11. Appeal WiMax antenna West Valley Pres. ChurchCUPERTINO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 11
Meeting Date: August 3, 2010
Subject
Appeal of an approved WiMax Antenna at West Valley Presbyterian Church
Recommended Action
Consider denial of the appeal
Description
DIR- 2010 -05
6191 Bollinger Road (375 -41 -007)
Bradley Head for Clearwire/West Valley Presbyterian Church
This is an appeal of an approved WiMax Antenna to be concealed in a cupola on the roof top of the
church
Sustainability ILnpact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
Background
On May 27, 2010, the Director of Community Development approved DIR- 2010 -05 and mailed
notices of the Director's actions to the Planning Commission, City Council and property owners
within 1,000 feet radius (365 owners). The approval was subsequently appealed by Norman & Ione
Yuen on June 10, 2010 and heard by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2010 after a
postponement request by the appellants to accommodate their vacation plans. The Commission
reviewed the project, took public testimony and recommended (4 -0 -1, Giefer absent) that the
Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director's Approval.
Project Location
The project site is the West Valley Presbyterian Church located at 6191 Bollinger Road, the northeast
corner of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue. The site is surrounded by Hyde Middle School to the
l;I:l
August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 2
north and east, a shopping center to the south, duplexes and single - family residences to the west and
more single- family residences to the north. A detailed response to the appeal is provided in the staff
report (Attachment B).
Discussion
Planning Commission
Commissioners noted that federal law prohibits the City from making decisions on personal wireless
service facilities based on the health/environmental effects of radio frequency energy if it meets
federal safety standards, which it does. Review must be limited to project design issues and there are
none. One Commissioner asked if the project should be continued to provide noticing to renters and
school parents. Another asked why the noticing rules should be changed for just this project and
noted that the Commission should be acting on the project in front of them and not considering rule
changes at this time. The Commission voted 4 -0 -1 recommending denial of the appeal per the model
resolution with the added suggestion that the City Council consider additional, longer term radio
frequency energy monitoring for compliance with federal safety standards.
Public Comments
The primary concerns and comments expressed by the public are summarized as follows (with staff
responses in italics):
1. Noticing for this appeal hearing was inadequate. The City should have notified surrounding
renters, Hyde Junior High (principal) and the parents of the children that attend Hyde.
Appellants walked their neighborhood and numerous neighbors signed a petition opposing the
Clearwire wireless facility (Attachment Q. Appellants had insufficient time to prepare case.
The church property owner has not been responsive to their communications and they could not
contact the Hyde Parents Teachers Association because school is not in session yet.
Staff response: Staff follows public noticing rules established by the City. For this particular
project, required noticing includes 1, 000 foot radius noticing of property owners. Property
owners are responsible for notifying their tenants /renters. Notice of the Director's action went
to the Cupertino Union School District office, which is the property owner of Hyde Middle
School. School District staff acknowledged receipt of the city mailing but had no comments on
the Clearwire facility proposal. School District staff noted they talked to the Hyde Middle
School principal, but principals do not make decisions on district -wide matters and the principal
will not be commenting on the proposal. It is up to the School District to decide whether it wants
to notify school parents or not. The City does not keep a mailing list of school parents.
2. WiMax is a new communications technology and there are concerns about locating them close to
residences and schools. Power output is more continuous. Exposure meets FCC exposure limits,
but there are worries that Clearwire can increase the power as needed to meet demand.
Staff response: According to the Federal Communications Commission the public exposure limit
for WiMax (broadband radio) and other cell phone technologies (PCS, Cellular, SMR) is the
same: 1.00 mW /cm The public limit applies to continuous exposures and is intended to provide
a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size or health. The
August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 3
Hammett & Edison report is based on several worst -case assumptions, including the assumption
that the facility is operating at full power on all channels and accounting for all other
measurable, existing sources of ambient RF' emissions. The estimated ground level RF emission
exposure is 0.0027 mW /cm or 0.27% of the applicable public limit. The applicant's consultant
stated that Clearwire cannot arbitrarily increase power, since it is limited by the type of
equipment cabinets and antennas used in the facility.
3. Can the City change its rules and only allow a DAS (Distributed Antenna System) with fiber
optics?
Staff response: The City's master plan and ordinance for wireless communications facilities do
not prohibit DAS technology, but the City's rules do not prohibit other communication
technologies in favor of DAS. It is not clear whether the City has a right to dictate what type of
equipment a wireless carrier uses.
4. Numerous concerns with the health effects of WiMax energy. Facility should be located
elsewhere, like the hills or near the freeway, not near residences or schools.
Staff response: See the response to item no. 2. Clearwire is entitling a new network of facilities
in Cupertino and the San Francisco Bay Area, much like what every other wireless carrier has
done. The City has already approved a half dozen Clearwire facilities scattered all over the
City.
5. Wireless communications technology is too new. Effects are not well - studied or are
inconclusive. More research should be done before City decides to approve such facilities.
Staff response: See the response to item no. 2.
6. Why is the City considering this application when it has denied applications near schools before?
Staff response: The City has not denied a wireless communications facility near a school when
the facility met federal safety standards and design standards. A microcell was recently
approved on North Blaney Avenue near an elementary school. A facility was approved at Monta
Vista High School before the school district decided not to pursue a land lease with the wireless
carrier. Three additional proposals have been cited in Monta Vista: one on Imperial Avenue
was approved and built and two others were withdrawn by their applicants.
Other Staff Comments
Staff requests that the City Council consider placing additional monitoring requirements on this
approval to address resident concerns. Presently, the approval requires testing of exposure levels to
radio frequency energy after construction and before full operation of the facility. The Council may
want to consider requiring additional third party RF monitoring that is paid for by the applicant for
two more years.
Prepared by Colin Jung
Reviewed by Gary Chao, Aarti Shrivastava
Approved for Submission by David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments
I:
August 3, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 2
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6602
B. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 27, 2010
C. Petition from Appellant
D. email from Wenjie Li, dated July 23, 2010
w e
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6602
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S
MINOR MODIFICATION ALLOWING A PERSONAL WIRELESS
SERVICE FACILITY ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING CHURCH,
CONSISTING OF THREE PANEL ANTENNAS AND THREE MICROWAVE
DISH ANTENNAS SCREENED BY A FAUX CUPOLA AND A BASE EQUIPMENT
ENCLOSURE AT 6191 BOLLINGER ROAD
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of a
Director's Minor Modification application, file no. DIR- 2010 -05, as described in Section II of
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the project changes are deemed minor in nature; and
WHEREAS, the faux cupola is compatible with the design. of the church, in that the
architectural feature is common and compatible to the overall church design; is not
disproportion in size compared to the church; and uses building materials that are consistent
with the church's building materials; and
WHEREAS, the personal wireless service facility is not located in an inappropriate location,
in that the facility meets federal safety limits for radio frequency energy exposure for onsite
and nearby land uses, such as a school; and that the facility is sited in an appropriate location
and designed in accordance with the City's Wireless Master Plan and Wireless
Communications Facilities Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the methodology to calculate radio frequency power density is not wrong as it
uses the equation prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission, the agency that
promulgates the rules that regulates radio frequency energy exposure.
100
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the appeal of Director's Minor Modification, file no. DIR2010 -05 is
hereby recommended for denial; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. DIR -2010-
05 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 2010, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DIR- 2010 -05 (appeal)
Applicant: Bradley Head, NSA Wireless for Clearwire
Property Owner: West Valley Presbyterian Church
Location: 6191 Bollinger Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Director's Minor Modification Approval Memorandum, file no. DIR- 2010 -05 with
attachments A through D dated May 27, 2010.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a
statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. ABANDONMENT
If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous
period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The
applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removal.
4. EXPIRATION DATE
This Director's Minor Modification shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of
the permit. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the minor modification at which
time the Director of Community Development may review the state of wireless
101
communication and camouflage technologies to determine if the visual impact of the
personal wireless facility can be reduced.
5. POST - CONSTRUCTION RADIO FREQUENCY ENERGY EXPOSURE TESTING
Prior to the commercial operation of this facility, the applicant shall submit a field test
report on the radio frequency energy emissions to the irector of Community
Development confirming that public exposures to generated radio frequency energy
(measured at full power) complies with federal safety standards at ground level and
nearest residential property line (measured at second floor level).
6. DISCLOSURE OF PRESENCE OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY
Upon construction of the project, the property owner shall disclose the presence of
personal wireless service facility to usE rs and expected users of the school operations
and provide a copy of such notice to the Director of Community Development.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of July 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson. Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Kaneda, Miller
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer
/s /Aarti Shrivastava
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
g: / planning/ pdreport /res /2010 /DIR- 2010 -05 res APPEAL.doc
APPROVED:
/ s / Paul Brophy
Paul Brophy, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
102
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255
(408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 • plammn �flcupertino.org
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Date: Tuly 27, 2010
Application: DIR 2010 -p5
Applicant Bradley Head, NSA Wireless for Clearwire
Appellant: Norman & Ione Yuen
Application Summary: Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification decision to allow the
installation of a personal wireless service facility on the roof of an existing church,
consisting of three panel antennas and thr- -e microwave dish antennas screened by a
faux cupola and a base equipment enclosure at 6191 Bollinger Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission uphold the Director's decision (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
On May 27, 2010, the Director of Community Development approved a Director's
Minor Modification to allow a Clearwire personal wireless service facility on the roof of
the West Valley Presbyterian Church located at 6191 Bollinger Road (Attachment 2).
The Planning Commissioners, Council members and property owners within 1,000 feet
of the project property (365 residents) were mailed notices of the Director's action. An
appeal was filed on July 10, 2010 by Mrs. Yuen residing at 6352 Myrtlewood Drive
(Attachment 3). The Commission hearing; was originally scheduled for a mid -July date,
but was postponed to July 27th to accommodate the appellant's vacation plans.
