults living near poverty (35.2%) were more likely than higher income adults (24.1%) to be living in households with only wireless telephones. Poor coverage and/or too little wireless capacity in an area can make it so nearly one third of the homes in an area may not reach 911 in an emergency. Droids, iPhones, and iPads have given dramatic rise in wireless data usage, especially in residential settings. Offloading this usage from adjacent cell sites is a tricky business. Verizon Wireless’ goal is to contain the Bozeberg site’s capacity south of the freeway and allow the proposed Bridger View site to serve north of the freeway and up the Canyon. The next two pages show the dominant site and sector by color with the proposed Bridger View site at 45’ and at 90’. As you will see, the proposed Bridger View site at 90’ gathers much more capacity in its southwest (red) sector than at 45’. 79 010203010203010101020202030303MACKENZIEBOZEBURGBRIDGER VIEWProprietary and ConfidentialGeoPlan v5.8.5Scale: 1:62397D-8265-SARF-03 BRIDGER VIEWD-8265-SARF-02 BRIDGER VIEWD-8265-SARF-01 BRIDGER VIEWD-0359-0000-03 MACKENZIED-0359-0000-02 MACKENZIED-0359-0000-01 MACKENZIED-0331-0000-03 BOZEBURGD-0331-0000-02 BOZEBURGD-0331-0000-01 BOZEBURGClr: SectorB1CDMA Ec Multiple Carrierscounty_boundarymon_msa_rsabtasecondary_highwaymajor_highwayCDMA Lbl: SectorSectors850 MHz CDM A 1900 MHz CDMA700 MHz CDMALbl: Cell NameCellsCenter Lon: 111-02-30.01 WCenter Lat: 45-41-35.45 NDatum: NAD83Default SquareSun Jul 31 10:57:49 2011BRIDGERVIEW SECTOR VIEW WITH THE SITE AT 45’.80 010203010203010101020202030303MACKENZIEBOZEBURGBRIDGER VIEWProprietary and ConfidentialGeoPlan v5.8.5Scale: 1:62397D-8265-SARF-03 BRIDGER VIEWD-8265-SARF-02 BRIDGER VIEWD-8265-SARF-01 BRIDGER VIEWD-0359-0000-03 MACKENZIED-0359-0000-02 MACKENZIED-0359-0000-01 MACKENZIED-0331-0000-03 BOZEBURGD-0331-0000-02 BOZEBURGD-0331-0000-01 BOZEBURGClr: SectorB1CDMA Ec Multiple Carrierscounty_boundarymon_msa_rsabtasecondary_highwaymajor_highwayCDMA Lbl: SectorSectors850 MHz CDM A 1900 MHz CDMA700 MHz CDMALbl: Cell NameCellsCenter Lon: 111-02-30.01 WCenter Lat: 45-41-35.45 NDatum: NAD83Default SquareSun Jul 31 11:03:25 2011BRIDGERVIEW SECTOR VIEW WITH THE SITE AT 90’.81 Verizon Wireless 705 Bridger Drive The neighbors have been quite clear that they do not like the look of the originally proposed 3 legged, self-support tower even though it is proposed in an industrial zone. As Verizon Wireless has shown above, the location of the tower was determined much by the surrounding topography and the Verizon Wireless customers on the system. Verizon Wireless has been able to re-examine the look of the tower. We are now proposing a faux pine tree with the top of the antennas at 75’. In order to keep the conical shape of a pine tree, the tallest point of the tower/tree must be above the antennas. In this case, the proposed tip of the faux tree is 84’. The slightly lower antennas in this updated proposal still allow Verizon Wireless to accomplish both goals of capacity and coverage with minimal disruption. There was also discussion that Verizon Wireless was trying to turn the site into a microwave hub. We have reduced the request to a single microwave dish in case the necessary fiber optic capacity is not available at this location at the time of construction. Finally, in following the spirit of the Bozeman zoning ordinance, Verizon Wireless is showing on its drawings room for a future wireless carrier in case there is interest in collocation. A photosimulation showing the proposed faux pine tree from the residential neighborhood is included. Another photosimulation showing the view of the proposed site from Bridger Canyon Drive is also in the package. Verizon Wireless has also attached an updated set of proposed site plans and elevations. Verizon Wireless will be staffing the City Commission meeting with zoning personnel and the RF engineer in charge of Montana for Verizon Wireless. We look forward to answering any other questions presented. 82 Af t e r Be fo r e M T 8 B r id g er Vie wView lo oki ng n o rt h . 83 Af t e r Be fo r e M T 8 B r id g er Vie wView lo oki ng so ut h . 84 RF EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE REPORT Verizon Wireless Site: MT8 Bridger View 705 Bridger Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 11/29/2010 Report Status: Verizon Wireless Is Under 5% Threshold Prepared By: Sitesafe, Inc. 200 North Glebe Road, Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22203 Voice 703-276-1100 Fax 703-276-1169 85 1 of 21 Engineering Statement in Re: Electromagnetic Energy Analysis Verizon Wireless Bozeman, MT 59715 My signature on the cover of this document indicates: That I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the jurisdiction indicated; and That I have extensive professional experience in the wireless communications engineering industry; and That I am an employee of Sitesafe, Inc. in Arlington, Virginia; and That I am thoroughly familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission ("the FCC” and “the FCC Rules") both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC's Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; and That the technical information serving as the basis for this report was supplied by Verizon Wireless (See attached Site Summary and Carrier documents), and that Verizon Wireless’ installations involve communications equipment, antennas and associated technical equipment at a location referred to as the “MT8 Bridger View” (“the site”); and That Verizon Wireless proposes to operate at the site with transmit antennas listed in the carrier summary and with a maximum effective radiated power as specified by Verizon Wireless and shown on the worksheet, and that worst-case 100% duty cycle have been assumed; and That in addition to the emitters specified in the worksheet, there are additional collocated point- to-point microwave facilities on this structure and, the antennas used are highly directional oriented at angles at or just below the horizontal and, that the energy present at ground level is typically so low as to be considered insignificant and have not been included in this analysis; and That this analysis has been performed with the assumption that the ground immediately surrounding the tower is primarily flat or falling; and That at this time, the FCC requires that certain licensees address specific levels of radio- frequency energy to which workers or members of the public might possibly be exposed (at §1.1307(b) of the FCC Rules); and That such consideration of possible exposure of humans to radio-frequency radiation must utilize the standards set by the FCC, which is the Federal Agency having jurisdiction over communications facilities; and That the FCC rules define two tiers of permissible exposure guidelines: 1) "uncontrolled environments," defined as situations in which persons may not be aware of (the “general public”), or may not be able to control their exposure to a transmission facility; and (2) “controlled environments,” which defines situations in which persons are aware of their potential for exposure (industry personnel); and That this statement specifically addresses the uncontrolled environment (which is more conservative than the controlled environment) and the limit set forth in the FCC rules for 86 2 of 21 licensees of Verizon Wireless’ operating frequency as shown on the attached antenna worksheet; and That when applying the uncontrolled environment standards, the predicted Maximum Power Density at two meters above ground level from the proposed Verizon Wireless operation is no more than 0.375% of the maximum in any accessible area on the ground and That it is understood per FCC Guidelines and OET65 Appendix A, that regardless of the existent radio-frequency environment, only those licenses whose contributions exceed five percent of the exposure limit pertinent to their operation(s) bear any responsibility for bringing any non- compliant area(s) into compliance; and That when applying the uncontrolled environment standards, the cumulative predicted energy density from the proposed operation is no more than 0.375% of the maximum in any accessible area up to two meters above the ground per OET-65; and That the calculations provided in this report are based on data provided by the client and antenna pattern data supplied by the antenna manufacturer, in accordance with FCC guidelines listed in OET-65. Horizontal and vertical antenna patterns are combined for modeling purposes to accurately reflect the energy two meters above ground level where on-axis energy refers to maximum energy two meters above the ground along the azimuth of the antenna and where area energy refers to the maximum energy anywhere two meters above the ground regardless of the antenna azimuth, accounting for cumulative energy from multiple antennas for the carrier and frequency range indicated; and That the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has policies in place which address worker safety in and around communications sites, thus individual companies will be responsible for their employees’ training regarding Radio Frequency Safety. In summary, it is stated here that the proposed operation at the site would not result in exposure of the Public to excessive levels of radio-frequency energy as defined in the FCC Rules and Regulations, specifically 47 CFR 1.1307 and that Verizon Wireless’ proposed operation is completely compliant. Finally, it is stated that access to the tower should be restricted to communication industry professionals, and approved contractor personnel trained in radio-frequency safety; and that the instant analysis addresses exposure levels at two meters above ground level and does not address exposure levels on the tower, or in the immediate proximity of the antennas. 87 3 of 21 Verizon Wireless MT8 Bridger View Site Summary Carrier Area Maximum Percentage MPE Verizon Wireless (Proposed) 0.375 % Composite Site MPE: 0.375 % 88 4 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Carrier Summary Frequency: 751 MHz Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 500.67 µW/cm^2 Maximum power density at ground level: 1.02806 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Permissible Exposure: 0.20534 % On Axis Area Antenna Make Model Height (feet) Orientation (degrees true) ERP (Watts) Max Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Max Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Antel BXA-70063-8CF-LTE 86 0 500 0.490802 0.09803 0.89389 0.17854 Antel BXA-70063-8CF-LTE 86 100 500 0.490177 0.097905 0.89389 0.17854 Antel BXA-70063-8CF-LTE 86 220 500 0.690482 0.137912 0.981117 0.195962 89 5 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Carrier Summary Frequency: 1965 MHz Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1000 µW/cm^2 Maximum power density at ground level: 0.50311 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Permissible Exposure: 0.05031 % On Axis Area Antenna Make Model Height (feet) Orientation (degrees true) ERP (Watts) Max Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Max Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Antel LPA-185063-8CF 86 0 120 0.081519 0.008152 0.133078 0.013308 Antel LPA-185063-8CF 86 0 120 0.081519 0.008152 0.133078 0.013308 Antel LPA-185063-8CF 86 100 120 0.081519 0.008152 0.133078 0.013308 Antel LPA-185063-8CF 86 100 120 0.081519 0.008152 0.133078 0.013308 Antel LPA-185063-8CF 86 220 120 0.134318 0.013432 0.141485 0.014148 Antel LPA-185063-8CF 86 220 120 0.134318 0.013432 0.141485 0.014148 90 6 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Carrier Summary Frequency: 880 MHz Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 586.67 µW/cm^2 Maximum power density at ground level: 0.70249 µW/cm^2 Highest percentage of Maximum Permissible Exposure: 0.11974 % On Axis Area Antenna Make Model Height (feet) Orientation (degrees true) ERP (Watts) Max Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Max Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Antel LPA-80063-8CF 86 0 120 0.097174 0.016564 0.100132 0.017068 Antel LPA-80063-8CF 86 0 120 0.097174 0.016564 0.100132 0.017068 Antel LPA-80063-8CF 86 100 120 0.097174 0.016564 0.100133 0.017068 Antel LPA-80063-8CF 86 100 120 0.097174 0.016564 0.100133 0.017068 Antel LPA-80063-8CF-5 86 220 120 0.350761 0.059789 0.350761 0.059789 Antel LPA-80063-8CF-5 86 220 120 0.350761 0.059789 0.350761 0.059789 91 7 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:BXA-70063-8CF-LTE Antenna Worksheet (0 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 500.67 ERP (Watts): 500 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 751 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.01 0.9977 13872.95 13872.93 0.000087 0.000017 5779503 1.0 -0.10 0.9772 1387.36 1387.15 0.008662 0.001730 57800 2.0 -0.40 0.9120 693.79 693.37 