DISCUSSION:
The appellant's appeal is based on the following points (staff responses to each of the
points are in italics):
1) The cupola design covering the antenna is visually awkward.
Staff examined three design aspects that may create a visually awkward church design:
Compatibility with the church archit ?cture
The cupola is a common architectural fearure of churches. Often, they are elaborate in
design and size and are the dominant arcizitectural element of the church. In the case of the
West Valley Presbyterian Church, the building design is relatively simple and the dominant
1 -1
103
DIR- 2010 -05 July 27, 2010
6191 Bollinger Road _ Page 2
architectural feature is the large and expansive roof. The new cupola has been designed to be
compatible with the architecture of the church.
Proportion to the church structure
The proposed cupola is sized to accommouate the screening of the antennas.- The cupola
element overlaps with the roof but adds 8' -9" to the height of the church (about a 16
increase). The cupola is not disproportionate in size (see Attachment 2 photo simulation)
compared to the rest of the church structure.
Compatibility of materials and color:;
The proposed cupola uses building materials and colors that match the materials and colors
of the church. The faux brick base matches the brick buttresses of the church. The white
cupola columns and trim matches the trim and siding of the church. The roofing materials
of the proposed cupola and church will match in material and color (See photo simulation in
Attachment 2).
2) The residential placement of the prop i sed Wimax antenna is inappropriate next to
a middle school.
The appellant provided two emails with links to numerous websites that contain
information that may or may not pertain to the project (Attachment 4). One weblink
discussed a San Francisco law requiring cellular Telephone Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)
disclosures on cell phones. Other websites display international efforts, urging precaution
in the use and expansion of wireless techr.oiogies. Another link talks about the City of
Huntington Beach relocating a wireless facility on City property that was near a school
after public outcry; and an Oregon school board decides not to renew a cell site lease.
WiMAX is defined in. Attachment 5. It i:: basically a telecommunications protocol that
provides fixed and fully mobile internet a(:cFss.
Cupertino follows U.S. law in regulating personal wireless service facilities. Cell phone
technology (mainly wireless Personal Communications Services - PCS) and WLN4AX
(Broadband Radio wireless service) have the same public exposure limit promulgated by the
Federal Communications Commission (F - -) which is 1.00 milliwatt per centimeter squared
(MW/cmz). The limit applies to continuo:.cs exposures and is intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardles> c f age, gender, size or health. The Hammett and
Edison report states that the maximum ambient radio frequency energy exposure at ground
level due to the Clearwire facility (including; the microwave antennas contribution) is
calculated to be 0.0027 mW/cmZ, which i. 0.27% of the applicable public limit (Attachment
2).
Federal law, the 1996 Telecommunicatior s .Act- Section 704, subsection 7(D), states:
"No state or local governmental entity may regulate the placement, construction, or
modification of personal wireless service f2cilities on the basis of environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions to the extent that such emissions comply with FCC regulations"
1 -2
104
DIR- 2010 -05 July 27, 2010
6191 Bollinger Road Page 3
The demand for wireless communications technologies continues to rapidly expand among
our mobile, high technology population. ;several years ago, the City Council recognized the
lack of adequate wireless communications coverage as a public safety issue which is
reinforced by a recent letter from the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office (Attachment 6).
Through the Wireless Facilities Master P, an and Wireless Communications Facilities
Ordinance (CMC Section 19.108), the City strives to provide adequate wireless
communications coverage in a manner that is in compliance with federal law and mitigates
potentially visually intrusive effects of wireless infrastructure. To cover largely residential
areas of Cupertino, the Master Plan prefe -s public properties, churches, schools and existing
utility poles and towers to mount wireless: antennas.
The proposed Clearwire facility is consish!nt with the City's Master Plan and Ordinance.
Conditions were added to the approval that duplicated what the Planning Commission
required for the recently approved Clearwire facility on the Church of the Nazarene located
on McCIellan Road. The required conditions include post - construction confirmation of radio
frequency emission and the disclosure of the personal wireless service facility to the
church/school users (See Attachment 1).
3) The radio frequency study provided t!y the project is erroneous.
The equation to calculate power density in the Hammett & Edison, Inc. radio frequency
assessment is the same one recommended for use by the FCC Office of Engineering
Technology in its Bulletin No. 65.
A radio frequency engineer from the Hammett & Edison firm will be available at the hearing
to answer any questions regarding the project.
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CONCERNS:
The appellant also expressed concerns that the principal of Hyde Junior High and the
pertinent parent teacher association have lot been properly made aware of the project.
It should be noted that the City has satisfied the legal noticing requirements for the
project (1,000 feet notice per the Ordinanc e). In addition, the Cupertino Union School
District has confirmed that the appropriate project notices were received. The school
district however has not expressed any comments or positions on the project.
1 -3
105
DIR- 2010 -05 July 27, 2010
6191 Bollinger Road _ Page 4
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Pho - mer
Reviewed by:
WrdWO f
L /I -... - .
City Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Model Resolution
Approved by:
lx7l"4
arti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
Attachment 2: Director's Minor Modification Memorandum dated May 27, 2010
Attachment 3: Appellent's Appeal Form dated June 10, 2010
Attachment 4: Emails from appellents dated 6/15/10 and 6/23/10.
Attachment 5: WiMAX definition
Attachment 6: Letter from the County Sheriff's Office dated June 23, 2010
Attachment 7: Emails from concerned residents
G:planning /pdreport /Appeals /2010 /DIR- 2010 -0:i appeal.doc
1-4
106
Attachment 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Terre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISE ION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S
MINOR MODIFICATION ALL OWING A PERSONAL WIRELESS
SERVICE FACILITY ON THE I:OOF OF AN EXISTING CHURCH,
CONSISTING OF THREE PANEL ANTENNAS AND THREE MICROWAVE
DISH ANTENNAS SCREENED BY A FAUX CUPOLA AND A BASE EQUIPMENT
ENCLOSURE AT 6 "191 BOLLINGER ROAD
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of - he City of Cupertino received an appeal of a
Director's Minor Modification application, file no. DIR- 2010 -05, as described in Section II of
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the project changes are deemed minor in nature; and
WHEREAS, the faux cupola is compatible with the design of the church, in that the
architectural feature is common and compatible to the overall church design; is not
disproportion in size compared to the church; and uses building materials that are consistent
with the church's building materials; and
WHEREAS, the personal wireless service facility is not located in an inappropriate location,
in that the facility meets federal safety limits for radio frequency energy exposure for onsite
and nearby land uses, such as a school; and :hat the facility is sited in an appropriate location
and designed in accordance with * the City's Wireless Master Plan and Wireless
Communications Facilities Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the methodology to calculate radio frequency power density is not wrong as it
uses the equation prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission, the agency that
promulgates the rules that regulates radio frequency energy exposure.
1 -5
107
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the appeal of Director's Minor Modification, .file no. DIR2010 -05 is
hereby recommended for denial; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearbig record concerning Application No. DIR -2010-
05 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 27, 2010, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set f c)rth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DIR - 2010 -05 (appeal)
Applicant: Bradley Head, NSA Wir:less for Clearwire
Property Owner: West Valley Presbyterian Church
Location: 6191 Bollinger Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTER BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Director's Minor Modification Approval Memorandum, file no. DIR- 2010 -05 with
attachments A through D dated May :?7, 2010.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a
statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. ABANDONMENT
If after installation, the aerial is not ased for its permitted purpose for a continuous
period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The
applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removal.
4. EXPIRATION DATE
This Director's Minor Modification sf.all expire ten (10) years after the effective date of
the permit. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the minor modification at which
time the Director of Community Development may review the- state of wireless
N
communication and camouflage technologies to determine if the visual impact of the
personal wireless facility can be reduc E!d.
5. POST- CONSTRUCTION RADIO FREQUENCY ENERGY EXPOSURE TESTING
Prior to the commercial operation of tJ1is facility, the applicant shall submit a field test
report on the radio frequency energy emissions to the Director of Community
Development confirming that public exposures to generated radio frequency energy
(measured at full power) complies with federal safety standards at ground level and
nearest residential property line ( measured at second floor level).
6. DISCLOSURE OF PRESENCE OF PEF:SONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY
Upon construction of the project, the property owner shall disclose the presence of
personal wireless service facility to users and expected users of the school operations
and provide a copy of such notice to the Director of Community Development.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of : f my 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
g: /pl /pdreport /res /2010 /DIR- 2010-05 res APPEAL.doc
APPROVED:
Paul Brophy, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
. _
109
Attachment 2
CITY OF C UPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777 -3308
To: Mayor and City Council Members_
Chairperson and Planning Commiss:.oners
From: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Plaiuner
Date: May 27, 2010
Subject: Director's Minor Modification, DIR- 2010 -05, to allow the installation of a personal
wireless service facility on the roof of an existing church, consisting of three
panel antennas and three microwave dishes screened by a faux cupola and a
ground level equipment cabinet at 6191 Bollinger Road.
Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code allows for administrative
approval of minor changes in a project. The Director reports his decision to the
City Council, Planning Commission End property owners within 1,000 feet to
afford interested parties time to appez l the decision within fourteen calendar
M
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Bradley Head, of NSA Wireless, representing Clearwire, is proposing to install a
personal wireless service facility on the rooftop of the West Valley Presbyterian Church at 6191
Bollinger Road. The personal wireless service :'ZLCility consists of three panel antennas and three
rooftop microwave dishes mounted on the roc.f., and an equipment cabinet located in an
enclosure at ground level. Clearwire is a subsidiary of Sprint / Nextel, that will provide Sprint's
4G (4+h generation) technology.
DISCUSSION:
Screening
Visible rooftop equipment must be screened from public street view. The equipment has been
enclosed in a faux cupola constructed of radio transparent materials that do not interfere with
the radio signals (Attachment A). The fain: cupola has been designed to complement the
design of the church, matching the roof materials and the brick columns at grade, enhancing the
appearance of the church.
Radio Frequency Energy (RFE) Assessment
An RFE assessment was commissioned by the applicant to evaluate the RFE exposure from the
personal wireless service facility against national safety standards . The study concluded that
the potential exposure from RFE, at ground level and from the second floor elevation of any
1-8
110
DIR- 2010 -05
6191 Bollinger Road Page 2
nearby building, are well below federal safety standards (respectively, 0.27° and 0.14° of the
applicable public limit - see Attachment B).
Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) Review
The Cupertino Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) reviewed
the proposal and commented that the proposed facility will provide adequate coverage to
nearby residents, workers and businesses. TICC did not have any concerns about the visual
effects or RFE of the antennas (Attachment C).
ACTION:
The Director of Community Development deeins the modification minor and approves the
wireless facility with the following conditions of approval. State law requires a minim 10-
year permit for personal wireless service facilities.
1. APPROVED EXHIBI'T'S
Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "CA- SJC0140B/6191 Bollinger Road/ Cupertino, CA
95014 prepared by CDG: Connell Design Group, LLC dated 03/04/10 and consisting of
four sheets labeled T1, Al, A2, and A3, except as may be amended by the conditions
contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESEI:VATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions.
You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest
these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(x), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying
with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later
challenging such exactions.
3. ABANDONMENT
If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period
of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall
bear the entire cost of demolition and removal.
4. EXPIRATION DATE
This Director's Minor Modification shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of the
permit. The applicant may apply for a re aewal of the minor modification at which time the
Director of Community Development may review the state of wireless communication and
camouflage technologies to determine if the visual impact of the personal wireless facility
can be reduced.
6. POST - CONSTRUCTION RADIO FREQU) NCY ENERGY EXPOSURE TESTING
Prior to the commercial operation of th.s facility, the applicant shall submit a field test
report on the radio frequency energy emissions to the Director of Community Development
confirming that public exposures to generated radio frequency energy (measured at full
1 -9
111
DIR- 2010 -05
6191 Bollinger Road Page 3
power) complies with federal safety stan [ands at ground level and nearest residential
property line (measured at second floor lev a]).
7. DISCLOSURE OF'PRESENCE OF PERSON WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY
Upon construction of the project, the property owner shall disclose the presence of
personal wireless service facility to users znd expected users of the school operations and
provide a copy of such notice to the Directc r of Community
Development.
This Director's approval is effective May 27, 2010. The fourteen calendar day appeal period will
expire on June 10, 2010.
Enclosures:
Attachment A: Photosimulation
Attachment B: Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, on compliance
with FCC standards for RFE exposure for the Clearwire, LLC Proposed Base
Station (Site No. CA- SJC01401�), 6191 Bollinger Road, Cupertino, California ",
Attachment C: Emails from TICC Commissioners
Attachment D: Plan Set
Fjo +ei , —
Attachments are available in the Pl annin g DeF artment file and may be viewed at the City's
website at www.cu_pertino.or . Select the lint: to Public Records and select file number DIR-
2010-05.
1 -'10
112
clear. West Valley Presbyterian Church Site# CA-SJC0140B Looking Southeast from Miller Avenue
. .... .... . .....
6191 Bollinger Road Applied hmaginaum , -D5x
5/20/10 Cupertino, CA 95014 113
6191 Boliinger Road Anplied Imnan 5 9
5/201 Cupertino, CA 95014 1- 1 2
114
clear West Valley Presbyterian Church Site # CA-SJC0140B Looking Northwest from Bollinger Road
Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Ease Station (Site No. CA- SJC0140B)
6191 Bollinger Rcad - Cupertino, California
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consult.ng Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Clearwire,
LLC, a personal wireless service provider, .o evaluate the base station (Site No. CA- SJC0140B)
proposed to be located at 6191 Bollinger Road in Cupertino, California, for compliance with
appropriate guidelines limiting human exposu:e to radio frequency ( "RF ") electromagnetic fields.
Prevailing 1= xposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ") evaluate its
actions for possible significant impact on th environment. In Docket 93 -62, effective October 15,
1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure) imits for field strength and power density recommended
in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressio -tally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements ( "NCRP "). Separate limi s apply for occupational and public exposure conditions,
with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard
ANSI/IEEE C95.1 -2006, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes similar exposure limits. A summary of the
FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure " . These limits apply for continuous exposures and are
intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
The most restrictive FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for
several personal wireless services are as follows:
Personal Wireless Service
A rox. Fre uen
Occu ational Limit
5.00 /cm
Public Limit
1.00 mW /cm
Broadband Radio ( "BRS ")
2,600 MHz
mW
1.00
Advanced Wireless ( "AWS ")
2,100
5.00
Personal Communication ( "PCS ")
1,950
5.00
1.00
Cellular Telephone
870
2.90
2.85
0.58
0.57
Specialized Mobile Radio ( "SMR")
855
Long Term Evolution ( "LTE ")
700
2.33
0.47
[most restrictive frequency range]
30-300
1.00
0.20
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"channels ") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the ratios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables
HE HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. P X4'-2010 -0 CW0140B596.1
CONSULTAIG ENGIN rE; ;.1 :TO S APlS°R0VAL. Page 1 of 4
SAN FRANCISCO
E
it 11 �C�►v` T El/. Q R.
Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Erase Station (Site No. CA- SJC0140B)
6191 Bollinger Road - Cupertino, California
about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for
wireless services, the antennas require line -of sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are
installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward
the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along.with the low power of
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the
maximum permissible exposure limits without. being physically very near the Antennas.
Compute Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining i;ompliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC - Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near- field" effe ;t:) and that at greater distances the power level from an
energy source decreases with the .square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The
conservative nature of this method for evaluEting exposure conditions has been verified by numerous
field tests.
Site and f=acility Description
Based upon information provided by Clearwire, including drawings by Connell Design Group, LLC,
dated July 28, 2009, it is proposed to mount three Kathrein Model 840 -10054 directional panel BRS
antennas within a view screen enclosure to be constructed on the highly peaked roof of the West
Valley Presbyterian Church, located at 6191 Bollinger Road in Cupertino. The antennas would be
mounted with 2° downtilt at an effective height of about 59 feet above ground and would be oriented
at about 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in
any direction would be 1,260 watts. Also proposed to be mounted within the enclosure are three
microwave "dish" antennas, for interconnection of this site with others in the Clearwire network.
There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations installed nearby.
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground near the site, the maximum ambient RF exposure level due to the
proposed Clearwire operation, including the contributions of the microwave antennas, is calculated to
be 0.0027 mW /cm which is 0.27% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated level at
the second -floor elevation of any nearby building" is 0.14% of the applicable public limit. It should be
noted that these results include several " case" assumptions and therefore are expected to
` Located at least 90 feet away, based on aerial photographs from Google Maps.
HAm mETT & EDISON, INC. Cw0140B596.1
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ; • HESAN FRAN tsm ' + • t :.: Page 2 of 4
1 4P CO r Y V. D► 3
Clearwire, LLC - Proposed Ease Station (Site No. CA- SJC0140B)
6191 Bollinger Rcad - Cupertino, California
overstate actual power density levels. Levels may exceed the public limit on the roof of the building
in front of the enclosure, very near the antennas.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to their mounting locations, the Clearwirc antennas would not be accessible to the general public,
and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines.
To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 2 feet directly in
front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the enclosure or
the top of the roof, should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can
be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory
warning signst on th e screens in front of the: antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible
from any angle of approach to persons why might need to work within that distance, would be
sufficient to meet FCC - adopted guidelines.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base
station proposed by Clearwire, LLC at 6191 >_;ollinger Road in Cupertino, California, will comply with
the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not
for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly
accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration.
This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating
base stations. Posting of explanatory signs is recommended to establish compliance with occupational
exposure limitations.
t Warning signs should comply with OET -65 colo-, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information
should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to ai range for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s)
is not an engineering matter, and guidance frorr the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate
professionals may be required.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. P -1" g — c2b l O - S CW0140B596.1
HESAN FRANMOD r CONSULTING ENGINEERS _ :... i . • ! !- R' !.� -
5_a Page3 of
ClearvAre, LLC - Proposed Base Station (Site No. CA- SJC0140B)
6191 Bollinger Road - Cupertino, California
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement iE a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E -13026 and M- 20676, which expire on June 30, 2011. This work has been carried
out under his direction, and all statements are: true and correct of his own knowledge except, where
noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
December 22, 2009
HAmmET'T & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HE SAN FRANCISCO
,�I ,e',2t) �
4 -
CW0140B596.1
Page 4 of 4
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, `Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ( "NCRP ").
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSMEE C95.1 -2006, "Safety
Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz," includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and
are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics an(Vor dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MH
Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field
Range Field Strengtt Field Strength Power Density
(MHZ) (V /m) (A/m) (mW /cM
0.3- 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
1.34- 3.0 614 82331f 1.63 2.191f 100 18011
3.0- 30 1842/f 823.4/f 4.89/ f 2.191f 900 / f 18011
30- 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
300- 1,500 3.54 -f 1.59ff ff /106 'ff1238 f/300 f /1500
1,500- 100,000 137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
1000 / Occupational Exposure
100 - - � \.r PCS
3 a 10 ��� FM Cell
/•
0.1
Public Ex osu;
0.1 1 10 100 10 10 10
Frequency (MHz)
Higher levels are allowed for short periods o f time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed for exposures to sniall areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineernig and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rf:ctangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate p.-ojections.
KE HAMMETT & EDISON, INC- ( ��_ t 0 -05 FCC Guidelines
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISco -7 - j� Figure 1
M.
RFR.CALC Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of Lge, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, co not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wirell;ss telecommunications base stations, as well as dish
(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in
the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65
(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones.
For a panel or whip antenna, power density r' = 180 x 0.1 x P in mW /cm2,
B n xD xh
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = 0.1 x 1 x 77 x PII,, , in mW /cm 2,
where 8BW = half -power beamwidtb of the antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,
D = distance from antenna. in meters,
h = aperture height of the ;antenna, in meters, and
77 = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5 -0.8).