0.034637 0.006918 14454 3.0 -1.00 0.7943 462.64 462.01 0.077894 0.015558 6427 4.0 -2.10 0.6166 347.11 346.26 0.138380 0.027639 3618 5.0 -3.50 0.4467 277.81 276.75 0.216021 0.043147 2317 6.0 -5.50 0.2818 231.64 230.37 0.304063 0.060732 1646 7.0 -8.10 0.1549 198.68 197.20 0.387308 0.077358 1292 8.0 -12.10 0.0617 173.98 172.28 0.443529 0.088588 1128 9.0 -18.60 0.0138 154.78 152.87 0.440979 0.088078 1135 10.0 -34.70 0.0003 139.44 137.32 0.401195 0.080132 1247 12.0 -14.70 0.0339 116.46 113.91 0.212002 0.042344 2361 14.0 -11.60 0.0692 100.09 97.11 0.140391 0.028041 3566 16.0 -12.00 0.0631 87.84 84.44 0.181755 0.036303 2754 18.0 -15.30 0.0295 78.35 74.52 0.228109 0.045561 2194 20.0 -22.10 0.0062 70.79 66.52 0.278668 0.055659 1796 22.0 -23.60 0.0044 64.64 59.93 0.221120 0.044165 2264 24.0 -19.30 0.0117 59.53 54.38 0.091830 0.018342 5452 26.0 -18.90 0.0129 55.23 49.64 0.093384 0.018652 5361 28.0 -22.50 0.0056 51.57 45.54 0.106649 0.021301 4694 30.0 -29.80 0.0010 48.43 41.94 0.166968 0.033349 2998 32.0 -21.90 0.0065 45.69 38.75 0.294478 0.058817 1700 34.0 -17.20 0.0191 43.30 35.90 0.348484 0.069604 1436 36.0 -15.10 0.0309 41.19 33.33 0.382921 0.076482 1307 38.0 -14.80 0.0331 39.33 30.99 0.418328 0.083554 1196 40.0 -15.80 0.0263 37.67 28.86 0.453495 0.090578 1104 42.0 -18.00 0.0158 36.19 26.89 0.488722 0.097614 1024 44.0 -21.50 0.0071 34.86 25.07 0.490802 0.098030 1020 46.0 -26.70 0.0021 33.66 23.38 0.369825 0.073866 1353 48.0 -33.70 0.0004 32.58 21.80 0.213455 0.042634 2345 50.0 -35.50 0.0003 31.61 20.32 0.086648 0.017306 5778 52.0 -34.00 0.0004 30.73 18.92 0.024240 0.004842 20654 54.0 -34.00 0.0004 29.93 17.59 0.011113 0.002220 45051 56.0 -36.70 0.0002 29.21 16.33 0.011585 0.002314 43216 58.0 -42.70 0.0001 28.55 15.13 0.012035 0.002404 41601 60.0 -45.80 0.0000 27.96 13.98 0.014806 0.002957 33814 62.0 -36.80 0.0002 27.42 12.87 0.022565 0.004507 22187 64.0 -33.00 0.0005 26.94 11.81 0.028160 0.005625 17779 66.0 -31.20 0.0008 26.50 10.78 0.030133 0.006019 16615 68.0 -30.30 0.0009 26.11 9.78 0.030744 0.006141 16284 70.0 -30.10 0.0010 25.77 8.81 0.031361 0.006264 15964 72.0 -30.70 0.0009 25.46 7.87 0.031862 0.006364 15713 74.0 -31.50 0.0007 25.19 6.94 0.032244 0.006440 15527 76.0 -32.50 0.0006 24.95 6.04 0.030570 0.006106 16377 78.0 -33.50 0.0004 24.75 5.15 0.026433 0.005280 18940 80.0 -34.70 0.0003 24.59 4.27 0.022309 0.004456 22442 82.0 -36.80 0.0002 24.45 3.40 0.017573 0.003510 28490 84.0 -39.30 0.0001 24.35 2.54 0.014386 0.002873 34802 86.0 -42.30 0.0001 24.27 1.69 0.009873 0.001972 50712 88.0 -47.40 0.0000 24.23 0.85 0.006212 0.001241 80599 90.0 -58.10 0.0000 24.21 0.00 0.003281 0.000655 152608 92 8 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:BXA-70063-8CF-LTE Antenna Worksheet (100 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 500.67 ERP (Watts): 500 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 751 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.01 0.9977 13872.95 13872.93 0.000087 0.000017 5779504 1.0 -0.10 0.9772 1387.36 1387.15 0.008662 0.001730 57800 2.0 -0.40 0.9120 693.79 693.37 0.034637 0.006918 14454 3.0 -1.00 0.7943 462.64 462.01 0.077894 0.015558 6427 4.0 -2.10 0.6166 347.11 346.26 0.138380 0.027639 3618 5.0 -3.50 0.4467 277.81 276.75 0.216021 0.043147 2317 6.0 -5.50 0.2818 231.64 230.37 0.304063 0.060732 1646 7.0 -8.10 0.1549 198.68 197.20 0.387308 0.077358 1292 8.0 -12.10 0.0617 173.98 172.28 0.443529 0.088588 1128 9.0 -18.60 0.0138 154.78 152.87 0.441542 0.088191 1133 10.0 -34.70 0.0003 139.44 137.32 0.401195 0.080132 1247 12.0 -14.70 0.0339 116.46 113.91 0.212002 0.042344 2361 14.0 -11.60 0.0692 100.09 97.11 0.140391 0.028041 3566 16.0 -12.00 0.0631 87.84 84.44 0.181755 0.036303 2754 18.0 -15.30 0.0295 78.35 74.52 0.227819 0.045503 2197 20.0 -22.10 0.0062 70.79 66.52 0.278668 0.055659 1796 22.0 -23.60 0.0044 64.64 59.93 0.221120 0.044165 2264 24.0 -19.30 0.0117 59.53 54.38 0.091830 0.018342 5452 26.0 -18.90 0.0129 55.23 49.64 0.093384 0.018652 5361 28.0 -22.50 0.0056 51.57 45.54 0.106649 0.021301 4694 30.0 -29.80 0.0010 48.43 41.94 0.166968 0.033349 2998 32.0 -21.90 0.0065 45.69 38.75 0.294478 0.058817 1700 34.0 -17.20 0.0191 43.30 35.90 0.348484 0.069604 1436 36.0 -15.10 0.0309 41.19 33.33 0.382921 0.076482 1307 38.0 -14.80 0.0331 39.33 30.99 0.418328 0.083554 1196 40.0 -15.80 0.0263 37.67 28.86 0.453495 0.090578 1104 42.0 -18.00 0.0158 36.19 26.89 0.488722 0.097614 1024 44.0 -21.50 0.0071 34.86 25.07 0.490177 0.097905 1021 46.0 -26.70 0.0021 33.66 23.38 0.369354 0.073772 1355 48.0 -33.70 0.0004 32.58 21.80 0.213183 0.042580 2348 50.0 -35.50 0.0003 31.61 20.32 0.086537 0.017284 5785 52.0 -34.00 0.0004 30.73 18.92 0.024147 0.004823 20733 54.0 -34.00 0.0004 29.93 17.59 0.011113 0.002220 45051 56.0 -36.70 0.0002 29.21 16.33 0.011541 0.002305 43381 58.0 -42.70 0.0001 28.55 15.13 0.011989 0.002395 41760 60.0 -45.80 0.0000 27.96 13.98 0.014806 0.002957 33814 62.0 -36.80 0.0002 27.42 12.87 0.022479 0.004490 22272 64.0 -33.00 0.0005 26.94 11.81 0.028053 0.005603 17847 66.0 -31.20 0.0008 26.50 10.78 0.030133 0.006019 16615 68.0 -30.30 0.0009 26.11 9.78 0.030705 0.006133 16305 70.0 -30.10 0.0010 25.77 8.81 0.031361 0.006264 15964 72.0 -30.70 0.0009 25.46 7.87 0.031781 0.006348 15753 74.0 -31.50 0.0007 25.19 6.94 0.032244 0.006440 15527 76.0 -32.50 0.0006 24.95 6.04 0.030570 0.006106 16377 78.0 -33.50 0.0004 24.75 5.15 0.026433 0.005280 18940 80.0 -34.70 0.0003 24.59 4.27 0.022167 0.004428 22585 82.0 -36.80 0.0002 24.45 3.40 0.017573 0.003510 28490 84.0 -39.30 0.0001 24.35 2.54 0.014386 0.002873 34802 86.0 -42.30 0.0001 24.27 1.69 0.009910 0.001979 50518 88.0 -47.40 0.0000 24.23 0.85 0.006212 0.001241 80599 90.0 -58.10 0.0000 24.21 0.00 0.003278 0.000655 152744 93 9 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:BXA-70063-8CF-LTE Antenna Worksheet (220 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 500.67 ERP (Watts): 500 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 751 Downtilt (Degrees): 2.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.74 0.8433 13872.95 13872.93 0.000087 0.000017 5779504 1.0 -0.20 0.9550 1387.36 1387.15 0.008662 0.001730 57800 2.0 0.00 1.0000 693.79 693.37 0.034637 0.006918 14454 3.0 -0.10 0.9772 462.64 462.01 0.077894 0.015558 6427 4.0 -0.40 0.9120 347.11 346.26 0.138380 0.027639 3618 5.0 -1.00 0.7943 277.81 276.75 0.216021 0.043147 2317 6.0 -2.10 0.6166 231.64 230.37 0.310723 0.062062 1611 7.0 -3.50 0.4467 198.68 197.20 0.422370 0.084361 1185 8.0 -5.50 0.2818 173.98 172.28 0.539021 0.107661 928 9.0 -8.10 0.1549 154.78 152.87 0.638164 0.127463 784 10.0 -12.10 0.0617 139.44 137.32 0.690482 0.137912 725 12.0 -34.70 0.0003 116.46 113.91 0.575139 0.114875 870 14.0 -14.70 0.0339 100.09 97.11 0.287034 0.057330 1744 16.0 -11.60 0.0692 87.84 84.44 0.182249 0.036401 2747 18.0 -12.00 0.0631 78.35 74.52 0.228442 0.045628 2191 20.0 -15.30 0.0295 70.79 66.52 0.279079 0.055742 1793 22.0 -22.10 0.0062 64.64 59.93 0.334298 0.066771 1497 24.0 -23.60 0.0044 59.53 54.38 0.260678 0.052066 1920 26.0 -19.30 0.0117 55.23 49.64 0.106670 0.021306 4693 28.0 -18.90 0.0129 51.57 45.54 0.107104 0.021392 4674 30.0 -22.50 0.0056 48.43 41.94 0.120970 0.024162 4138 32.0 -29.80 0.0010 45.69 38.75 0.187548 0.037460 2669 34.0 -21.90 0.0065 43.30 35.90 0.327911 0.065495 1526 36.0 -17.20 0.0191 41.19 33.33 0.385032 0.076904 1300 38.0 -15.10 0.0309 39.33 30.99 0.420638 0.084016 1190 40.0 -14.80 0.0331 37.67 28.86 0.456003 0.091079 1097 42.0 -15.80 0.0263 36.19 26.89 0.491427 0.098155 1018 44.0 -18.00 0.0158 34.86 25.07 0.526724 0.105204 950 46.0 -21.50 0.0071 33.66 23.38 0.526298 0.105120 951 48.0 -26.70 0.0021 32.58 21.80 0.394707 0.078836 1268 50.0 -33.70 0.0004 31.61 20.32 0.226524 0.045244 2210 52.0 -35.50 0.0003 30.73 18.92 0.091688 0.018313 5460 54.0 -34.00 0.0004 29.93 17.59 0.025549 0.005103 19596 56.0 -34.00 0.0004 29.21 16.33 0.011625 0.002322 43066 58.0 -36.70 0.0002 28.55 15.13 0.012076 0.002412 41458 60.0 -42.70 0.0001 27.96 13.98 0.012550 0.002507 39892 62.0 -45.80 0.0000 27.42 12.87 0.015391 0.003074 32530 64.0 -36.80 0.0002 26.94 11.81 0.023293 0.004652 21494 66.0 -33.00 0.0005 26.50 10.78 0.028981 0.005789 17275 68.0 -31.20 0.0008 26.11 9.78 0.030921 0.006176 16191 70.0 -30.30 0.0009 25.77 8.81 0.031579 0.006307 15854 72.0 -30.10 0.0010 25.46 7.87 0.032083 0.006408 15605 74.0 -30.70 0.0009 25.19 6.94 0.032549 0.006501 15381 76.0 -31.50 0.0007 24.95 6.04 0.032812 0.006554 15258 78.0 -32.50 0.0006 24.75 5.15 0.031067 0.006205 16115 80.0 -33.50 0.0004 24.59 4.27 0.026658 0.005325 18780 82.0 -34.70 0.0003 24.45 3.40 0.022414 0.004477 22337 84.0 -36.80 0.0002 24.35 2.54 0.017634 0.003522 28391 86.0 -39.30 0.0001 24.27 1.69 0.014456 0.002887 34634 88.0 -42.30 0.0001 24.23 0.85 0.009909 0.001979 50527 90.0 -47.40 0.0000 24.21 0.00 0.006243 0.001247 80193 94 10 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-185063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (0 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1000 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 1965 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.03 0.9931 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000002 48098410 1.0 -0.30 0.9333 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000208 481032 2.0 -1.00 0.7943 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.000831 120294 3.0 -2.30 0.5888 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.001869 53491 4.0 -4.30 0.3715 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.003321 30110 5.0 -7.10 0.1950 277.81 276.75 0.051779 0.005178 19312 6.0 -10.60 0.0871 231.64 230.37 0.069792 0.006979 14328 7.0 -14.10 0.0389 198.68 197.20 0.081519 0.008152 12267 8.0 -14.50 0.0355 173.98 172.28 0.080215 0.008022 12466 9.0 -12.80 0.0525 154.78 152.87 0.065624 0.006562 15238 10.0 -11.60 0.0692 139.44 137.32 0.044081 0.004408 22685 12.0 -12.10 0.0617 116.46 113.91 0.024355 0.002435 41060 14.0 -14.30 0.0372 100.09 97.11 0.032885 0.003289 30408 16.0 -14.90 0.0324 87.84 84.44 0.042682 0.004268 23428 18.0 -14.30 0.0372 78.35 74.52 0.038651 0.003865 25872 20.0 -15.70 0.0269 70.79 66.52 0.035577 0.003558 28108 22.0 -20.60 0.0087 64.64 59.93 0.042612 0.004261 23467 24.0 -33.90 0.0004 59.53 54.38 0.044947 0.004495 22248 26.0 -29.30 0.0012 55.23 49.64 0.028334 0.002833 35293 28.0 -25.30 0.0030 51.57 45.54 0.008810 0.000881 113506 30.0 -24.50 0.0035 48.43 41.94 0.010604 0.001060 94300 32.0 -23.60 0.0044 45.69 38.75 0.011859 0.001186 84325 34.0 -23.40 0.0046 43.30 35.90 0.013147 0.001315 76064 36.0 -25.40 0.0029 41.19 33.33 0.014461 0.001446 69152 38.0 -28.40 0.0014 39.33 30.99 0.015774 0.001577 63395 40.0 -27.10 0.0019 37.67 28.86 0.016391 0.001639 61010 42.0 -23.70 0.0043 36.19 26.89 0.017637 0.001764 56699 44.0 -24.60 0.0035 34.86 25.07 0.018899 0.001890 52913 46.0 -28.30 0.0015 33.66 23.38 0.020123 0.002012 49693 48.0 -34.70 0.0003 32.58 21.80 0.035139 0.003514 28458 50.0 -26.00 0.0025 31.61 20.32 0.054880 0.005488 18221 52.0 -21.20 0.0076 30.73 18.92 0.062906 0.006291 15896 54.0 -19.40 0.0115 29.93 17.59 0.067294 0.006729 14860 56.0 -19.00 0.0126 29.21 16.33 0.070361 0.007036 14212 58.0 -19.70 0.0107 28.55 15.13 0.073214 0.007321 13658 60.0 -20.60 0.0087 27.96 13.98 0.075638 0.007564 13220 62.0 -22.80 0.0052 27.42 12.87 0.078287 0.007829 12773 64.0 -24.90 0.0032 26.94 11.81 0.060433 0.006043 16547 66.0 -28.00 0.0016 26.50 10.78 0.044702 0.004470 22370 68.0 -32.50 0.0006 26.11 9.78 0.030222 0.003022 33088 70.0 -32.10 0.0006 25.77 8.81 0.016775 0.001678 59611 72.0 -32.20 0.0006 25.46 7.87 0.009477 0.000948 105516 74.0 -31.40 0.0007 25.19 6.94 0.006662 0.000666 150113 76.0 -32.10 0.0006 24.95 6.04 0.012110 0.001211 82574 78.0 -30.80 0.0008 24.75 5.15 0.017311 0.001731 57765 80.0 -28.10 0.0015 24.59 4.27 0.018583 0.001858 53811 82.0 -26.50 0.0022 24.45 3.40 0.020260 0.002026 49359 84.0 -26.20 0.0024 24.35 2.54 0.023072 0.002307 43343 86.0 -25.80 0.0026 24.27 1.69 0.022917 0.002292 43636 88.0 -25.30 0.0030 24.23 0.85 0.023445 0.002345 42652 90.0 -25.60 0.0028 24.21 0.00 0.023384 0.002338 42763 95 11 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-185063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (0 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1000 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 1965 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.03 0.9931 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000002 48098410 1.0 -0.30 0.9333 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000208 481032 2.0 -1.00 0.7943 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.000831 120294 3.0 -2.30 0.5888 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.001869 53491 4.0 -4.30 0.3715 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.003321 30110 5.0 -7.10 0.1950 277.81 276.75 0.051779 0.005178 19312 6.0 -10.60 0.0871 231.64 230.37 0.069792 0.006979 14328 7.0 -14.10 0.0389 198.68 197.20 0.081519 0.008152 12267 8.0 -14.50 0.0355 173.98 172.28 0.080215 0.008022 12466 