The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts i o the desired units of power density.
Far Field.
OET 65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
256x xERP CM
power density S = — in mW /2,
4x,nxD
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase: in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56)). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor :)1* 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total a Kpected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
DID- � c�lo -os
HE HAMMETT & EDISON, INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS Methodology
SAN FRANCLSOO •' •• ! _ Figure 2 V. '120
Colin Jung
FW: Two Clearwire Cell Site Referrals: DIR- 2010 -05; U- 2010 -01 Email 2
Subject:
-- Original Message---- -
From: Peter Friedland [mailto:peterf riedland @E;mail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:25 AM
To: Colin Jung; Avinash Gadre
Subject: RE: Two Clearwire Cell Site Referral!.: DIR- 2010 -05; U- 2010 -01 Email 2
Dear Colin,
My comments on the two proposed Clearwire app= .ications are as follows:
1. DIR- 2010 -15: the analysis of maximum possible radiation exposure appears technically
correct and well- supported. The installation provides good coverage for the wimax
frequencies. Esthetically the design seems nearly completely invisible to the casual
observer, although as noted by staff, the tern "cupola" to describe the enclosure is
incorrect.
2. U- 2010 -01: the analysis of maximum possible radiation exposure appears technically
correct and well- supported. The installation provides good coverage for the wimax
frequences. While the installation does subs :antially change the look of the New Life
Church, it provides no indication that it is an electronic installation, and I find it
clever way to blend into the existing church architecture.
Peter Friedland
Vice- Chair, TICC
^05
1 X19
121
Colin Jung
Subject: FW: Two Clearwire Cell Site Referrals: DIR- 2010 -05; U- 2010 -01
From: Avinash Gadre [mailto:avigadre @hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:52 AM
To: Colin Jung; Peter Friedland
Subject: Re: Two Clearwire Cell Site Referrals: DIR - 2010 -C'5; U- 2010 -01
Hi Colin
My comments -
DIR - 2010 -05:
1. There are no technical concerns - antenna would provide adequate coverage.
2. Based on calculations provided by Clearwire, there ;are no concerns of public exposure
3. Even though proposed design is acceptable aesthetically, it is not cupola as described by the contractor.
U 2010 - 01:
1. There are no technical concerns - antenna would provide adequate coverage.
2. Based on calculations provided by Clearwire, there are no concerns of public exposure
3. Aesthetically, the design goes well with rest of the building. Even though size of the modified rooftop is
bigger compared the rest of the building, number of antennas are same as in proposal DIR - 2010 -05 (above).
Regards
Avinash
�I� - �o►o �05
CCVH,4. N
�7 v. I'?fR;
` 1
1 - -20
122
U t;Oh -ln[IU
clear w * re��
CA- SJC0140B
6191 BOLLINGER ROAD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
PROJECT INFORMATION
IILOL SID LUILe,L
INL[ : -eR f ILI E
iNL[ iK nwr OILLO I - f C•-Lto S /IIIR— l.0 LRDno :--
1N�a TK eblR ne Ln N \OEYro SM ILLSLIRffA
CLaLIM A lell[n I�
,uD LtIT n eRLle[N eo
PRaECT OE%CRLP[ION:
CLWRa INOIOAf WNfINCL M IM S[LicarnulnN[
»t}m m:mfnS R I SNR[ -RCLM
((M��
DDDIIE ME[ [ Ie[IOlID� ��fi[!!lE MM �:) fNMI elE:MfD WR. ae M OQ1M
•w tAMtAM ] IRLr
PROPERTY OWNER:
i »LLwE, El eeov
:aNL: H»I ve-,tR
: .� � •M cN:n:w
n a,.
EpoE RaORLGTION:
CODE t],.namE Teo
PROJECT IEi10:
euLrlle uK: aw, La
ueeT ay.LL
LSLEIEFLLeN Lf)L r - e
ernarwc� a
�CM]tt:
nCtl L « - LOR
a.RmLtLIOE RM1 K MRIm
SITE ACOUISINON:
K\: 04L »NLe11
OeeR1L1 uR: RLtEDwIMwLloNS INCNT
rLV® uR: mrmErLLLrevD r[om
Dh n«I •eo-]m
EONNG NA[Y6ER
SITE LOG:IgN: (g�rjj ON /L ^ tLl•
ne ry�' •ee -iii
GTnufL: ]ne'K.n' N
LLROTIp[: Lfratl•).R' •
a
{,ON57HUCTgN_
toMfn:
Lr
w eLn:crLxR [a a
ewu a1 sLEEnE[ ,Df� L�
RF ENGINEER:
m
sLEer
—u .- — omn
oltiCn 1a NfuSwlel_
IL! Hall AI -) »,
D.¢[ efLKS •FORM m [qL RCM NR[ Al OIUe+IR ML RM RKKO
!TE
9NOAe
PROJECT AREA:
'
N I1 MEORMAOON�
:. 1'wn10E ROUwp[Mf DgaLKp.
t. lwrc a uLw»tna
s. ]LLDrt Ls .norafm
NIOIIIRDL D M4 6 iNOfOR0.
PROJECT TEAM
PROJECT ENCMEER PRWECT EMMA iAM
o+r tbl[Ln]. rt
CONIOAI RWM Oral. TLC 1�L, M.CbfM lw. fVR LLb
•eR L•LCl1011[D CL. SuR •R !M INMON. G e•MU
KLNYeLL Rvl G RRO D1; (f[]) HI -IRO
taLL,ti: R[L tOMMIL EbROR: 1M11I aORI
RONKLLe[LTLaIOOIDImgI/_ELO
VICINITY MAP
IILOL SID LUILe,L
INL[ : -eR f ILI E
iNL[ iK nwr OILLO I - f C•-Lto S /IIIR— l.0 LRDno :--
1N�a TK eblR ne Ln N \OEYro SM ILLSLIRffA
CLaLIM A lell[n I�
,uD LtIT n eRLle[N eo
MNNeTE OSR 9ADLIle[
flE`RNf 01[B( Rq
N
DE.�
`I
ueL0.011a.
u
1GIM
aM1J]L]M
CONfT:
MCS�[IC llfln[b
Kpe efL
a
S/4
SILT
S(R
RC RlM M
MQ OYeI[t[R
SOL
`
tTE
M C.No [ nro
NNStI n A
eLrenLLREn
•SK:
m i rm
RFA `�
'
M
e
Etr AO
m
sLEer
[
r,DalfLa
16fCKM
Lill RtN1n
D.¢[ efLKS •FORM m [qL RCM NR[ Al OIUe+IR ML RM RKKO
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
IILOL SID LUILe,L
INL[ : -eR f ILI E
iNL[ iK nwr OILLO I - f C•-Lto S /IIIR— l.0 LRDno :--
1N�a TK eblR ne Ln N \OEYro SM ILLSLIRffA
CLaLIM A lell[n I�
,uD LtIT n eRLle[N eo
MNNeTE OSR 9ADLIle[
RINMG
II I
DE.�
`I
ueL0.011a.
®
1GIM
aM1J]L]M
CONfT:
MCS�[IC llfln[b
Kpe efL
eLN \Ot]aD
S/4
SILT
S(R
RC RlM M
MQ OYeI[t[R
SOL
`
Saga
'
M C.No [ nro
NNStI n A
eLrenLLREn
•SK:
m i rm
RFA `�
'
M
e
AI.
m
sLEer
[
r,DalfLa
16fCKM
Lill RtN1n
D.¢[ efLKS •FORM m [qL RCM NR[ Al OIUe+IR ML RM RKKO
DRAWING IN D E X
II I
DE.�
`I
DQR[[
®
1GIM
aM1J]L]M
II
Re
MCS�[IC llfln[b
Kpe efL
eLN \Ot]aD
M OerEnENeR
SILT
S(R
RC RlM M
MQ OYeI[t[R
SOL
`
Saga
'
M C.No [ nro
NNStI n A
eLrenLLREn
W
m i rm
RFA `�
'
M
e
n
DNRDIaDL
m
sLEer
[
r,DalfLa
OeL 0[nR[
[e1 b—n[O
eLEAeq mR
IellllOf
Sm
RLY
!TE
9NOAe
[e0 tM[RM SR
ION OpeN
TKy
1N[RPL
O[T [[TK KM
D•E IMRLF MS
KPSRTM
K,N,
1NC
M
1fM0
1SPLal
M»
G MGl1 ILaI
fl[II R[wl[M
MWVM:LIIIR
MaILSe
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
\r[ )aoeraoN LLfnrro D TLR to s
COLLS OOLIIIIfILLt O III[IL•Lb:nT R Nnuc
ee tDReaD[ LLTN[II ,� DK
I[Grp \o cane SrRLLCn E LRecn. Laorsen[e.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
M IIeE RI[M[e m KKM N
tmDrm D bt aN[ ar naeww
COUN,f R 0110ILR O[SRAm b
ABBREVIATIONS
• MoY[ CI � NRE �`
YIeRI M
DE.�
`I
DQR[[
MfRReaVR)
RM 011fdE LNf`
1GIM
aM1J]L]M
II
Re
MCS�[IC llfln[b
Kpe efL
eLN \Ot]aD
M OerEnENeR
SILT
S(R
RC RlM M
MQ OYeI[t[R
SOL
`
Saga
'
M C.No [ nro
NNStI n A
eLrenLLREn
W
m i rm
RFA `�
'
M
e
n
DNRDIaDL
m
sLEer
[
r,DalfLa
OeL 0[nR[
[e1 b—n[O
eLEAeq mR
IellllOf
Sm
RLY
!TE
9NOAe
[e0 tM[RM SR
ION OpeN
TKy
1N[RPL
O[T [[TK KM
D•E IMRLF MS
KPSRTM
K,N,
1NC
M
1fM0
1SPLal
M»
G MGl1 ILaI
fl[II R[wl[M
MWVM:LIIIR
MaILSe
11110
IM314 MRD bfMFAeIR
[I[t RFC'LIIGa Eft
[e [01e1 e0
M4Y1]DNR»
11011DL OfME
K
Y[MOL
KOe) D fOfD
[R1 [OMnRM
In lMtAeR W
rioT ALNRO'ML[
�/
IeC
Iw rnsrl m
Iln M LANLI[cr
LE\ ro stx[
�/p
M
PLpM
[DIU Noa[
nwe LtLNRntaO
M R(AB OC
n IOaf OD
ON tiLllFe
OLLIf10[ OYWnp
Oaf D1Ed0
fc aKLDL LLNIRKI011
�e en�D - r� DwE:
clear wbre
tauen IRM
NSA Wireless, Inc.
CRNt[�
m
0
U
U
Q
U
QIt
On
Q m
In
0
Z
�a
a�
�U
REVISIONS
b e•R
s �
•LJ C)DS
LE, IRI NIDie1R.fEl1 IOl[Sf
IMf]R M C011[1011CIM !R
SHEET ME
TTTLE SHEET
SHEET NUMBER
T -1
123
D� le r201O - 0 5
i
1�
I
124
clear w're
m a111.YY rY.r
NSA Wireless, Inc.
C o
O a
o
r ¢
W O
U
Z
(j) In G1
�7
mU
U
r Yss
R EVISIONS
rnr +Doss zo a
zo a
0
0
for rm cactsulnsr uw[ss
ueam a mrorurenlY v
SKEET 71 LE
SITE PLAN
SKEET M KR
A -1
P IS al to -0 5
t' AP?P1t0V L
�inewa wn w
m�mtu w w n
waa
(;C1 'l
clear w'r e
i w c.wtw ran
eonue. r �wi
NSA Wireless, Inc.
r.
a,mesa"
Co
po
W U
U "
az
to m
; U
U
REVISIONS
�m
..� nw m.w�.cnar w.tss
urnm .e awn. <rw ai
SHEET TITLE
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
"CET NUMBER
A -2
.15
p ,2010- 05
�n
ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION
ENLARGED
ELEVATION
RYdr l�l
..r
clear w're"
RIEalIO. M INl
NSA Wireless, Inc.
- --
W
Q
po
Q w�
U z
q
I r/' J� : C
0.
�
�p U
U
REVISIONS
was
M
w
ror raw mMnwc�nn vans
varam a �srnelaw tr
SHEET TREE
ELEVATIONS
SHEET HUMBER
A -3
126
CUPERTINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) '777 -3223
Attachment 3
D -
�o
JUN ?010
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
3
AP PEAL
1. Application No.
2. Applicant(s) Name:
3. Appellant(s) Name:
Address
Phone Number
Email
z,0 (o - C)�
4. P ease check one:
Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
❑ Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works
❑ Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
0 Appeal a decision of Design Review Committee
❑ Appeal a decision of Code :Enforcement
6M
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
21�6 I O
6. Basis of appeal: y, Q P e e5P
�'1 0 ' C ` r , ► rNor
I S ,J�:�eo�i�f1 - 7� Aj - 0 1 T t4wlol�- 11 7Y
A- m oP [ 5 a/e-o ,
Signature s)
Please complete form, include appeal fee of $162.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 09 -051
($155.00 for massage application appeals', and return to the attention of the City Clerk,
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777 -3223.
1 -25
�1�_Z� 127
Colin Jung Attachment 4
From: The Yuens [sixyuens @yahoo.colm]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:41 PM
To: Mikkel Lantz; Colin Jung
Subject: Antennae at West Valley Presbyterian Church
Hi all,
Please take a look to this news came up this morning. Cell phones do not radiate as much as
Wimax. I just wanted to give you this informzi:ion to let you know that there are many who
are concerned about the possible radiation effects.
Thank you,
Ione Yuen
http: / /www.govtech.com /Rt /articles /765484
San Francisco Approves Cell Phone Radiation Wzrnings Created by Brian Shields on 6/22/2010
3:42:00 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco's Bozr of Supervisors has approved a new law
requiring cell phone retailers to post the amount of radiation emitted from their phones.
The board voted 10 -1 Tuesday to approve a first -of- its -kind ordinance requiring stores
to disclose the specific absorption rate, or EAR, of each phone they sell.
The measure is backed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is expected to sign it within 10 days.
Opponents say the city is responding to unfounded concern over cell phone radiation.
Whether or not the radiation produced by cell phones causes cancer or other health problems
is still a matter of debate among scientists.
Advocates say they hope the labels will dissuade consumers from buying higher- radiation
phones until the science is clearer.
(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) print
Here is the link:
http: / /www.kron.com /News /ArticleView /tabid /29F smid/ 1126 /ArticleID /6303 /reftab /536 /t /San %2OFr
ancisco% 20Approves% 2BCell% 2OPhone% 2ORadiationg ;2 :OWarnings /Default.aspx
1 --26
128
Colin Jung
From: The Yuens [sixyuens @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Mikkel Lantz; Colin Jung
Cc: daniel zhu; kemito kemito; Norman Yuen; The Yuens
Subject: Hazards regarding Antenna at %WPC
Attachments: ICNIRP Guidelines FOR LIMITIVG EXPOSURE TO TIME- VARYING.pdf
Dear Mikkel (and Colin),
Upon your request for information, here is some research regarding our concerns about the installation of the
WiMax Antenna at West Valley Presbyterian Church.
Some of these refer to Cell phone towers and WiMax i ; different than Cell phone towers. WiMax toweres will
radiate more power than cell phone towers and the amount of time people spend on their computers is
significantly more than they spend on cell phone calls.
Thank you for your willingness to hear our concerns.
Regards,
Ione Yuen
After quite some reading, I think there are few points worth to mention:
1. Radiation limit, per ICNIRP guideline (see attached), are "based on short-term, immediate health effect
such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting
objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In
the case of potential long -term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded
that available data are insufficient to provide a basi3 for setting exposure restrictions,"
2. What we are most concerned about most are th-1 `unknown" non - thermal" effects. Per FCC info below
"It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their
possible relevance, if any, to human health. ", that i:; why prudent avoidance has been adopted in Australia,
Sweden, and several U.S. states. including California, Colorado, Hawaii, New York, Ohio, Texas, and
Wisconsin. http: / /www. who. int/ Qeh- emf /meetinizs/;outhkorea/en/Leeka Kheifets principle pdf
I have found two very useful web pages:
1. This one has a lot of info. http://emfsafe netwirk.org/?p =116, especially
a. International Resolutions Advocating a Precautionary Approach to the Use and Expansion of
Wireless Technologies
b. HUNTINGTON BEACH - City leaders unanimously voted Monday night to move a cell phone
tower that was slated to be built next to Harbour View School and sparked public outcry Note "T-
Mobile said that the cell phone tower is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission ".
c. Taiwan removes 1500 cell towers near
1
1 -27
129
schools: http:// www .cbinUost.com.tw /taiw. /11/06 /129715 /1500 - cellphone.htm
d. Australian Democrats "Demand crackdown on mobile phone .
towers" hq: / /www. democrats .org.au /news, ?press id =6417
http : / /www.democrats.org.au/does /2007 /Joi the Dotsll.pdf
e. Oregon, USA city school board unplu €;s cell
towers: http: / /www.oregonlive .com/news /ir /09 /west linnwilsonville school Note "It
hasn't been proven to be a hazard, but it hasn't been proven to be safe"
2. Peer- reviewed journal Pathophysiology has a special issue on science and health risks due to
electromagnetic fields. Scientist, researchers, and public health policy professionals discussed the effect on
DNA, brain, and in our environment. This is an ex link
http: / /www. j oumals. elsevierhealth. com/periodi cal s /patphy /issues /contents ?issue_key =S 0928 -
4680 %2809 %29X0003 -9
- -- On Mon, 6/14/10, The Yuens Ss&yuens@yahoo.c 7,Pn> wrote:
This is from the FCC Website:
WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY?
Biological effects can result from exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue
by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effect:;. It has been known for many years that exposure to very
high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ,ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. ThiE
is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in
heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during
exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could
be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because
of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipat-: the excess heat load.
At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i e., levels lower than those that would produce significant
heating; the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects, if
they exist, have been referred to as "non - thermal" effects. A number of reports have appeared in the scientific
literature describing the observation of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to low- levels of RF
energy.. However, in most cases, further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects.
Furthermore, since much of the research is not done on whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination
that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to
determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime,
standards- setting organizations and government agen continue to monitor the latest experimental findings tc
confirm their validity and determine whether changes ia safety limits are needed to protect human health. Back
to Index
1 —�8
'130
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WMAX
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Attachment 5
WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) is a telecommunications protocol that
provides fixed and fully mobile internet access. Th -, current WiMAX revision provides up to 40 Mbit/s
111121 with the IEEE 802.16m update expected offer up to 1 Gbit/s fixed speeds. (WiMAX is based on
the IEEE 802.16 standard, also called Broadband `Tireless Access). The name "WiMAX" was created
by the WiMAX Forum, which was formed in June 2001 to promote conformity and interoperability of
the standard. The forum describes WiMAX as standards -based technology enabling the delivery of
last mile wireless broadband access as an alternatiN a to cable and DSL ".