9.0 -12.80 0.0525 154.78 152.87 0.065624 0.006562 15238 10.0 -11.60 0.0692 139.44 137.32 0.044081 0.004408 22685 12.0 -12.10 0.0617 116.46 113.91 0.024355 0.002435 41060 14.0 -14.30 0.0372 100.09 97.11 0.032885 0.003289 30408 16.0 -14.90 0.0324 87.84 84.44 0.042682 0.004268 23428 18.0 -14.30 0.0372 78.35 74.52 0.038651 0.003865 25872 20.0 -15.70 0.0269 70.79 66.52 0.035577 0.003558 28108 22.0 -20.60 0.0087 64.64 59.93 0.042612 0.004261 23467 24.0 -33.90 0.0004 59.53 54.38 0.044947 0.004495 22248 26.0 -29.30 0.0012 55.23 49.64 0.028334 0.002833 35293 28.0 -25.30 0.0030 51.57 45.54 0.008810 0.000881 113506 30.0 -24.50 0.0035 48.43 41.94 0.010604 0.001060 94300 32.0 -23.60 0.0044 45.69 38.75 0.011859 0.001186 84325 34.0 -23.40 0.0046 43.30 35.90 0.013147 0.001315 76064 36.0 -25.40 0.0029 41.19 33.33 0.014461 0.001446 69152 38.0 -28.40 0.0014 39.33 30.99 0.015774 0.001577 63395 40.0 -27.10 0.0019 37.67 28.86 0.016391 0.001639 61010 42.0 -23.70 0.0043 36.19 26.89 0.017637 0.001764 56699 44.0 -24.60 0.0035 34.86 25.07 0.018899 0.001890 52913 46.0 -28.30 0.0015 33.66 23.38 0.020123 0.002012 49693 48.0 -34.70 0.0003 32.58 21.80 0.035139 0.003514 28458 50.0 -26.00 0.0025 31.61 20.32 0.054880 0.005488 18221 52.0 -21.20 0.0076 30.73 18.92 0.062906 0.006291 15896 54.0 -19.40 0.0115 29.93 17.59 0.067294 0.006729 14860 56.0 -19.00 0.0126 29.21 16.33 0.070361 0.007036 14212 58.0 -19.70 0.0107 28.55 15.13 0.073214 0.007321 13658 60.0 -20.60 0.0087 27.96 13.98 0.075638 0.007564 13220 62.0 -22.80 0.0052 27.42 12.87 0.078287 0.007829 12773 64.0 -24.90 0.0032 26.94 11.81 0.060433 0.006043 16547 66.0 -28.00 0.0016 26.50 10.78 0.044702 0.004470 22370 68.0 -32.50 0.0006 26.11 9.78 0.030222 0.003022 33088 70.0 -32.10 0.0006 25.77 8.81 0.016775 0.001678 59611 72.0 -32.20 0.0006 25.46 7.87 0.009477 0.000948 105516 74.0 -31.40 0.0007 25.19 6.94 0.006662 0.000666 150113 76.0 -32.10 0.0006 24.95 6.04 0.012110 0.001211 82574 78.0 -30.80 0.0008 24.75 5.15 0.017311 0.001731 57765 80.0 -28.10 0.0015 24.59 4.27 0.018583 0.001858 53811 82.0 -26.50 0.0022 24.45 3.40 0.020260 0.002026 49359 84.0 -26.20 0.0024 24.35 2.54 0.023072 0.002307 43343 86.0 -25.80 0.0026 24.27 1.69 0.022917 0.002292 43636 88.0 -25.30 0.0030 24.23 0.85 0.023445 0.002345 42652 90.0 -25.60 0.0028 24.21 0.00 0.023384 0.002338 42763 96 12 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-185063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (100 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1000 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 1965 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.03 0.9931 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000002 48098410 1.0 -0.30 0.9333 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000208 481032 2.0 -1.00 0.7943 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.000831 120294 3.0 -2.30 0.5888 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.001869 53491 4.0 -4.30 0.3715 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.003321 30110 5.0 -7.10 0.1950 277.81 276.75 0.051779 0.005178 19312 6.0 -10.60 0.0871 231.64 230.37 0.069792 0.006979 14328 7.0 -14.10 0.0389 198.68 197.20 0.081519 0.008152 12267 8.0 -14.50 0.0355 173.98 172.28 0.080215 0.008022 12466 9.0 -12.80 0.0525 154.78 152.87 0.065624 0.006562 15238 10.0 -11.60 0.0692 139.44 137.32 0.044081 0.004408 22685 12.0 -12.10 0.0617 116.46 113.91 0.024355 0.002435 41060 14.0 -14.30 0.0372 100.09 97.11 0.032843 0.003284 30447 16.0 -14.90 0.0324 87.84 84.44 0.042628 0.004263 23458 18.0 -14.30 0.0372 78.35 74.52 0.038504 0.003850 25971 20.0 -15.70 0.0269 70.79 66.52 0.035577 0.003558 28108 22.0 -20.60 0.0087 64.64 59.93 0.042450 0.004245 23557 24.0 -33.90 0.0004 59.53 54.38 0.044832 0.004483 22305 26.0 -29.30 0.0012 55.23 49.64 0.028334 0.002833 35293 28.0 -25.30 0.0030 51.57 45.54 0.008810 0.000881 113506 30.0 -24.50 0.0035 48.43 41.94 0.010591 0.001059 94420 32.0 -23.60 0.0044 45.69 38.75 0.011814 0.001181 84648 34.0 -23.40 0.0046 43.30 35.90 0.013113 0.001311 76258 36.0 -25.40 0.0029 41.19 33.33 0.014461 0.001446 69152 38.0 -28.40 0.0014 39.33 30.99 0.015714 0.001571 63638 40.0 -27.10 0.0019 37.67 28.86 0.016307 0.001631 61322 42.0 -23.70 0.0043 36.19 26.89 0.017637 0.001764 56699 44.0 -24.60 0.0035 34.86 25.07 0.018803 0.001880 53183 46.0 -28.30 0.0015 33.66 23.38 0.020072 0.002007 49820 48.0 -34.70 0.0003 32.58 21.80 0.035004 0.003500 28567 50.0 -26.00 0.0025 31.61 20.32 0.054601 0.005460 18314 52.0 -21.20 0.0076 30.73 18.92 0.062586 0.006259 15978 54.0 -19.40 0.0115 29.93 17.59 0.067294 0.006729 14860 56.0 -19.00 0.0126 29.21 16.33 0.070003 0.007000 14285 58.0 -19.70 0.0107 28.55 15.13 0.072657 0.007266 13763 60.0 -20.60 0.0087 27.96 13.98 0.075638 0.007564 13220 62.0 -22.80 0.0052 27.42 12.87 0.077493 0.007749 12904 64.0 -24.90 0.0032 26.94 11.81 0.060203 0.006020 16610 66.0 -28.00 0.0016 26.50 10.78 0.044702 0.004470 22370 68.0 -32.50 0.0006 26.11 9.78 0.030069 0.003007 33257 70.0 -32.10 0.0006 25.77 8.81 0.016775 0.001678 59611 72.0 -32.20 0.0006 25.46 7.87 0.009405 0.000941 106326 74.0 -31.40 0.0007 25.19 6.94 0.006662 0.000666 150113 76.0 -32.10 0.0006 24.95 6.04 0.012110 0.001211 82574 78.0 -30.80 0.0008 24.75 5.15 0.017311 0.001731 57765 80.0 -28.10 0.0015 24.59 4.27 0.018371 0.001837 54432 82.0 -26.50 0.0022 24.45 3.40 0.020260 0.002026 49359 84.0 -26.20 0.0024 24.35 2.54 0.023072 0.002307 43343 86.0 -25.80 0.0026 24.27 1.69 0.022858 0.002286 43747 88.0 -25.30 0.0030 24.23 0.85 0.023445 0.002345 42652 90.0 -25.60 0.0028 24.21 0.00 0.023384 0.002338 42763 97 13 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-185063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (100 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1000 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 1965 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.03 0.9931 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000002 48098410 1.0 -0.30 0.9333 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000208 481032 2.0 -1.00 0.7943 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.000831 120294 3.0 -2.30 0.5888 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.001869 53491 4.0 -4.30 0.3715 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.003321 30110 5.0 -7.10 0.1950 277.81 276.75 0.051779 0.005178 19312 6.0 -10.60 0.0871 231.64 230.37 0.069792 0.006979 14328 7.0 -14.10 0.0389 198.68 197.20 0.081519 0.008152 12267 8.0 -14.50 0.0355 173.98 172.28 0.080215 0.008022 12466 9.0 -12.80 0.0525 154.78 152.87 0.065624 0.006562 15238 10.0 -11.60 0.0692 139.44 137.32 0.044081 0.004408 22685 12.0 -12.10 0.0617 116.46 113.91 0.024355 0.002435 41060 14.0 -14.30 0.0372 100.09 97.11 0.032843 0.003284 30447 16.0 -14.90 0.0324 87.84 84.44 0.042628 0.004263 23458 18.0 -14.30 0.0372 78.35 74.52 0.038504 0.003850 25971 20.0 -15.70 0.0269 70.79 66.52 0.035577 0.003558 28108 22.0 -20.60 0.0087 64.64 59.93 0.042450 0.004245 23557 24.0 -33.90 0.0004 59.53 54.38 0.044832 0.004483 22305 26.0 -29.30 0.0012 55.23 49.64 0.028334 0.002833 35293 28.0 -25.30 0.0030 51.57 45.54 0.008810 0.000881 113506 30.0 -24.50 0.0035 48.43 41.94 0.010591 0.001059 94420 32.0 -23.60 0.0044 45.69 38.75 0.011814 0.001181 84648 34.0 -23.40 0.0046 43.30 35.90 0.013113 0.001311 76258 36.0 -25.40 0.0029 41.19 33.33 0.014461 0.001446 69152 38.0 -28.40 0.0014 39.33 30.99 0.015714 0.001571 63638 40.0 -27.10 0.0019 37.67 28.86 0.016307 0.001631 61322 42.0 -23.70 0.0043 36.19 26.89 0.017637 0.001764 56699 44.0 -24.60 0.0035 34.86 25.07 0.018803 0.001880 53183 46.0 -28.30 0.0015 33.66 23.38 0.020072 0.002007 49820 48.0 -34.70 0.0003 32.58 21.80 0.035004 0.003500 28567 50.0 -26.00 0.0025 31.61 20.32 0.054601 0.005460 18314 52.0 -21.20 0.0076 30.73 18.92 0.062586 0.006259 15978 54.0 -19.40 0.0115 29.93 17.59 0.067294 0.006729 14860 56.0 -19.00 0.0126 29.21 16.33 0.070003 0.007000 14285 58.0 -19.70 0.0107 28.55 15.13 0.072657 0.007266 13763 60.0 -20.60 0.0087 27.96 13.98 0.075638 0.007564 13220 62.0 -22.80 0.0052 27.42 12.87 0.077493 0.007749 12904 64.0 -24.90 0.0032 26.94 11.81 0.060203 0.006020 16610 66.0 -28.00 0.0016 26.50 10.78 0.044702 0.004470 22370 68.0 -32.50 0.0006 26.11 9.78 0.030069 0.003007 33257 70.0 -32.10 0.0006 25.77 8.81 0.016775 0.001678 59611 72.0 -32.20 0.0006 25.46 7.87 0.009405 0.000941 106326 74.0 -31.40 0.0007 25.19 6.94 0.006662 0.000666 150113 76.0 -32.10 0.0006 24.95 6.04 0.012110 0.001211 82574 78.0 -30.80 0.0008 24.75 5.15 0.017311 0.001731 57765 80.0 -28.10 0.0015 24.59 4.27 0.018371 0.001837 54432 82.0 -26.50 0.0022 24.45 3.40 0.020260 0.002026 49359 84.0 -26.20 0.0024 24.35 2.54 0.023072 0.002307 43343 86.0 -25.80 0.0026 24.27 1.69 0.022858 0.002286 43747 88.0 -25.30 0.0030 24.23 0.85 0.023445 0.002345 42652 90.0 -25.60 0.0028 24.21 0.00 0.023384 0.002338 42763 98 14 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-185063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (220 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1000 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 1965 Downtilt (Degrees): 2.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.45 0.9016 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000002 48098410 1.0 0.00 1.0000 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000208 481032 2.0 0.00 1.0000 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.000831 120294 3.0 -0.30 0.9333 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.001869 53491 4.0 -1.00 0.7943 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.003321 30110 5.0 -2.30 0.5888 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.005185 19288 6.0 -4.30 0.3715 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.007457 13409 7.0 -7.10 0.1950 198.68 197.20 0.101240 0.010124 9877 8.0 -10.60 0.0871 173.98 172.28 0.123721 0.012372 8082 9.0 -14.10 0.0389 154.78 152.87 0.134318 0.013432 7445 10.0 -14.50 0.0355 139.44 137.32 0.124878 0.012488 8007 12.0 -11.60 0.0692 116.46 113.91 0.063193 0.006319 15824 14.0 -12.10 0.0617 100.09 97.11 0.032932 0.003293 30365 16.0 -14.30 0.0372 87.84 84.44 0.042635 0.004264 23454 18.0 -14.90 0.0324 78.35 74.52 0.053578 0.005358 18664 20.0 -14.30 0.0372 70.79 66.52 0.047167 0.004717 21201 22.0 -15.70 0.0269 64.64 59.93 0.042679 0.004268 23430 24.0 -20.60 0.0087 59.53 54.38 0.050044 0.005004 19982 26.0 -33.90 0.0004 55.23 49.64 0.052210 0.005221 19153 28.0 -29.30 0.0012 51.57 45.54 0.032497 0.003250 30772 30.0 -25.30 0.0030 48.43 41.94 0.009993 0.000999 100068 32.0 -24.50 0.0035 45.69 38.75 0.011911 0.001191 83952 34.0 -23.60 0.0044 43.30 35.90 0.013155 0.001315 76017 36.0 -23.40 0.0046 41.19 33.33 0.014488 0.001449 69020 38.0 -25.40 0.0029 39.33 30.99 0.015825 0.001582 63192 40.0 -28.40 0.0014 37.67 28.86 0.017195 0.001719 58157 42.0 -27.10 0.0019 36.19 26.89 0.017671 0.001767 56588 44.0 -23.70 0.0043 34.86 25.07 0.018936 0.001894 52809 46.0 -24.60 0.0035 33.66 23.38 0.020266 0.002027 49344 48.0 -28.30 0.0015 32.58 21.80 0.021477 0.002148 46560 50.0 -34.70 0.0003 31.61 20.32 0.037195 0.003719 26885 52.0 -26.00 0.0025 30.73 18.92 0.058072 0.005807 17219 54.0 -21.20 0.0076 29.93 17.59 0.066304 0.006630 15082 56.0 -19.40 0.0115 29.21 16.33 0.070307 0.007031 14223 58.0 -19.00 0.0126 28.55 15.13 0.073251 0.007325 13651 60.0 -19.70 0.0107 27.96 13.98 0.076351 0.007635 13097 62.0 -20.60 0.0087 27.42 12.87 0.078622 0.007862 12719 64.0 -22.80 0.0052 26.94 11.81 0.080299 0.008030 12453 66.0 -24.90 0.0032 26.50 10.78 0.062195 0.006220 16078 68.0 -28.00 0.0016 26.11 9.78 0.045812 0.004581 21828 70.0 -32.50 0.0006 25.77 8.81 0.031043 0.003104 32213 72.0 -32.10 0.0006 25.46 7.87 0.017053 0.001705 58641 74.0 -32.20 0.0006 25.19 6.94 0.009682 0.000968 103287 76.0 -31.40 0.0007 24.95 6.04 0.006736 0.000674 148461 78.0 -32.10 0.0006 24.75 5.15 0.012307 0.001231 81254 80.0 -30.80 0.0008 24.59 4.27 0.017437 0.001744 57350 82.0 -28.10 0.0015 24.45 3.40 0.018576 0.001858 53833 84.0 -26.50 0.0022 24.35 2.54 0.020253 0.002025 49376 86.0 -26.20 0.0024 24.27 1.69 0.023036 0.002304 43410 88.0 -25.80 0.0026 24.23 0.85 0.023001 0.002300 43477 90.0 -25.30 0.0030 24.21 0.00 0.023265 0.002327 42982 99 15 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-185063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (220 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 1000 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 1965 Downtilt (Degrees): 2.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -0.45 0.9016 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000002 48098410 1.0 0.00 1.0000 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000208 481032 2.0 0.00 1.0000 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.000831 120294 3.0 -0.30 0.9333 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.001869 53491 4.0 -1.00 0.7943 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.003321 30110 5.0 -2.30 0.5888 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.005185 19288 6.0 -4.30 0.3715 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.007457 13409 7.0 -7.10 0.1950 198.68 197.20 0.101240 0.010124 9877 8.0 -10.60 0.0871 173.98 172.28 0.123721 0.012372 8082 9.0 -14.10 0.0389 154.78 152.87 0.134318 0.013432 7445 10.0 -14.50 0.0355 139.44 137.32 0.124878 0.012488 8007 12.0 -11.60 0.0692 116.46 113.91 0.063193 0.006319 15824 14.0 -12.10 0.0617 100.09 97.11 0.032932 0.003293 30365 16.0 -14.30 0.0372 87.84 84.44 0.042635 0.004264 23454 18.0 -14.90 0.0324 78.35 74.52 0.053578 0.005358 18664 20.0 -14.30 0.0372 70.79 66.52 0.047167 0.004717 21201 22.0 -15.70 0.0269 64.64 59.93 0.042679 0.004268 23430 24.0 -20.60 0.0087 59.53 54.38 0.050044 0.005004 19982 26.0 -33.90 0.0004 55.23 49.64 0.052210 0.005221 19153 28.0 -29.30 0.0012 51.57 45.54 0.032497 0.003250 30772 30.0 -25.30 0.0030 48.43 41.94 0.009993 0.000999 100068 32.0 -24.50 0.0035 45.69 38.75 0.011911 0.001191 83952 34.0 -23.60 0.0044 43.30 35.90 0.013155 0.001315 76017 36.0 -23.40 0.0046 41.19 33.33 0.014488 0.001449 69020 38.0 -25.40 0.0029 39.33 30.99 0.015825 0.001582 63192 40.0 -28.40 0.0014 37.67 28.86 0.017195 0.001719 58157 42.0 -27.10 0.0019 36.19 26.89 0.017671 0.001767 56588 44.0 -23.70 0.0043 34.86 25.07 0.018936 0.001894 52809 46.0 -24.60 0.0035 33.66 23.38 0.020266 0.002027 49344 48.0 -28.30 0.0015 32.58 21.80 0.021477 0.002148 46560 50.0 -34.70 0.0003 31.61 20.32 0.037195 0.003719 26885 52.0 -26.00 0.0025 30.73 18.92 0.058072 0.005807 17219 54.0 -21.20 0.0076 29.93 17.59 0.066304 0.006630 15082 56.0 -19.40 0.0115 29.21 16.33 0.070307 0.007031 14223 58.0 -19.00 0.0126 28.55 15.13 0.073251 0.007325 13651 60.0 -19.70 0.0107 27.96 13.98 0.076351 0.007635 13097 62.0 -20.60 0.0087 27.42 12.87 0.078622 0.007862 12719 64.0 -22.80 0.0052 26.94 11.81 0.080299 0.008030 12453 66.0 -24.90 0.0032 26.50 10.78 0.062195 0.006220 16078 68.0 -28.00 0.0016 26.11 9.78 0.045812 0.004581 21828 70.0 -32.50 0.0006 25.77 8.81 0.031043 0.003104 32213 72.0 -32.10 0.0006 25.46 7.87 0.017053 0.001705 58641 74.0 -32.20 0.0006 25.19 6.94 0.009682 0.000968 103287 76.0 -31.40 0.0007 24.95 6.04 0.006736 0.000674 148461 78.0 -32.10 0.0006 24.75 5.15 0.012307 0.001231 81254 80.0 -30.80 0.0008 24.59 4.27 0.017437 0.001744 57350 82.0 -28.10 0.0015 24.45 3.40 0.018576 0.001858 53833 84.0 -26.50 0.0022 24.35 2.54 0.020253 0.002025 49376 86.0 -26.20 0.0024 24.27 1.69 0.023036 0.002304 43410 88.0 -25.80 0.0026 24.23 0.85 0.023001 0.002300 43477 90.0 -25.30 0.0030 24.21 0.00 0.023265 0.002327 42982 100 16 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-80063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (0 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 586.67 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 880 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 0.00 1.0000 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000004 28217732 1.0 0.00 1.0000 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000354 282205 2.0 -0.40 0.9120 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.001417 70572 3.0 -1.50 0.7079 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.003187 31381 4.0 -2.50 0.5623 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.005661 17664 5.0 -3.80 0.4169 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.008837 11315 6.0 -5.40 0.2884 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.012711 7866 7.0 -7.30 0.1862 198.68 197.20 0.092954 0.015844 6311 8.0 -9.40 0.1148 173.98 172.28 0.095519 0.016282 6141 9.0 -11.20 0.0759 154.78 152.87 0.097174 0.016564 6037 10.0 -13.20 0.0479 139.44 137.32 0.090229 0.015380 6501 12.0 -14.40 0.0363 116.46 113.91 0.060590 0.010328 9682 14.0 -16.50 0.0224 100.09 97.11 0.035189 0.005998 16672 16.0 -21.10 0.0078 87.84 84.44 0.027117 0.004622 21634 18.0 -43.30 0.0000 78.35 74.52 0.023011 0.003922 25495 20.0 -26.30 0.0023 70.79 66.52 0.014690 0.002504 39935 22.0 -24.10 0.0039 64.64 59.93 0.005108 0.000871 114844 24.0 -28.10 0.0015 59.53 54.38 0.005996 0.001022 97837 26.0 -29.90 0.0010 55.23 49.64 0.006944 0.001184 84484 28.0 -25.70 0.0027 51.57 45.54 0.007593 0.001294 77262 30.0 -24.30 0.0037 48.43 41.94 0.008575 0.001462 68416 32.0 -26.30 0.0023 45.69 38.75 0.009589 0.001635 61179 34.0 -32.70 0.0005 43.30 35.90 0.010631 0.001812 55186 36.0 -32.50 0.0006 41.19 33.33 0.010266 0.001750 57146 38.0 -27.20 0.0019 39.33 30.99 0.010267 0.001750 57139 40.0 -25.30 0.0030 37.67 28.86 0.011127 0.001897 52723 42.0 -26.30 0.0023 36.19 26.89 0.011973 0.002041 49000 44.0 -29.70 0.0011 34.86 25.07 0.012812 0.002184 45788 46.0 -38.80 0.0001 33.66 23.38 0.013079 0.002229 44855 48.0 -41.40 0.0001 32.58 21.80 0.008990 0.001532 65256 50.0 -32.10 0.0006 31.61 20.32 0.006557 0.001118 89468 52.0 -29.60 0.0011 30.73 18.92 0.006880 0.001173 85269 54.0 -29.20 0.0012 29.93 17.59 0.007209 0.001229 81378 56.0 -29.50 0.0011 29.21 16.33 0.007507 0.001280 78153 58.0 -30.70 0.0009 28.55 15.13 0.007789 0.001328 75321 60.0 -33.10 0.0005 27.96 13.98 0.007566 0.001290 77543 62.0 -36.10 0.0002 27.42 12.87 0.006996 0.001192 83860 64.0 -40.00 0.0001 26.94 11.81 0.004769 0.000813 123009 66.0 -42.10 0.0001 26.50 10.78 0.003221 0.000549 182144 68.0 -43.70 0.0000 26.11 9.78 0.001038 0.000177 564934 70.0 -41.70 0.0001 25.77 8.81 0.000816 0.000139 719027 72.0 -41.10 0.0001 25.46 7.87 0.001102 0.000188 532251 74.0 -40.40 0.0001 25.19 6.94 0.001882 0.000321 311790 76.0 -39.00 0.0001 24.95 6.04 0.002575 0.000439 227860 78.0 -36.60 0.0002 24.75 5.15 0.002763 0.000471 212312 80.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.59 4.27 0.002768 0.000472 211954 82.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.45 3.40 0.002787 0.000475 210498 84.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.35 2.54 0.002792 0.000476 210094 86.0 -36.40 0.0002 24.27 1.69 0.002788 0.000475 210462 88.0 -38.10 0.0002 24.23 0.85 0.002654 0.000452 221008 90.0 -39.80 0.0001 24.21 0.00 0.002421 0.000413 242356 101 17 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-80063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (0 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 586.67 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 880 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 0.00 1.0000 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000004 28217732 1.0 0.00 1.0000 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000354 282205 2.0 -0.40 0.9120 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.001417 70572 3.0 -1.50 0.7079 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.003187 31381 4.0 -2.50 0.5623 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.005661 17664 5.0 -3.80 0.4169 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.008837 11315 6.0 -5.40 0.2884 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.012711 7866 7.0 -7.30 0.1862 198.68 197.20 0.092954 0.015844 6311 8.0 -9.40 0.1148 173.98 172.28 0.095519 0.016282 6141 9.0 -11.20 0.0759 154.78 152.87 0.097174 0.016564 6037 10.0 -13.20 0.0479 139.44 137.32 0.090229 0.015380 6501 12.0 -14.40 0.0363 116.46 113.91 0.060590 0.010328 9682 14.0 -16.50 0.0224 100.09 97.11 0.035189 0.005998 16672 16.0 -21.10 0.0078 87.84 84.44 0.027117 0.004622 21634 18.0 -43.30 0.0000 78.35 74.52 0.023011 0.003922 25495 20.0 -26.30 0.0023 70.79 66.52 0.014690 0.002504 39935 22.0 -24.10 0.0039 64.64 59.93 0.005108 0.000871 114844 24.0 -28.10 0.0015 59.53 54.38 0.005996 0.001022 97837 26.0 -29.90 0.0010 55.23 49.64 0.006944 0.001184 84484 28.0 -25.70 0.0027 51.57 45.54 0.007593 0.001294 77262 30.0 -24.30 0.0037 48.43 41.94 0.008575 0.001462 68416 32.0 -26.30 0.0023 45.69 38.75 0.009589 0.001635 61179 34.0 -32.70 0.0005 43.30 35.90 0.010631 0.001812 55186 36.0 -32.50 0.0006 41.19 33.33 0.010266 0.001750 57146 38.0 -27.20 0.0019 39.33 30.99 0.010267 0.001750 57139 40.0 -25.30 0.0030 37.67 28.86 0.011127 0.001897 52723 42.0 -26.30 0.0023 36.19 26.89 0.011973 0.002041 49000 44.0 -29.70 0.0011 34.86 25.07 0.012812 0.002184 45788 46.0 -38.80 0.0001 33.66 23.38 0.013079 0.002229 44855 48.0 -41.40 0.0001 32.58 21.80 0.008990 0.001532 65256 50.0 -32.10 0.0006 31.61 20.32 0.006557 0.001118 89468 52.0 -29.60 0.0011 30.73 18.92 0.006880 0.001173 85269 54.0 -29.20 0.0012 29.93 17.59 0.007209 0.001229 81378 56.0 -29.50 0.0011 29.21 16.33 0.007507 0.001280 78153 58.0 -30.70 0.0009 28.55 15.13 0.007789 0.001328 75321 60.0 -33.10 0.0005 27.96 13.98 0.007566 0.001290 77543 62.0 -36.10 0.0002 27.42 12.87 0.006996 0.001192 83860 64.0 -40.00 0.0001 26.94 11.81 0.004769 0.000813 123009 66.0 -42.10 0.0001 26.50 10.78 0.003221 0.000549 182144 68.0 -43.70 0.0000 26.11 9.78 0.001038 0.000177 564934 70.0 -41.70 0.0001 25.77 8.81 0.000816 0.000139 719027 72.0 -41.10 0.0001 25.46 7.87 0.001102 0.000188 532251 74.0 -40.40 0.0001 25.19 6.94 0.001882 0.000321 311790 76.0 -39.00 0.0001 24.95 6.04 0.002575 0.000439 227860 78.0 -36.60 0.0002 24.75 5.15 0.002763 0.000471 212312 80.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.59 4.27 0.002768 0.000472 211954 82.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.45 3.40 0.002787 0.000475 210498 84.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.35 2.54 0.002792 0.000476 210094 86.0 -36.40 0.0002 24.27 1.69 0.002788 0.000475 210462 88.0 -38.10 0.0002 24.23 0.85 0.002654 0.000452 221008 90.0 -39.80 0.0001 24.21 0.00 0.002421 0.000413 242356 102 18 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-80063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (100 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 586.67 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 880 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 0.00 1.0000 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000004 28217732 1.0 0.00 1.0000 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000354 282205 2.0 -0.40 0.9120 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.001417 70572 3.0 -1.50 0.7079 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.003187 31381 4.0 -2.50 0.5623 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.005661 17664 5.0 -3.80 0.4169 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.008837 11315 6.0 -5.40 0.2884 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.012711 7866 7.0 -7.30 0.1862 198.68 197.20 0.092954 0.015844 6311 8.0 -9.40 0.1148 173.98 172.28 0.095519 0.016282 6141 9.0 -11.20 0.0759 154.78 152.87 0.097174 0.016564 6037 10.0 -13.20 0.0479 139.44 137.32 0.090229 0.015380 6501 12.0 -14.40 0.0363 116.46 113.91 0.060590 0.010328 9682 14.0 -16.50 0.0224 100.09 97.11 0.035189 0.005998 16672 16.0 -21.10 0.0078 87.84 84.44 0.027083 0.004616 21661 18.0 -43.30 0.0000 78.35 74.52 0.023011 0.003922 25495 20.0 -26.30 0.0023 70.79 66.52 0.014690 0.002504 39935 22.0 -24.10 0.0039 64.64 59.93 0.005102 0.000870 114990 24.0 -28.10 0.0015 59.53 54.38 0.005996 0.001022 97837 26.0 -29.90 0.0010 55.23 49.64 0.006944 0.001184 84484 28.0 -25.70 0.0027 51.57 45.54 0.007593 0.001294 77262 30.0 -24.30 0.0037 48.43 41.94 0.008575 0.001462 68416 32.0 -26.30 0.0023 45.69 38.75 0.009589 0.001635 61179 34.0 -32.70 0.0005 43.30 35.90 0.010631 0.001812 55186 36.0 -32.50 0.0006 41.19 33.33 0.010266 0.001750 57146 38.0 -27.20 0.0019 39.33 30.99 0.010280 0.001752 57066 40.0 -25.30 0.0030 37.67 28.86 0.011141 0.001899 52656 42.0 -26.30 0.0023 36.19 26.89 0.011973 0.002041 49000 44.0 -29.70 0.0011 34.86 25.07 0.012845 0.002190 45672 46.0 -38.80 0.0001 33.66 23.38 0.013096 0.002232 44798 48.0 -41.40 0.0001 32.58 21.80 0.009002 0.001534 65173 50.0 -32.10 0.0006 31.61 20.32 0.006566 0.001119 89354 52.0 -29.60 0.0011 30.73 18.92 0.006880 0.001173 85269 54.0 -29.20 0.0012 29.93 17.59 0.007209 0.001229 81378 56.0 -29.50 0.0011 29.21 16.33 0.007516 0.001281 78053 58.0 -30.70 0.0009 28.55 15.13 0.007809 0.001331 75129 60.0 -33.10 0.0005 27.96 13.98 0.007566 0.001290 77543 62.0 -36.10 0.0002 27.42 12.87 0.007005 0.001194 83753 64.0 -40.00 0.0001 26.94 11.81 0.004769 0.000813 123009 66.0 -42.10 0.0001 26.50 10.78 0.003221 0.000549 182144 68.0 -43.70 0.0000 26.11 9.78 0.001044 0.000178 562062 70.0 -41.70 0.0001 25.77 8.81 0.000816 0.000139 719027 72.0 -41.10 0.0001 25.46 7.87 0.001105 0.000188 530896 74.0 -40.40 0.0001 25.19 6.94 0.001882 0.000321 311790 76.0 -39.00 0.0001 24.95 6.04 0.002575 0.000439 227860 78.0 -36.60 0.0002 24.75 5.15 0.002763 0.000471 212312 80.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.59 4.27 0.002782 0.000474 210876 82.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.45 3.40 0.002787 0.000475 210498 84.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.35 2.54 0.002792 0.000476 210094 86.0 -36.40 0.0002 24.27 1.69 0.002777 0.000473 211268 88.0 -38.10 0.0002 24.23 0.85 0.002654 0.000452 221008 90.0 -39.80 0.0001 24.21 0.00 0.002421 0.000413 242356 103 19 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-80063-8CF Antenna Worksheet (100 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 586.67 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 880 Downtilt (Degrees): 0.