Contents
■ 1 Terminology
■ 2 Uses
■ 2.1 Broadband
. 2.2 Back -haul
. 2.3 Triple -play
■ 2.4 Rapid deployment
■ 3 Connecting to WiMAX
■ 3.1 WiMAX Gateways
. 3.2 WiMAX Dongles
■ 3.3 WiMAX Mobiles
■ 4 Technical information
■ 4.1 WiMAX and the 802.16 Standard
■ 4.2 Physical layer
■ 4.3 MAC (data link) layer
■ 4.4 Deployment
■ 4.5 Integration with an IP -based netw )rk
■ 4.6 Spectrum allocation
■ 4.7 Spectral efficiency
■ 4.8 Inherent Limitations
■ 4.9 Silicon implementations
■ 4.10 Comparison with Wi -Fi
■ 5 Conformance testing
■ 6 Associations
■ 6.1 WiMAX Forum
■ 6.2 WiMAX Spectrum Owners Alliar ce
■ 7 Competing technologies
■ 7.1 Harmonization
■ 7.2 Comparison
■ 8 Future development
■ 9Interference
■ 10 Deployments
■ 11 See also
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
1 -29
131 7/8/2010
WiMAX base station equipment
with a sector antenna and wireless
modem on top
A pre -WUAAX CPE of a 26 km
(16 mi) connection mounted
13 metres (43 ft) above the ground
(2004, Lithuania).
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 15
■ 12 References
■ 13 External links
Terminology
WiMAX refers to interoperable implementations o F - the IEEE 802.16 wireless- networks standard
(ratified by the WiMAX Forum), in similarity with Wi -Fi, which refers to interoperable implementations
of the IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN standard (ratified by the Wi -Fi Alliance). The WiMAX Forum
certification allows vendors to sell their equipment as WiMAX (Fixed or Mobile) certified, thus
ensuring a level of interoperability with other certified products, as long as they fit the same profile.
The IEEE 802.16 standard forms the basis of'WiN/*.A X' and is sometimes referred to colloquially as
"WiMAX ", "Fixed WiMAX ", "Mobile WiMAX ", T02.16d" and "802.16e. " 151 Clarification of the
formal names are as follow:
■ 802.16 -2004 is also known as 802.16d, which refers to the working party that has developed that
standard. It is sometimes referred to as "Fixed WiMAX," since it has no support for mobility.
■ 802.16e -2005, often abbreviated to 802.16e, is; an amendment to 802.16 -2004. It introduced
support for mobility, among other things anc is therefore also known as "Mobile WiMAX ".
Mobile WiMAX is the WiMAX incarnation that hm the most commercial interest to date and is being
actively deployed in many countries. Mobile WiM4x is also the basis of future revisions of WiMAX.
As such, references to and comparisons with "WilWa" in this Wikipedia article mean "Mobile
WiMAX".
Uses
The bandwidth and range of W24AX make it suite bile for the following potential applications:
• Providing portable mobile broadband connectivity across cities and countries through a variety of
devices.
• Providing a wireless alternative to cable and D SL for "last mile" broadband access.
• Providing data, telecommunications (VoIP) and IPTV services (triple play).
•_.P_roviding a_source of Inter connectiv ity . _as]2a4 of a business conti p lan. That is if a
business has both a fixed and a wireless Internet connection, especially from unrelated providers,
it is less likely to be affected by the same service outage.
■ Providing a network to facilitate machine to machine communications, such as for Smart
Metering.
Broadband
Companies are deploying WiMAX to provide moHlf; broadband or at -home broadband connectivity
across whole cities or countries. In many cases this has resulted in competition in markets which
typically only had access to broadband through an mdsting incumbent DSL (or alike) operator.
Additionally, given the relatively low cost to deplcy a WiMAX network (in comparison to GSM, DSL
or Fiber - Optic), it is now possible to provide broac band in places where it may have not been
economically viable.
1 -30
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiN4AX 132 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Back - haul
Page 3 of 15
WiMAX is a possible replacement candidate for ce ilular phone technologies such as GSM and CDMA,
or can be used as an overlay to increase capacity. Fixed WiMAX is also considered as a wireless
backhaul technology for 2G, 3G, and 4G networks in both developed and poor nations.l
In North America, backhaul for urban cellular operations is typically provided via one or more copper
wire line TI connections, whereas remote cellular operations are sometimes backhauled via satellite. In
most other regions, urban and rural backhaul is usually provided by microwave links. (The exception to
this is where the network is operated by an incumb ;nt with ready access to the copper network, in which
case T1 lines may be used). WiMAX is a broadban3 platform and as such has much more substantial
backhaul bandwidth requirements than legacy cellular applications. Therefore, traditional copper wire
line backhaul solutions are not appropriate. Consequently the use of wireless microwave backhaul is on
the rise in North America and existing microwave backhaul links in all regions are being upgraded. 181
Capacities of between 34 Mbit/s and 1 Gbit/slciration needed] are routinely being deployed with latencies
in the order of 1 ms. In many cases, operators are aggregating sites using wireless technology and then
presenting traffic onto fiber networks where convenient.
Triple -play
WiMAX supports the technologies that make triple -play service offerings possible (such as Quality of
Service and Multicasting).
As a result, it is possible for a WiMAX operator to not only provide high -speed broadband internet
access, but also VoIP and IPTV services to custom ,-rs with relative ease. This enables a WiMAX service
to be a replacement for DSL, Cable and Telephony services.
On May 7, 2008 in the United States, Sprint Nexte:, Google, Intel, Comcast, Bright House, and Time
Warner announced a pooling of an average of 120 .MHz of spectrum and merged with Clearwire to form
a company which will take the name Clear. The new company hopes to benefit from combined services
offerings and network resources as a springboard past its competitors. The cable companies will provide
media services to other partners while gaining access to the wireless network as .a Mobile virtual
network operator to provide triple -play services.
Some analysts hav questioned how the de wi wo rk ou Altho fixed - mobile co has
been a recognized factor in thiein�ustry, prior atteripts to form partnerships among wireless and cable
companies have generally failed to lead to signifiewit benefits to the participants. Other analysts point
out that as wireless progresses to higher bandwidth, it inevitably competes more directly with cable and
DSL, thrusting competitors into bed together. Also, as wireless broadband networks grow denser and
usage habits shift, the need for increased backhaul and media service will accelerate, therefore the
opportunity to leverage cable assets is expected to increase.
Rapid deployment
■ WiMAX access was used to assist with communications in Aceh, Indonesia, after the tsunami in
December 2004. All communication infrastructure in the area, other than amateur radio, was
destroyed, making the survivors unable to cc-msriunicate with people outside the disaster area and
vice versa. WiMAX provided broadband access that helped regenerate communication to and
from Aceh.
1 -31
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiN4AX 133 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page 4 of 15
■ WiMAX was donated by Intel Corporation to assist the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and FEMA in their communications efforts in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. 191 In
practice, volunteers used mainly self - healing mesh, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and a
satellite uplink combined with Wi -Fi on the J ocal link. llo1
Connecting to WiNIAX
There are numerous devices on the market that provide connectivity to a
WiMAX network. These are known as the "subscriber unit" (SU).
There is an increasing focus on portable units, this includes handsets
(similar to cellular smartphones), PC peripherals (PC Cards or USB
dongles), and embedded devices in laptops, which are now available for
Wi -Fi services. In addition, there is much emphasis; from operators on
consumer electronics devices such as Gaming consoles, MP3 players
and similar devices. It is notable that WMAX is more similar to Wi -Fi
than to 3G cellular technologies.
The WiMAX Forum website provides a list of cert.fied devices.
However, this is not a complete list of devices available as certified
modules are embedded into laptops, NffDs (Mobile internet devices),
and other private labeled devices.
WiMAX Gateways
WiMAX gateway devices are available as both indoor and outdoor
versions from several manufacturers. Many of the 'WiNLAX gateways
that are offered by manufactures such as ZyXEL, Motorola, and
Greenpacket are stand -alone self - install indoor uni Such devices
typically sit near the customer's window with the best WiMAX signal,
and provide:
A WiMAX Gateway which
provides VoIP, Ethernet and
WiFi connectivity
A WiNIAX USB modem for
■ An integrated Wi -Fi access point to provide the WiMAX Internet mobile internet
connectivity to multiple devices throughout 1.be home or business.
-- —■— Ethenet ports- should -you- wish -to- connect dir(.ctly to your - computer- or- D -V-I_ instead-- -- - - - -_ - - - --
■ One or two PSTN telephone jacks to connect your land -line phone and take advantage of VoIP.
Indoor gateways are convenient, but radio losses rrLean that the subscriber may need to be significantly
closer to the WiMAX base station than with professionally- installed external units.
Outdoor units are roughly the size of a laptop PC, and their installation is comparable to the installation
of a residential satellite dish. A higher -gain directional outdoor unit will generally result in greatly
increased range and throughput but with the obvious loss of practical mobility of the unit.
WiMAX Dongles
There are a variety of USB dongles on the market which provide connectivity to a WiMAX network.
Generally these devices are connected to a notebook or netbook whilst on the go. Dongles typically have
omnidirectional antennae which are of lower -gain 1ompared to other devices, as such these devices are
best used in areas of good coverage.
1 -32
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiNlAX 134. 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WiMAX Mobiles
Page 5of15
HTC announced the first WiMAX enabled mobile phone, the Max 4G, on Nov 12th 2008. The
device was only available to certain markets in Ru::sia on the Yota network.
HTC released the second WiMAX enabled mobile phone, the EVO 4G, March 23, 2010 at the CTIA
conference in Las Vegas. The device made available on June 4, 2010 is capable of both EV- DO(3G)
and WiMax(4G) as well as simultaneous data & vc ice sessions. The device also has a front - facing
camera enabling the use of video conversations. 1 A number of WiMAX Mobiles are expected to hit
the US market in 2010J 141
Technical information
WiMAX and the IEEE 802.16 Standard
The current WiMAX revision is based upon IEEE ;3td 802.16e-
2005, approved in December 2005. It is a suppl:,ment to the
IEEE Std 802.16 - 2004, and so the actual standard is 802.16-
2004 as amended by 802.16e -2005. Thus, these spccifications
need to be considered together.
IEEE 802.16e -2005 improves upon IEEE 802.16 -2004 by:
■ Adding support for mobility (soft and hard h andover Illustration of a WiMAX MIMO
between base stations). This is seen as one of the most board
important aspects of 802.16e -2005, and is thi; very basis
of Mobile WiMAX.
. Scaling of the Fast Fourier transform (FFT) to the channel bandwidth in order to keep the carrier
spacing constant across different channel bandwidths (typically 1.25 MHz, 5 MHz, 10 MHz or
20 MHz). Constant carrier spacing results in a higher spectrum efficiency in wide channels, and a
cost reduction in narrow channels. Also known as Scalable OFDMA ( SOFDMA). Other bands not
multiples of 1.25 MHz are defined in the standard, but because the allowed FFT subcarrier
numbers are only 128, 512, 1024 and 2048, ether frequency bands will not have exactly the same
---- - - - - -- carrier - spacing, —which -might not_be- optimal -ior- implementations= - - - -- --
■ Advanced antenna diversity schemes, and hybrid automatic repeat- request (HARM)
• Adaptive Antenna Systems (AAS) and MIM D technology
• Denser sub- channelization, thereby improvir g indoor penetration
• Introducing Turbo Coding and Low- Density Parity Check (LDPC)
• Introducing downlink sub- channelization, allowing administrators to trade coverage for capacity
or vice versa
• Fast Fourier transform algorithm
• Adding an extra QoS class for VoIP applicat -ons.
SOFDMA (used in 802.16e -2005) and OFDM256 ("802.16d) are not compatible thus equipment will
have to be replaced if an operator is to move to the later standard (e.g., Fixed WiMAX to Mobile
WiMAX).
Physical layer
1 -33
http : / /en.wikipedia- org /wiki/WiMAX 135 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 6 of 15
The original version of the standard on which Wilv[AX is based (IEEE 802.16) specified a physical layer
operating in the 10 to 66 GHz range. 802.16a, upd, t -.d in 2004 to 802.16 -2004, added specifications for
the 2 to 11 GHz range. 802.16 -2004 was updated by 802.16e -2005 in 2005 and uses scalable orthogonal
frequency- division multiple access (SOFDMA) as opposed to the fixed orthogonal frequency- division
multiplexing (OFDM) version with 256 sub- carriei s (of which 200 are used) in 802.16d. More advanced
versions, including 802.16e, also bring multiple an.enna support through MIMO (See WiMAX MIMO).
This brings potential benefits in terms of coverage, self installation, power consumption, frequency re-
use and bandwidth efficiency.
MAC (data link) layer
The WiMAX MAC uses a scheduling algorithm for which the subscriber station needs to compete only
once for initial entry into the network. After netwo rl: entry is allowed, the subscriber station is allocated
an access slot by the base station. The time slot car. enlarge and contract, but remains assigned to the
subscriber station, which means that other subscribers cannot use it. In addition to being stable under
overload and over - subscription, the scheduling algorithm can also be more bandwidth efficient. The
scheduling algorithm also allows the base station to control Quality of service (QoS) parameters by
balancing the time -slot assignments among the apr lication needs of the subscriber stations.
Deployment
As a standard intended to satisfy needs of next - generation data networks (4G), WiMAX is distinguished
by its dynamic burst algorithm modulation adaptiv-, to the physical environment the RF signal travels
through. Modulation is chosen to be more spectrally efficient (more bits per OFDM/SOFDMA symbol).
That is, when the bursts have a high signal strength md a carrier to noise plus interference ratio (CINR),
they can be more easily decoded using digital sign,d processing (DSP). In contrast, operating in less
favorable environments for RF communication, the system automatically steps down to a more robust
mode (burst profile) which means fewer bits per OFDM/SOFDMA symbol; with the advantage that
power per bit is higher and therefore simpler accurate signal processing can be performed.
Burst profiles are used inverse (algorithmically dynamic) to low signal attenuation; meaning throughput
between clients and the base station is determined .argely by distance. Maximum distance is achieved by
the use of the most robust burst setting; that is, the profile with the largest MAC frame allocation trade-
off requiring more symbols (a larger portion of the MAC frame) to be allocated in transmitting a given
amo f - w ifthe client were closerto station. — - - -- --
The client's MAC frame and their individual burst profiles are defined as well as the specific time
allocation. However, even if this is done automatically then the practical deployment should avoid high
interference and multipath environments. The reason for which is obviously that too much interference
causes the network function poorly and can also misrepresent the capability of the network.
The system is complex to deploy as it is necessary to track not only the signal strength and CINR (as in
systems like GSM) but also how the available frequencies will be dynamically assigned (resulting in
dynamic changes to the available bandwidth.) This could lead to cluttered frequencies with slow
response times or lost frames.
As a result the system has to be initially designed in consensus with the base station product team to
accurately project frequency use, interference, and general product functionality.
Integration with an IP -based network
1 -34
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wikifWiMAX '136 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 7 of 15
The WiMAX Forum has proposed an architecture that defines how a WiMAX network can be connected
with an IP based core network, which is typically chosen by operators that serve as Internet Service
Providers (ISP); Nevertheless the WiMAX BS provide seamless integration capabilities with other types
of architectures as with packet switched Mobile Networks.
The WiMAX forum proposal defines a number of components, plus some of the interconnections (or
reference points) between these, labeled Rl to R5 Lnd R8:
• SS/MS: the Subscriber Station/Mobile Station
• ASN: the Access Service Network
• BS: Base station, part of the ASN
• ASN -GW: the ASN Gateway, part of the ASN
• CSN: the Connectivity Service Network
• HA: Home Agent, part of the CSN
• AAA: Authentication, Authorization and Ac.ounting Server, part of the CSN
• NAP: a Network Access Provider
• NSP: a Network Service Provider
It is important to note that the functional architecture can be designed into various hardware
configurations rather than fixed configurations. For example, the architecture is flexible enough to allow
remote /mobile stations of varying scale and functionality and Base Stations of varying size - e.g. femto,
pico, and mini BS as well as macros.
Spectrum allocation
There is no uniform global licensed spectrum for ViMAX, however the WiMAX Forum has published
three licensed spectrum profiles: 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GFL: and 3.5 GHz, in an effort to drive standardisation
and decrease cost.
In the USA, the biggest segment available is arouni 2.5 GHz, and is already assigned, primarily to
Sprint Nextel and Clearwire. Elsewhere in the wor: d, the most - likely bands used will be the Forum
approved ones, with 2.3 GHz probably being most important in Asia. Some countries in Asia like India
and Indonesia will use a mix of 2.5 GHz, 3.3 GHz and other frequencies. Pakistan's Wateen Telecom
uses 3.5 GHz.
Analog TV bands (700 MHz) may become available for WiMAX usage, but await the complete roll out
of digital TV, and there will be other uses suggested for that spectrum. In the USA the FCC auction for
this spectrum began in January 2008 and, as a result, the biggest share of the spectrum went to Verizon
Wireless and the next biggest to AT&T. 1 Both of these companies have stated their intention of
supporting LTE, a technology which competes dine:ctly with WiMAX. EU commissioner Viviane
Reding has suggested re- allocation of 500 -800 MJrz spectrum for wireless communication, including
WiMAX. [201
WiMAX profiles. define channel size, TDD/FDD and other necessary attributes in order to have inter -
operating products. The current fixed profiles are c efined for both TDD and FDD profiles. At this point,
all of the mobile profiles are TDD only. The fixed profiles have channel sizes of 3.5 MHz, 5 MHz,
7 MHz and 10 MHz. The mobile profiles are 5' MF1z, 8.75 MHz and 10 MHz. (Note: the 802.16 standard
allows a far wider variety of channels, but only the above subsets are supported as WiMAX profiles.)
1 -35
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiN4AX 137 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page 8of15
Since October 2007, the Radio communication Sector of the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU -R) has decided to include WiMAX technology in the IMT -2000 set of standards. 12 13 This enables
spectrum owners (specifically in the 2.5 -2.69 GHz band at this stage) to use WiMAX equipment in any
country that recognizes the IMT -2000.
Spectral efficiency
One of the significant advantages of advanced wireless systems such as WiMAX is spectral efficiency.
For example, 802.16 -2004 (fixed) has a spectral of iiciency of 3.7 (bit/s)/Hertz, and other 3.5-4G
wireless systems offer spectral efficiencies that are similar to within a few tenths of a percent. The
notable advantage of WiMAX comes from combining SOFDMA with smart antenna technologies. This
multiplies the effective spectral efficiency through multiple reuse and smart network deployment
topologies. The direct use of frequency domain organization simplifies designs using MIMO -AAS
compared to CDMA/WCDMA methods, resulting in more effective systems.
Inherent Limitations
A commonly -held misconception is that WiMAX will deliver 70 Mbit/s over 50 kilometers. Like all
wireless technologies, WiN4AX can either operate at higher bitrates or over longer distances but not
both: operating at the maximum range of 50 km (3 l miles) increases bit error rate and thus results in a
much lower bitrate.. Conversely, reducing the range: (to under 1 km) allows a device to operate at higher
bitrates.
A recent city -wide deployment of WiMAX in Perth, Australia, has demonstrated that customers at the
cell -edge with an indoor CPE typically obtain speeds of around 1-4 Mbit/s, with users closer to the cell
tower obtaining speeds of up to 30 Mbit/s.
Like all wireless systems, available bandwidth is sluxed between users in a given radio sector, so
performance could deteriorate in the case of many active users in a single sector. However, with
adequate capacity planning and the use of WiMAN.'s Quality of Service, a minimum guaranteed
throughput for each subscriber can be put in place. In practice, most users will have a range of 4-
8 Mbit/s services and additional radio cards will be added to the base station to increase the number of
users that may be served as required.
Silicon imp ementations
A critical requirement for the success of a new teclin.ology is the availability of low -cost chipsets and
silicon implementations.
WiMAX has a strong silicon ecosystem with a number of specialized companies producing baseband
ICs and integrated RFICs for implementing full- feitsred WiMAX Subscriber Stations in the 2.3, 2.5 and
3.5Ghz band (refer to 'Spectrum allocation' above) It is notable that most of the major semiconductor
companies have not developed WiMAX chipsets of their own and have instead chosen to invest in
and/or utilise the well developed products from smaller specialists or start-up suppliers. These
companies include but not limited to Beceem, Sequans and PicoChip. The chipsets from these
companies are used in the majority of WiMAX devices.