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 0.00 1.0000 13872.95 13872.93 0.000021 0.000004 28217732 1.0 0.00 1.0000 1387.36 1387.15 0.002079 0.000354 282205 2.0 -0.40 0.9120 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.001417 70572 3.0 -1.50 0.7079 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.003187 31381 4.0 -2.50 0.5623 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.005661 17664 5.0 -3.80 0.4169 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.008837 11315 6.0 -5.40 0.2884 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.012711 7866 7.0 -7.30 0.1862 198.68 197.20 0.092954 0.015844 6311 8.0 -9.40 0.1148 173.98 172.28 0.095519 0.016282 6141 9.0 -11.20 0.0759 154.78 152.87 0.097174 0.016564 6037 10.0 -13.20 0.0479 139.44 137.32 0.090229 0.015380 6501 12.0 -14.40 0.0363 116.46 113.91 0.060590 0.010328 9682 14.0 -16.50 0.0224 100.09 97.11 0.035189 0.005998 16672 16.0 -21.10 0.0078 87.84 84.44 0.027083 0.004616 21661 18.0 -43.30 0.0000 78.35 74.52 0.023011 0.003922 25495 20.0 -26.30 0.0023 70.79 66.52 0.014690 0.002504 39935 22.0 -24.10 0.0039 64.64 59.93 0.005102 0.000870 114990 24.0 -28.10 0.0015 59.53 54.38 0.005996 0.001022 97837 26.0 -29.90 0.0010 55.23 49.64 0.006944 0.001184 84484 28.0 -25.70 0.0027 51.57 45.54 0.007593 0.001294 77262 30.0 -24.30 0.0037 48.43 41.94 0.008575 0.001462 68416 32.0 -26.30 0.0023 45.69 38.75 0.009589 0.001635 61179 34.0 -32.70 0.0005 43.30 35.90 0.010631 0.001812 55186 36.0 -32.50 0.0006 41.19 33.33 0.010266 0.001750 57146 38.0 -27.20 0.0019 39.33 30.99 0.010280 0.001752 57066 40.0 -25.30 0.0030 37.67 28.86 0.011141 0.001899 52656 42.0 -26.30 0.0023 36.19 26.89 0.011973 0.002041 49000 44.0 -29.70 0.0011 34.86 25.07 0.012845 0.002190 45672 46.0 -38.80 0.0001 33.66 23.38 0.013096 0.002232 44798 48.0 -41.40 0.0001 32.58 21.80 0.009002 0.001534 65173 50.0 -32.10 0.0006 31.61 20.32 0.006566 0.001119 89354 52.0 -29.60 0.0011 30.73 18.92 0.006880 0.001173 85269 54.0 -29.20 0.0012 29.93 17.59 0.007209 0.001229 81378 56.0 -29.50 0.0011 29.21 16.33 0.007516 0.001281 78053 58.0 -30.70 0.0009 28.55 15.13 0.007809 0.001331 75129 60.0 -33.10 0.0005 27.96 13.98 0.007566 0.001290 77543 62.0 -36.10 0.0002 27.42 12.87 0.007005 0.001194 83753 64.0 -40.00 0.0001 26.94 11.81 0.004769 0.000813 123009 66.0 -42.10 0.0001 26.50 10.78 0.003221 0.000549 182144 68.0 -43.70 0.0000 26.11 9.78 0.001044 0.000178 562062 70.0 -41.70 0.0001 25.77 8.81 0.000816 0.000139 719027 72.0 -41.10 0.0001 25.46 7.87 0.001105 0.000188 530896 74.0 -40.40 0.0001 25.19 6.94 0.001882 0.000321 311790 76.0 -39.00 0.0001 24.95 6.04 0.002575 0.000439 227860 78.0 -36.60 0.0002 24.75 5.15 0.002763 0.000471 212312 80.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.59 4.27 0.002782 0.000474 210876 82.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.45 3.40 0.002787 0.000475 210498 84.0 -35.20 0.0003 24.35 2.54 0.002792 0.000476 210094 86.0 -36.40 0.0002 24.27 1.69 0.002777 0.000473 211268 88.0 -38.10 0.0002 24.23 0.85 0.002654 0.000452 221008 90.0 -39.80 0.0001 24.21 0.00 0.002421 0.000413 242356 104 20 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-80063-8CF-5 Antenna Worksheet (220 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 586.67 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 880 Downtilt (Degrees): 2.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -13.71 0.0426 13872.95 13872.93 0.000006 0.000001 90909488 1.0 -9.30 0.1175 1387.36 1387.15 0.000645 0.000110 909172 2.0 -5.40 0.2884 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.001417 70572 3.0 -3.90 0.4074 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.003187 31381 4.0 -1.90 0.6457 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.005661 17664 5.0 -0.90 0.8128 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.008837 11315 6.0 -0.30 0.9333 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.012711 7866 7.0 0.00 1.0000 198.68 197.20 0.101369 0.017279 5787 8.0 -0.10 0.9772 173.98 172.28 0.132198 0.022534 4437 9.0 -0.60 0.8710 154.78 152.87 0.167024 0.028470 3512 10.0 -1.50 0.7079 139.44 137.32 0.205805 0.035080 2850 12.0 -4.60 0.3467 116.46 113.91 0.295035 0.050290 1988 14.0 -10.80 0.0832 100.09 97.11 0.350761 0.059789 1672 16.0 -18.00 0.0158 87.84 84.44 0.282342 0.048126 2077 18.0 -15.50 0.0282 78.35 74.52 0.136605 0.023285 4294 20.0 -14.90 0.0324 70.79 66.52 0.032904 0.005609 17829 22.0 -18.20 0.0151 64.64 59.93 0.039414 0.006718 14884 24.0 -28.60 0.0014 59.53 54.38 0.046395 0.007908 12644 26.0 -29.40 0.0011 55.23 49.64 0.039678 0.006763 14785 28.0 -23.50 0.0045 51.57 45.54 0.012909 0.002200 45447 30.0 -23.40 0.0046 48.43 41.94 0.011255 0.001918 52125 32.0 -25.60 0.0028 45.69 38.75 0.012588 0.002146 46606 34.0 -27.40 0.0018 43.30 35.90 0.013956 0.002379 42036 36.0 -30.50 0.0009 41.19 33.33 0.012631 0.002153 46448 38.0 -46.10 0.0000 39.33 30.99 0.013796 0.002352 42524 40.0 -30.20 0.0010 37.67 28.86 0.025196 0.004295 23284 42.0 -24.00 0.0040 36.19 26.89 0.030298 0.005164 19363 44.0 -21.60 0.0069 34.86 25.07 0.032427 0.005527 18091 46.0 -21.20 0.0076 33.66 23.38 0.034619 0.005901 16946 48.0 -22.50 0.0056 32.58 21.80 0.036692 0.006254 15989 50.0 -25.60 0.0028 31.61 20.32 0.038865 0.006625 15094 52.0 -29.80 0.0010 30.73 18.92 0.035762 0.006096 16404 54.0 -29.80 0.0010 29.93 17.59 0.023697 0.004039 24756 56.0 -26.50 0.0022 29.21 16.33 0.017548 0.002991 33432 58.0 -25.40 0.0029 28.55 15.13 0.018255 0.003112 32137 60.0 -25.40 0.0029 27.96 13.98 0.018711 0.003189 31354 62.0 -26.50 0.0022 27.42 12.87 0.019288 0.003288 30416 64.0 -28.60 0.0014 26.94 11.81 0.019998 0.003409 29336 66.0 -32.60 0.0005 26.50 10.78 0.018760 0.003198 31272 68.0 -37.10 0.0002 26.11 9.78 0.013852 0.002361 42352 70.0 -42.80 0.0001 25.77 8.81 0.008103 0.001381 72401 72.0 -40.70 0.0001 25.46 7.87 0.002867 0.000489 204625 74.0 -39.00 0.0001 25.19 6.94 0.001812 0.000309 323737 76.0 -36.80 0.0002 24.95 6.04 0.001862 0.000317 315148 78.0 -37.50 0.0002 24.75 5.15 0.001838 0.000313 319145 80.0 -38.00 0.0002 24.59 4.27 0.001884 0.000321 311448 82.0 -40.00 0.0001 24.45 3.40 0.001813 0.000309 323539 84.0 -43.20 0.0000 24.35 2.54 0.001460 0.000249 401948 86.0 -47.50 0.0000 24.27 1.69 0.001073 0.000183 546751 88.0 -46.30 0.0000 24.23 0.85 0.000769 0.000131 762810 90.0 -45.90 0.0000 24.21 0.00 0.000466 0.000079 1260029 105 21 of 21 Verizon Wireless Bridger View Antel:LPA-80063-8CF-5 Antenna Worksheet (220 Sector) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE): 586.67 ERP (Watts): 120 Height (feet): 86 Frequency (MHz): 880 Downtilt (Degrees): 2.0 Depression Angle (degrees) Relative dB Relative Gain Slant Distance (meters) Dist From Structure (meters) Power Density (µW/cm^2) Percent of MPE Times Below MPE 0.1 -13.71 0.0426 13872.95 13872.93 0.000006 0.000001 90909488 1.0 -9.30 0.1175 1387.36 1387.15 0.000645 0.000110 909172 2.0 -5.40 0.2884 693.79 693.37 0.008313 0.001417 70572 3.0 -3.90 0.4074 462.64 462.01 0.018695 0.003187 31381 4.0 -1.90 0.6457 347.11 346.26 0.033211 0.005661 17664 5.0 -0.90 0.8128 277.81 276.75 0.051845 0.008837 11315 6.0 -0.30 0.9333 231.64 230.37 0.074573 0.012711 7866 7.0 0.00 1.0000 198.68 197.20 0.101369 0.017279 5787 8.0 -0.10 0.9772 173.98 172.28 0.132198 0.022534 4437 9.0 -0.60 0.8710 154.78 152.87 0.167024 0.028470 3512 10.0 -1.50 0.7079 139.44 137.32 0.205805 0.035080 2850 12.0 -4.60 0.3467 116.46 113.91 0.295035 0.050290 1988 14.0 -10.80 0.0832 100.09 97.11 0.350761 0.059789 1672 16.0 -18.00 0.0158 87.84 84.44 0.282342 0.048126 2077 18.0 -15.50 0.0282 78.35 74.52 0.136605 0.023285 4294 20.0 -14.90 0.0324 70.79 66.52 0.032904 0.005609 17829 22.0 -18.20 0.0151 64.64 59.93 0.039414 0.006718 14884 24.0 -28.60 0.0014 59.53 54.38 0.046395 0.007908 12644 26.0 -29.40 0.0011 55.23 49.64 0.039678 0.006763 14785 28.0 -23.50 0.0045 51.57 45.54 0.012909 0.002200 45447 30.0 -23.40 0.0046 48.43 41.94 0.011255 0.001918 52125 32.0 -25.60 0.0028 45.69 38.75 0.012588 0.002146 46606 34.0 -27.40 0.0018 43.30 35.90 0.013956 0.002379 42036 36.0 -30.50 0.0009 41.19 33.33 0.012631 0.002153 46448 38.0 -46.10 0.0000 39.33 30.99 0.013796 0.002352 42524 40.0 -30.20 0.0010 37.67 28.86 0.025196 0.004295 23284 42.0 -24.00 0.0040 36.19 26.89 0.030298 0.005164 19363 44.0 -21.60 0.0069 34.86 25.07 0.032427 0.005527 18091 46.0 -21.20 0.0076 33.66 23.38 0.034619 0.005901 16946 48.0 -22.50 0.0056 32.58 21.80 0.036692 0.006254 15989 50.0 -25.60 0.0028 31.61 20.32 0.038865 0.006625 15094 52.0 -29.80 0.0010 30.73 18.92 0.035762 0.006096 16404 54.0 -29.80 0.0010 29.93 17.59 0.023697 0.004039 24756 56.0 -26.50 0.0022 29.21 16.33 0.017548 0.002991 33432 58.0 -25.40 0.0029 28.55 15.13 0.018255 0.003112 32137 60.0 -25.40 0.0029 27.96 13.98 0.018711 0.003189 31354 62.0 -26.50 0.0022 27.42 12.87 0.019288 0.003288 30416 64.0 -28.60 0.0014 26.94 11.81 0.019998 0.003409 29336 66.0 -32.60 0.0005 26.50 10.78 0.018760 0.003198 31272 68.0 -37.10 0.0002 26.11 9.78 0.013852 0.002361 42352 70.0 -42.80 0.0001 25.77 8.81 0.008103 0.001381 72401 72.0 -40.70 0.0001 25.46 7.87 0.002867 0.000489 204625 74.0 -39.00 0.0001 25.19 6.94 0.001812 0.000309 323737 76.0 -36.80 0.0002 24.95 6.04 0.001862 0.000317 315148 78.0 -37.50 0.0002 24.75 5.15 0.001838 0.000313 319145 80.0 -38.00 0.0002 24.59 4.27 0.001884 0.000321 311448 82.0 -40.00 0.0001 24.45 3.40 0.001813 0.000309 323539 84.0 -43.20 0.0000 24.35 2.54 0.001460 0.000249 401948 86.0 -47.50 0.0000 24.27 1.69 0.001073 0.000183 546751 88.0 -46.30 0.0000 24.23 0.85 0.000769 0.000131 762810 90.0 -45.90 0.0000 24.21 0.00 0.000466 0.000079 1260029 106 Verizon Wireless Arron Moyer Cherry Creek 1 Arron.Moyer@verizonwireless.com Suite 550 Direct Dial 303-873-2746 3131 So. Vaughn Way Aurora, CO 80014 August 4, 2011 To Whom it may Concern: Verizon Wireless has proposed building a site at 705 Bridger Dr. Bozeman, Montana 59715, located behind the building owned by D & F Industries Inc. The primary objective of this site is to provide network capacity to the Bozeman area. Due to the large growth of smartphones and data devices on our network, many of our cellular towers are quickly growing to capacity, creating the need for new cellular sites to offload some of the capacity. The location at 705 Bridger Drive has been selected as an excellent candidate, as it would provide the needed capacity offload of sites to the East and South, and would improve our coverage in the Bridger Canyon area, as well as to new developments to the North. These coverage enhancements can be seen in the attached coverage plots. We have investigated the possibility of co-locating on a nearby AM tower on E. Griffin Dr., and have determined that co-locating on the AM tower is not a good option. It is dangerous to work on them, as the entire tower is a transmitting element, and extreme caution must be exercised whenever work is to be performed on them. In addition, whenever any work would need to be performed, the AM transmitting station would have to turn off the antenna. We have also investigated the proposed water tank location (N45-41-36, W 111-02-7). The location will not meet our needs for our design criteria. The location of the Water Tank is also to close to the existing sites in the area and it will not meet our capacity need which is the primary objective. This location will not help us with improved coverage in the Bridger Canyon area since there will be a ridge which not allow signal to propagate there. We have also investigated the Grain Elevator at (N 45-42-0, W 111-1-14). This location due to the legal issues would not entertain an offer from Verizon Wireless. This site also would not be ideal since it backs up to the same ridge and will not allow signal propagation into the Bridger Canyon area. Verizon Wireless operates a PCS and Cellular network authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide state of the art digital and cellular wireless communications in many parts of the nation, including Bozeman, MT. Verizon Wireless’ operations and network are licensed and regulated by the FCC. The antennas, as proposed and designed for the above noted site, are in compliance with all applicable FCC Requirements. In addition, the proposed site meets all applicable ANSI\IEEE C95.1-1992 exposure levels, as adopted by the FCC requirements, The Emissions Compliance report also confirms that the designed site is well below permissible exposure limits. 107 Verizon Wireless Arron Moyer Cherry Creek 1 Arron.Moyer@verizonwireless.com Suite 550 Direct Dial 303-873-2746 3131 So. Vaughn Way Aurora, CO 80014 Sincerely, Arron Moyer RF Engineer Mountain Region Enclosures Attachment 1: Area map of Bozeman, MT. showing current Verizon Wireless sites (Red) and the proposed Bridger View site (Blue) 108 Verizon Wireless Arron Moyer Cherry Creek 1 Arron.Moyer@verizonwireless.com Suite 550 Direct Dial 303-873-2746 3131 So. Vaughn Way Aurora, CO 80014 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z111...W%20Verizon%20Tower%20@%20705%20Bridger%20Drive%206-23-2011.txt From: Tara L. Hastie Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:50 PM To: Chris Saunders Subject: FW: Verizon Tower @ 705 Bridger Drive Tara Hastie, Administrative Assistant City of Bozeman Planning Department 20 E. Olive St., P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 ph. (406)582-2260 fx. (406)582-2263 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Cook [mailto:tom@newwestad.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:48 PM To: Planning Cc: rexeaston@msn.com Subject: Verizon Tower @ 705 Bridger Drive Al Stiff, As a land owner and concerned citizen of Bridger Creek since 1994, I am urging you to decline approval of the proposed Verizon tower at 705 Bridger Drive. This location is totally inappropriate. The tower, which would be only 45 feet from the golf course community, would loom over it, devaluing the neighboring residences and property. As you know, real estate is already in a deep recession. Please don't allow this misplaced tower to hurt the property owners even more. Surely, there are more appropriate locations that would serve the needs of Verizon and the citizens of Bozeman. Thanks for your consideration. Tom Cook Tom Cook, President New West Advertising tom@newwestad.com file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%...20Tower%20@%20705%20Bridger%20Drive%206-23-2011.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:15 PM] 214 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...P/Public%20comment/verizon%20tower%20-%20Campbell%206-23-2011.htm From: Campbell [flyrod@imt.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:05 PM To: Chris Saunders Subject: verizon tower Hi Chris, I am very much in favor of Verizon building the cell-tower on Bridger Drive, I have owned property on Bridger Drive for the past 11 years. I think it would help the Fire crews, Highway Patrol, Sheriff, and EMS respond to emergencies in Bridger Canyon. People reporting car wrecks could make a call form the scene, instead of trying to find a house with a land line to make a call from. I also think it has potential to help us with communications for off-area rescues at the Bridger Ski Area. When lost and hurt skiers try to call 911, (if the are lucky enough to get coverage), they get the Park County dispatch, and that slows down our response time, because Park County then has to call Gallatin County. The folks who are complaining about the tower knew it was Zoned Industrial when they bought their land. The lack of cell coverage in Bridger Canyon is a dangerous situation. Thank you, Rodney CampbellEMT for the Bridger Ski Patrol 2205 Bridger Drive file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...0comment/verizon%20tower%20-%20Campbell%206-23-2011.htm [8/4/2011 4:20:16 PM] 216 217 218 219 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...%20Drive%20SP/Public%20comment/FW%20Cell%20Tower%206-25-2011.txt From: Tim McHarg Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:09 AM To: Chris Saunders Subject: FW: Cell Tower Here is the second comment email. -----Original Message----- From: Mary Martling [mailto:m7007m@bresnan.net] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 3:31 PM To: Tim McHarg Subject: Cell Tower Tim McHarg Planning Director City of Bozeman 20 E Olive St, Bozeman MT 59715 June 21, 2011 Dear Mr. McHarg, After vacationing in Bozeman for six years in a row, we decided to move here because we fell in love with the views and the opportunities for recreation. Since making the move, we have been truly happy here. It’s a wonderful place to live. That is why we are so concerned about the proposed cell tower on Bridger Drive. This cell tower would be quite an eyesore as one drives up the canyon to ski. Many people make the trip to Bozeman for the lovely sights here. A cell tower right on Bridger Drive would certainly diminish the views. Of course, we like our views at home, too and don’t really want them compromised; I’m sure you would feel the same way if you lived in this neighborhood. The most important consideration is the health risk involved. I urge you to read a report about it using this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower- Radiation. Big cell phone companies can make large political donations and get legislation passed to allow them to get away with very little or no scrutiny file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%.../Public%20comment/FW%20Cell%20Tower%206-25-2011.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:17 PM] 220 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...%20Drive%20SP/Public%20comment/FW%20Cell%20Tower%206-25-2011.txt in this matter. There has to be a better place for this health hazard/eyesore. Please find a way to keep it out of our residential area. Sincerely, Peter and Mary Martling 3126 Augusta Drive Bozeman, MT 5975 406-570-7197 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%.../Public%20comment/FW%20Cell%20Tower%206-25-2011.txt (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:17 PM] 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...ve%20SP/Public%20comment/DeBon%20public%20comment%207-8-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:18 AM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: (no subject) From: Marciadebon@aol.com [mailto:Marciadebon@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 6:43 AM To: Agenda Subject: (no subject) I object to the proposed cell towers-on Rouse and 7th. Marcia DeBon 1031 Boylan Rd. Bozeman, Mt. 59715 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...ublic%20comment/DeBon%20public%20comment%207-8-2011.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:21 PM] 257 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...ment/FW%20Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20-%20Steckmest%207-8-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:38 PM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower From: Erik Steckmest [mailto:erik258@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:03 AM To: Agenda Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Bozeman City Commissioners, This email is in opposition to the proposed cell tower that is to be located at 705 Bridger Drive, and adjacent to the Bridger Creek Subdivision. The email notice from the City of Bozeman, lists the purposed site zoned as M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). A cell tower hardly meets the requirement of the M-1 zoning. The only reason I can see that this area was chosen, was that it was a monetary decision by the land owner, with no consideration toward the nearby residents of Bridger Creek or the surrounding area. This 90' tower will be ugly. Take a look from 360 degrees around this area as it is now, and then visualize a 90' tower sticking up from the surrounding trees. Not a pretty sight. Granted there may be a need for another tower, but not here. There are more industrial areas in the city that may be more appropriate. On another note, once you let one tower to be erected in a residential area, there will be more requests. This will set a precedent that will make it difficult for the city to say NO to the next request. In closing, I would urge the City Commissioners to make the final decision, rather than the Planning Director. I hope this will be a top priority at the Monday, July 11, 2011 meeting, and that you, the Commissions, consider all comments in opposition to this proposal. Regards, Erik Steckmest, President of the BCSCA 903 Saint Andrews Drive file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%...posed%20Cell%20Tower%20-%20Steckmest%207-8-2011.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:21 PM] 258 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...ment/FW%20Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20-%20Steckmest%207-8-2011.txt Bozeman, Montana 59715 406-219-3237 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%...posed%20Cell%20Tower%20-%20Steckmest%207-8-2011.txt (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:21 PM] 259 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...omment/FW%20Cell%20Tower%20Objection%20-%20Cherry%207-8-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:18 AM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: Cell Tower Objection From: Patsy Cherry [mailto:pcherry@hal-pc.org] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 6:59 AM To: Agenda Subject: Cell Tower Objection City Commissioners, I own a lot is Bridger Creek. I highly object to the proposed cell tower as it will lower property values in our whole area. People who build in Bridger Creek do so mostly for the views. A cell tower will spoil this. Sincerely, Patsy Cherry file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...%20Cell%20Tower%20Objection%20-%20Cherry%207-8-2011.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:21 PM] 260 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...20Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20Objection%20-%20Ganter%207-8-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:39 PM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower Objection Attachments: doc20110708114156.pdf -----Original Message----- From: Bob Ganter [mailto:bob.ganter@kljeng.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 11:45 AM To: Agenda Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Objection Please add my attached letter of objection to Monday's City Commission meeting. Thanks, Robert Ganter file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...%20Cell%20Tower%20Objection%20-%20Ganter%207-8-2011.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:22 PM] 261 262 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...0Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive%20-%20Russell%207-8-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:40 PM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower on Bridger Drive From: Tim & June [mailto:junentim@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:14 PM To: Agenda Cc: bridgercreekboard@gmail.com; JTROMO5@aol.com Subject: Proposed Cell Tower on Bridger Drive TO THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSIONERS: In regard to the proposed tower, we do not wish to see the city of Bozeman approving such construction in the midst of residential properties. I would certainly expect that a decision of this magnitude should be made by the full City Commission our elected officials. 1) The proposed site for this commercial purpose is directly adjacent to areas zoned residential 2) For a tower of this height the guideline support footprint would be rather massive and invasive 3) It would affect the view plain of the Bridger Range and in opposition to the Bozeman 2020 Plan I would encourage the Commissioners to further take up the matter of future cell towers in their zoning plan along with other commercial arial structures such as windmills, solar generation panels, etc. A comprehensive approach by the City of Bozeman regarding this matter would benefit the commercial interests such as Verizon as well as Bozeman citizens and developers of residential/recreational properties. Thomas & June Russell 909 Turnberry Court Bozeman, MT 59715 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...wer%20on%20Bridger%20Drive%20-%20Russell%207-8-2011.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:23 PM] 263 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z111...ent/FW%20Zigs%20Cell%20Phone%20Tower%20-%20Madin%207-8-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:17 AM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: Zigs Cell Phone Tower From: Kent Madin [mailto:rett139@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 5:18 PM To: Agenda Cc: JTROM05@aol.com Subject: Zigs Cell Phone Tower Dear Commissioners: RE: Verizon request for cell phone tower near Zigs Dear Commissioners: This location and setup is a bad idea but the issue before you today is whether to take over responsibility for this decision or leave it with the Planning Department. You should own this decision, not the Planning Department. The reasons are simple. The Planning procedures only require notice to landowners within 200 feet of the tower base. That's patently absurd when talking about the visual impact of a 90 foot tall tower (that looks like it fell off the DeathStar) right next to the beginning of the scenic drive into the Bridgers. Consider the volume of locals who drive up to the M, to Bridger Bowl, to the Bangtails, etc. intent on enjoying all that beauty and solace inherent in our mountains who then discern, waiting for the light at Rouse and Griffin, a monstrous, gangling tower going up. At the minimum you'll need more switchboard operators. Now some of them will be ecstatic that they can now have full g3 coverage and can play Halo enroute to the M and up on top of it too. But that's the next issue. Public Safety. It's your very first priority as Commissioners (I can quote it back to you from your own materials). Before we mindlessly feed the Bandwidth Beast by approving every cell tower because of demand, let's get some common sense rules in place to deal with the safety issues inherent in Distracted Driving. The City has considered Distracted Driving laws so you know that it's a genuine public health issue. Just as liquor companies have learned through public pressure and statutes that they have to make a sincere effort to fight drunk driving, cell phone companies need help understanding their responsibility to seriously address this issue. That's where the Commission comes in. Make them show what they are doing to combat Distracted Driving before they get permission to add additional bandwidth. They know full well a significant portion of that bandwidth will be used in a file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site...%20Cell%20Phone%20Tower%20-%20Madin%207-8-2011.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:23 PM] 264 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z111...ent/FW%20Zigs%20Cell%20Phone%20Tower%20-%20Madin%207-8-2011.txt behavior that is dangerous, period. For starters, how about ever cell phone sold in Bozeman has a warning sticker on it that says "Cell Phones Don't Kill People, People With Cell Phones Kill People" or "Practice Safe Phone, Pull Over and Park" or "Be As Smart As Your Phone, Pull Over To Connect". And remember, distinguishing between handheld and hands-free is just the cell phone companies version of Marlboros versus "low-tar" cigarettes. An attempt to mollify with a half measure. You or your loved one are just as dead whether the distraction was from a texter or a bluetooth yakker. Have any of you Commissioners tried using your Iphone while driving? I guess you wrap your pinky and ring finger around the steering wheel, hold the phone between forefinger and thumb, then use your other hand to "swipe" through the icons. What can go wrong? I think that the Commission needs to take responsibility and oversight for this decision on the Verizon request because it goes to the heart of public safety and the wallet of property and community values, either one of which alone makes it YOUR call. Sincerely, Kent Madin 14543 Kelly Canyon Road, 59715 406-595-2310 PS. From today's Bozeman Chronicle survey of high school students: "This year’s survey asked two new questions about texting and talking on cell phones while driving. Fifty percent of students reported texting or emailing while driving a car in the last 30 days, and 53 percent reported talking on a cell phone while driving" file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site...%20Cell%20Phone%20Tower%20-%20Madin%207-8-2011.txt (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:23 PM] 265 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...Public%20comment%20on%20cell%20tower%20-%20Klewin%207-8-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 8:19 AM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: Public comment on cell tower From: Klewin [mailto:dp2klewin@bresnan.net] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:17 AM To: Agenda Subject: TO: City Commissioners FROM: Denny Klewin RE: Verizon Tower I am writing to ask that you "ultimately" deny the construction of the communications tower at the site proposed for the following reasons: 1) The present gorgeous viewshed would be severely obstructed 2) This location does not enhance the efforts to continue to "smooth out the wrinkles" of the architecturally and commercially varied theme of the north east corridor. 3) I would suggest that certainly there is an alternative location, if push comes to shove, in this same area for placement: up against the Story Hills southwest outcrop comes to mind. 4) I think 1 incredibly large eyesore (the weed and mobile home park) is enough for now 5) I have not seen any public information as to why this tower must be constructed on this site and MOST importantly what enhancement(s) for the public will result. Thank you for your scrutinizing attention to this matter. Sincerely, Denny/Pat Klewin 3251 Wagonwheel Rd. Bozeman, MT 59715 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20P...omment%20on%20cell%20tower%20-%20Klewin%207-8-2011.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:23 PM] 266 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...ive%20Large%20Scale%20Wireless%20Facility%20Tower-Tract%20E-1.txt From: Tara L. Hastie Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:41 AM To: Chris Saunders Subject: FW: 705 Bridger Drive Large Scale Wireless Facility Tower-Tract E-1 From: Joan Michlin [mailto:joan.michlin@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 4:54 PM To: Planning Subject: 705 Bridger Drive Large Scale Wireless Facility Tower-Tract E-1 City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Re: Construction of a Large Scale Wireless Facility at 705 Bridger Drive June 18, 2011 Please let it be known that I am strongly opposed to the use of this above noted location for a wireless tower. There are three main reasons for my opposition: 1-Potential Health Hazard 2- Impact on property values 3-General inappropriateness of location within city limits when vast amounts of open space are available. Evidence confirms, the closer to a radiating antenna you are, the higher the health risk. While one can make an argument that cancer risk and other illnesses, have not been proven as of this date, this could also be said of prior studies that were, over time, proven incorrect. I do not want to become a statistic of such an error. I reside just down the street from the location of this proposed tower which will be a continuous source of RF energy. It has been shown that buyers are less likely to purchases homes which are located close to these towers. Fears may be real or perceived when buying such property, nonetheless fear is a strong deterrent when making this very important investment. Studies shown that residential property prices decline in areas closest to these wireless towers, not just for health reasons, but because of their obvious unsightliness. Other than the financial gain made by the property owners, D&F Industries of Crystal Lake IL, there seems to be no sound reason for such a tower being placed in a highly residential area. Our county has vast amounts of secluded acreage, away from homes and the city, which would appear more appropriate for such an undertaking. Let's not make this a "deep-pockets" issue. An exercise in common sense is all that is required. Remember, once the tower is there, it's there. Is this what the city of Bozeman wants as part of its skyline? file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20...20Scale%20Wireless%20Facility%20Tower-Tract%20E-1.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:24 PM] 267 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...ive%20Large%20Scale%20Wireless%20Facility%20Tower-Tract%20E-1.txt J. Michlin 2412 Par Ct. Bozeman, MT file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20...20Scale%20Wireless%20Facility%20Tower-Tract%20E-1.txt (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:24 PM] 268 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...20cell%20tower%20bridger%20creek%20area%20bredvik%207-11-2011.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:38 PM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: cell tower bridger creek area From: lesley bredvik [mailto:lbredvik@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:37 PM To: Agenda Subject: cell tower bridger creek area The City desires to promote co-location on existing towers. Verizon needs to prove they can't co- locate. --the construction of new large-scale wireless facilities are a last resort. There are alternate locations that are less intrusive that haven't been considered as possible sites. --the City desires the use of stealth (camouflage) installations to minimize the adverse visual impacts, which this 90-ft lattice tower does not. I object because.... --the City has a duty to protect the public health and safety of the community. From more distracted drivers using phones to possible health hazards of a Tower right next to residences. --the City intends to exercise its authority in the regulation of placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities. Perhaps City Commissioners should require Verizon and other carriers to present their "whole plan" for coverage, not just one tower at a time haphazardly set up over the valley. This would benefit both Bozeman and Verizon. --the proposed site negatively impacts an Entryway Corridor viewshed, which the Bozeman 2020 Plan requires to be protected and enhanced. When stopped at the light at Rouse & Griffin, a 90-foot lattice Tower will be right in the middle of the beautiful view of the Bridgers. sorry this late. I have been on vacation and just got the notice. -- Lesley Lesley Ann Bredvik 1059 Boylan Road file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%2...r%20bridger%20creek%20area%20bredvik%207-11-2011.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:24 PM] 269 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...20cell%20tower%20bridger%20creek%20area%20bredvik%207-11-2011.txt Bozeman, MT 59715 406 599-2622 lbredvik@gmail.com “We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give.” -WC file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%2...r%20bridger%20creek%20area%20bredvik%207-11-2011.txt (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:24 PM] 270 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...20comment/FW%20verizon%20cell%20phone%20tower%20-%20Friedman.txt From: Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 1:38 PM To: Chris Saunders; Tim McHarg; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject: FW: verizon cell phone tower From: Stan [mailto:stan2201@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 10:37 AM To: Agenda Subject: verizon cell phone tower To all city commissioner; I’m requesting that the city commission take control of the Verizon Tower issue. This project would be a detriment to the residential neighborhood of Bridger Creek which is adjacent to the site. A 90 ft. lattice cell tower with a micro wave array would be an imposing feature on the environment. The residents of the Links project would see their property value plummet and the remainder of the project would be dead. There are other issues involved which we have no satisfactory answers to such as health,noise. The commission needs to protect the residents from this unwanted project. There are many more sites that would be more acceptable and would not impact a residential area. The impact on the view of the Bridgers would be substantial. Once something this unsightly is permitted it is too late. The time to stop further deterioration of our view corridor is now not after the fact. Thank you, file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%...20verizon%20cell%20phone%20tower%20-%20Friedman.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:25 PM] 271 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...20comment/FW%20verizon%20cell%20phone%20tower%20-%20Friedman.txt Barbara Friedman 1037 Boylan Road #8 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%...20verizon%20cell%20phone%20tower%20-%20Friedman.txt (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:25 PM] 272 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...20Bridger%20Drive%20SP/Public%20comment/FW%20verizon%20tower.txt From: Tim McHarg Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:09 AM To: Chris Saunders Subject: FW: verizon tower Importance: High I received two comment emails on this application over the weekend. Here is the first. The second will follow shortly. From: Stan [mailto:stan2201@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 6:09 PM To: Tim McHarg Subject: verizon tower Importance: High We attended the 6/22 hearing concerning the proposed cell tower at 705 Bridger Drive. First let us reiterate our opposition to the project. The property in question has no value as a commercial lot . It is too small for a building. Verizon most likely paid very little to purchase or lease the land . Verizon got a great deal and therefore was the bottom line was the motivation for the site. The city needs to support the resident/ property owners in this case and not corporate interests. There are other suitable and available locations nearby. In addition this is the gateway to Bridger Bowl , one of Bozemans' major attractions. Verizon may have to pay more to relocate their tower but it should not be allowed to abut residential property. Verizon may meet the building and zoning codes for this tower, but it is an undesirable addition to our neighborhood (Bridger Creek). We hope you will take into consideration the opinions of the residents of Bridger Creek Subdivision. No one spoke in favor of this project and the turnout was large. Thank you, Barbara and Stanley Friedman 1037 Boylan Road #8 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20P...20Drive%20SP/Public%20comment/FW%20verizon%20tower.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:25 PM] 273 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...blic%20comment/Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive.txt From: Kent Madin [rett139@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:50 PM To: Chris Saunders Cc: amanda ricker Subject: Proposed Cell Tower on Bridger Drive Dear Chris, I live in Bridger Canyon and own homes in Bozeman and object to the proposed cell tower on two points. First, it will detract visually from the view of the mountains every day I drive between town and home. I realize the City has followed the letter of the law in noticing residents within a certain distance of the proposed tower, but that standard falls seriously short when you are talking about a 90 foot tall structure. The impact will be on the entire community, especially all those who drive to Bridger Canyon, the M, Drinking Horse Trail, etc. It would be true diligence on the part of the City to have Verizon create Google Earth centered depictions of the view of the tower from a variety of popular viewpoints, so that community members can truly assess the visual impact which extends far more than 200 feet. Bridger Drive is a designated scenic corridor and if you don't make the effort to fully inform the community now, as soon as the tower starts going up your phone is going to ring off the hook. Second, and more importantly, increased cell coverage in Bridger Canyon will make the road more dangerous due to the prevalence of use of cell phones while driving. The dangers to the public from cell phone use while driving are well documented. To quote a recent City of Bozeman press release: "The City of Bozeman’s highest priority is the protection of life and the safety of the population of the community." In the absence of an effective means to stop cell phone use while driving in the City of Bozeman and environs, expanding cell phone coverage increases danger to the public. In Bridger Canyon, that danger amplifies a route which already has additional objective dangers associated with wildlife, a high speed highway through a rural/agricultural community, weather and the rush hours associated with traffic to and from Bridger Bowl and Bohart Ranch. The majority of local users of Bridger Canyon know that their cell phones won't work, hence they drive without that distraction. That will change with additional coverage and the City Commission will have on their hands the blood and tragedy associated with the accidents that result from distracted driving via cell phone use. And given that letters like this put the City on notice, the City could be liable for damages. I recognize that an argument on the other side is that the availability of 911 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%2...t/Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive.txt (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:26 PM] 274 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...blic%20comment/Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive.txt coverage is a safety benefit. But the logic fails when you consider that you are materially increasing the likelihood of an accident for everyone, 24/7, for a benefit that is occasional. Furthermore, there is no evidence that 911 coverage in Bridger Canyon specifically would provide a material benefit that outweighs the likely dangers. Kent Madin 108 S. Bozeman and 14543 Kelly Canyon Road. 595-2310 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%2...t/Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive.txt (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:20:26 PM] 275 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...comment/Proposed%20Verizon%20Cell%20Tower%20public%20comment.txt From: Steve Nettik [nettik@revelationindustries.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:33 PM To: Chris Saunders Cc: Steve Henderson Subject: Proposed Verizon Cell Tower Hi Chris, Thanks for returning my call concerning the proposed Verizon cell tower. My partner, Steve Henderson, was able to speak with Kevin Howell of Digital Skylines. Kevin was unaware of our tower location and will be stopping by some time tonight or in the morning to look at our site. Kevin also stated that they wanted to locate the tower off Bridger Drive in order to cover Bridger Canyon better and to gain more separation from their other towers. We don't know how our site technically fits into this equation, but we would like to offer site as a possible alternative to the one proposed off of Bridger Drive. As I mentioned on the phone, our site has the following features: 1) County approved telecommunications tower 2) has existing infrastructure: - power - phone - concrete pad and security fence - equipment racks - antenna mounts 3) being an existing water tower, there is no additional visual impact. Thanks for your consideration. For Bozeman Pea Cannery Properties, LLC, Steve Nettik Revelation Industries, Inc. (406) 587-5978 ext. 3003 nettik@revelationindustries.com Revelation Industries, Inc. is an IPC Member ************************************************************************* Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Revelation Industries, Inc. ************************************************************************* file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...roposed%20Verizon%20Cell%20Tower%20public%20comment.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:26 PM] 276 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...Bridger%20Drive%20SP/Public%20comment/Rex%20Easton%207-6-2011.txt From: REX EASTON [rexeaston@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:30 AM To: Chris Saunders Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Dear Chris, I am writing on behalf of Golf Course Partners Inc to request the city commission retake the review of the cell tower application . We have the same concerns as others have expressed and would like the opportunity to express them to the city commissioners. Thanks, Rex B. Easton Golf Courses Partners Inc. file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...Drive%20SP/Public%20comment/Rex%20Easton%207-6-2011.txt [8/4/2011 4:20:26 PM] 277 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...nt/Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive%206-21-2011.txt From: Kent Madin [rett139@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:50 PM To: Chris Saunders Cc: amanda ricker Subject: Proposed Cell Tower on Bridger Drive Dear Chris, I live in Bridger Canyon and own homes in Bozeman and object to the proposed cell tower on two points. First, it will detract visually from the view of the mountains every day I drive between town and home. I realize the City has followed the letter of the law in noticing residents within a certain distance of the proposed tower, but that standard falls seriously short when you are talking about a 90 foot tall structure. The impact will be on the entire community, especially all those who drive to Bridger Canyon, the M, Drinking Horse Trail, etc. It would be true diligence on the part of the City to have Verizon create Google Earth centered depictions of the view of the tower from a variety of popular viewpoints, so that community members can truly assess the visual impact which extends far more than 200 feet. Bridger Drive is a designated scenic corridor and if you don't make the effort to fully inform the community now, as soon as the tower starts going up your phone is going to ring off the hook. Second, and more importantly, increased cell coverage in Bridger Canyon will make the road more dangerous due to the prevalence of use of cell phones while driving. The dangers to the public from cell phone use while driving are well documented. To quote a recent City of Bozeman press release: "The City of Bozeman’s highest priority is the protection of life and the safety of the population of the community." In the absence of an effective means to stop cell phone use while driving in the City of Bozeman and environs, expanding cell phone coverage increases danger to the public. In Bridger Canyon, that danger amplifies a route which already has additional objective dangers associated with wildlife, a high speed highway through a rural/agricultural community, weather and the rush hours associated with traffic to and from Bridger Bowl and Bohart Ranch. The majority of local users of Bridger Canyon know that their cell phones won't work, hence they drive without that distraction. That will change with additional coverage and the City Commission will have on their hands the blood and tragedy associated with the accidents that result from distracted driving via cell phone use. And given that letters like this put the City on notice, the City could be liable for damages. I recognize that an argument on the other side is that the availability of 911 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%...Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive%206-21-2011.txt (1 of 2) [8/5/2011 8:29:23 AM] 278 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z11139...nt/Proposed%20Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive%206-21-2011.txt coverage is a safety benefit. But the logic fails when you consider that you are materially increasing the likelihood of an accident for everyone, 24/7, for a benefit that is occasional. Furthermore, there is no evidence that 911 coverage in Bridger Canyon specifically would provide a material benefit that outweighs the likely dangers. Kent Madin 108 S. Bozeman and 14543 Kelly Canyon Road. 595-2310 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%...Cell%20Tower%20on%20Bridger%20Drive%206-21-2011.txt (2 of 2) [8/5/2011 8:29:23 AM] 279 file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Plans/Z1113...%20comment%20after%20July%2011/Rodney%20Campbell%207-17-2011.txt From: Campbell [flyrod@imt.net] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 2:57 PM To: Tim McHarg; Chris Saunders Subject: verizon Bill at Panda gas says he would like to have the tower on his back corner, out of sight. Thank you, Rodney Campbell Bridger Drive file:///R|/PROJECTS/Current%20Planning/Zoning/Site%20Pl...t%20after%20July%2011/Rodney%20Campbell%207-17-2011.txt [8/5/2011 8:29:23 AM] 280 1 Chris Saunders From:Aimee Kissel on behalf of Agenda Sent:Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:32 PM To:Tara L. Hastie; Chris Saunders; Brit Fontenot; Carson Taylor; Chris Kukulski; Chris Mehl; Chuck Winn; Cyndy Andrus; Greg Sullivan; Jeff Krauss; Sean Becker Subject:FW: Thank You/More Info re: Proposed Cell Tower From: JTROM05@aol.com [mailto:JTROM05@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:57 PM To: Agenda Subject: Thank You/More Info re: Proposed Cell Tower To City Commissioners: We want to thank you for reclaiming the decision re: Proposed Verizon Cell Tower (COA#z- 11139) and look forward to the Public Hearing on August 15, 2011. As previously stated, we submitted a letter of objection on June 21, 2011 and second letter on June 24,2011. We also submitted an email on July 10, 2011 with examples of "stealth" towers used elsewhere. One of those is the Mono-Pine. UDO 18.54.040 B.2.d. does state that "lattice or guyed towers are generally preferred over monopoles". BUT, UDO 18.54.040 B.1.a states that these provisions may be waived if waiver results in "superior compliance" with the intent of this section. We think a Mono-Pine Tower would fit in well in our community and is superior to the proposed Tower. We also provided comment at your Public Meeting on July 11, 2011, briefly summarized below: 1. Yes, Verizon will need more Towers in this area, but let's adhere to our City guidelines designed to minimize adverse impacts and make it less obtrusive. 2. The Setback barely meets the 50% minimum setback, which City guidelines say "may be" reduced. We ask that you consider not reducing it below the 75% guideline. 3. Proposed Tower does not just affect adjoining property owners. It affects ALL who travel Bridger Drive, part of an Entryway Corridor District. 4. We suggest that the City obtain qualified outside expertise to evaluate this proposed Tower as set forth in UDO 18.54.010 B.14. 5. We ask that you require Wireless Carriers to set forth their "whole plan" for present and future Towers to prevent haphazard proliferation of Towers all over the area. Again, thank you for your considerations. Bob and Jean Trombley 281