Intel Corporation is a leader in promoting WiMAX , but has limited its WiMAX chipset development
and instead chosen to invest in these specialized cc producing silicon compatible with the
1 -36
http : / /en.wikipedia.org /wiki/WiMAX 138 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 9 of 15
various WiMAX deployments throughout the globe.
Comparison with Wi -Fi
Comparisons and confusion between WiMAX and Wi -Fi are frequent because both are related to
wireless connectivity and Internet access.
• WiMAX is a long range system, covering many kilometers, that uses licensed or unlicensed
spectrum to deliver connection to a network, in most cases the Internet.
• Wi -Fi uses unlicensed spectrum to provide access to a local network.
• Wi -Fi is more popular in end user devices.
• Wi -Fi runs on the Media Access Control's CSMA/CA protocol, which is connectionless and
contention based, whereas WiMAX runs a cc nnection- oriented MAC.
• WiMAX and Wi -Fi have quite different quality of service (QoS) mechanisms:
• WiMAX uses a QoS mechanism based on connections between the base station and the user
device. Each connection is based on specific scheduling algorithms.
• Wi -Fi uses contention access - all subs -riber stations that wish to pass data through a
wireless access point (AP) are competing for the AP's attention on a random interrupt basis.
This can cause subscriber stations dist.-nt from the AP to be repeatedly interrupted by closer
stations, greatly reducing their throughput.
• Both 802.11 and 802.16 define Peer -to -Peer iP2P) and ad hoc networks, where an end user
communicates to users or servers on another Local Area Network (LAN) using its access point or
base station. However, 802.11 supports also direct ad hoc or peer to peer networking between end
user devices without an access point while 802.16 end user devices must be in range of the base
station.
Wi -Fi and WiMAX are complementary. WiMAX network operators typically provide a WiMAX
Subscriber Unit which connects to the metropolitar. WiMAX network and provides Wi -Fi within the
home or business for local devices (e.g., Laptops, XVi -Fi Handsets, smartphones) for connectivity. This
enables the user to place the WiMAX Subscriber Unit in the best reception area (such as a window), and
still be able to use the WiMAX network from any place within their residence.
Conformance testing
----- CN-3 test purposes of ng- conformance- tests for - -- --
WiMAX implementations. The WiMAX test suite :.s being developed by a Specialist Task Force at
ETSI (STF 252).f
Associations
WiMAX Forum
The WiMAX Forum is a non profit organization formed to promote the adoption of WiMAX compatible
products and services.
A major role for the organization is to certify the interoperability of WiMAX products. Those that
pass conformance and interoperability testing achieve the "WiMAX Forum Certified" designation, and
can display this mark on their products and marketing materials. Some vendors claim that their
1 -37
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiN4AX 139 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page 10 of 15
equipment is "WiMAX- ready ", "WiMAX- compliant ", or "pre- WiMAX ", if they are not officially
WiMAX Forum Certified.
Another role of the WiMAX Forum is to promote the spread of knowledge about WiMAX. In order to
do so, it has a certified training program that is cun•ently offered in English and French. It also offers a
series of member events and endorses some industry events.
WiMAX Spectrum Owners Alliance
WiSOA was the first global organization composed exclusively of owners of
WiMAX spectrum with plans to deploy WiMAX technology in those bands.
WiSOA focussed on the regulation, commercialisa:ion, and deployment of
WiMAX spectrum in the 2.3 -2.5 GHz and the 3.4-3,5 GHz ranges. WiSOA "
merged with the Wireless Broadband Alliance in A pril 2008. 1251 1 O r
WiSOA logo
Competing technologies
Within the marketplace, WiMAX's main
competition comes from existing, widely deployed
wireless systems such as UNITS, CDMA2000,
existing Wi -Fi and mesh networking.
In the future, competition will be from the evolution
of the major cellular standards to so- called 4G,
high- bandwidth, low - latency,. all-IP networks with
voice services built on top. The worldwide move to
4G for GSM/UMTS and AMPS/TIA (including
CDMA2000) is the 3GPP Long Term Evolution
effort. However, it has been noted that the likely
performance difference between WiMAX as it
stands today and LTE when it is eventually
commercia a vailab le in 2 -3 years time, will be
negligible. cz ton needed]
Speed vs. Mobility of wireless systems: Wi -Fi,
HSPA, UMTS, GSM
LTE is expected to be ratified at the end of 2010, v rith commercial implementations becoming viable
within the next two years.. End of 2009 TeliaSonera started commercial deployment in Oslo and
Stockholm, In Denmark the 3 big telecoms are upgrading their network, and will make LTE available
during 2010.
In some areas of the world, the wide availability of UNITS and a general desire for standardization has
meant spectrum has not been allocated for WiMAX: in July 2005, the EU -wide frequency allocation for
WiMAX was blocked.
Harmonization
Early WirelessMAN standards, the European standard HiperMAN and Korean standard WiBro have
been harmonized as part of WiMAX and are no lorLg .-r seen as competition but as complementary. All
1 -38
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX 140 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page 11 of 15
networks now being deployed in South Korea, the :tome of the WiBro standard, are now WiMAX.
Comparison
Main article: Comparison of wireless data stc ndards
The following table should be treated with caution because it only shows peak rates which are
potentially very misleading. In addition, the comparisons listed are not normalized by physical channel
size (i.e., spectrum used to achieve the listed peak rates); this obfuscates spectral efficiency and net
through -put capabilities of the different wireless to ;hnologies listed below.
Com parison of M- )bile Internet Access methods
1 -39
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX 141 7/8/2010
Downlink
Uplink
Standard
FamilyH
Primary UseC
Radio TechH
( Mbit/s)
(Mbit /s)
Not,
N❑
N❑
LTE -Adi
update e)
to offer p
LTE
UMTS /4GSM
General 4G
OFDMA/MIMO /SC-
360
80
'
rates of a
FDMA
Gbit/s fiN
speeds ar
Mbit/s to
users.
WiMAX
802.16e
Mobile Internee
MIMO- SOFDMA
144
35
WiMAX
IEEE 80:
expected
to 1 Gbit
speeds.
Mobile Internee.
5.3
1.8
Mobile ro
Flash -OFDM
Flash -OFDM
mobility up to
200mph
Flash -OFDM
10.6
3.6
18miles (
extended
(350km/h)
15.9
5.4
34 miles
— HIPERI*AN
HIPERMAN
- M6bileThTfe — mei:
- OF'DM --
56
- 56 - .9
- - ---- —
Antenna,
front end
enhancer
and minc
288.9
I protocol
Wi -Fi
802.11
Mobile Interne:
OFDM/MIMO
(Supports 600Mbps
tweaks h
(11n)
@ 40MHz channel
helped d(
width)
long rangy
networks
compron
radial co
throughp
and/or sF
1 -39
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX 141 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page 12 of 15
Notes: All speeds are theoretical maximums and wll vary by a number of factors, including the use of
external antennae, distance from the tower and the p •ound speed (e.g. communications on a train may be
poorer than when standing still). Usually the bandwidth is shared between several terminals. The
performance of each technology is determined by a number of constraints, including the spectral
efficiency of the technology, the cell sizes used, and the amount of spectrum available. For more
information, see Comparison of wireless data standards. See also Comparison of mobile phone
standards, Spectral efficiency comparison table anc OFDM system comparison table.
Future development
The IEEE 802.16m [1] standard is the core technology for the proposed WiMAX Release 2, which
1 -40
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiNIAX 142 7/8/2010
efficienc
(310km 1
382km).
Cell Radi
12 km
Speed: 2:
iBurst
802.20
Mobile Internet
HC
95
36
Spectral
SDMA/TDD/MIMO
i Efficienc
bits /sMz
Spectrum
Factor: "'
EDGE Evolution
GSM
M obile Internet
' TDMA/FDD
_
1.9
0.9
3GPP Re
HSDPA•
deployed
UMTS W-
Typical c
CDMA
' '-DMA/FDD
0.384
0.384
rates WE
HSDPA +HSUPA
UMTS /3GSM
General 3G
14.4
5.76
Mbit/s,
HSPA+
CDMA/FDD /1 IM0
56
22
kbit/s up]
HSPA+
downlink
56 Mbit/;
Reported
according
IPWirele
UMTS -TDD
UMTS /3GSM
Mobile Internet
CDMA/TDD
16
16
16QAM
modulati
similar tc
HSDPAA
1xRTT
CDMA2000
Mobile phone
CDMA
0.144
0.144
Succeede
EV -DO
EV-
Rev B nc
DO 1x Rev. 0
- CDNrA2G00
- Mobile Ifife et
"CDMA/FDD
2.45
0.15
the numb
-- EV= --
- 3 71
T9
- I :ZSMH
DO lx Rev.A
4.9xN
1.8xN
chunks o
EV -DO Rev.B
spectrum
Notes: All speeds are theoretical maximums and wll vary by a number of factors, including the use of
external antennae, distance from the tower and the p •ound speed (e.g. communications on a train may be
poorer than when standing still). Usually the bandwidth is shared between several terminals. The
performance of each technology is determined by a number of constraints, including the spectral
efficiency of the technology, the cell sizes used, and the amount of spectrum available. For more
information, see Comparison of wireless data standards. See also Comparison of mobile phone
standards, Spectral efficiency comparison table anc OFDM system comparison table.
Future development
The IEEE 802.16m [1] standard is the core technology for the proposed WiMAX Release 2, which
1 -40
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiNIAX 142 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 13 of 15
enables more efficient, faster, and more converged data communications. The IEEE 802.16m standard
has been submitted to the ITU for IMT- Advanced :;tandardization IEEE 802.16m is one of the major
candidates for IMT- Advanced technologies by ITU. Among many enhancements, IEEE 802.16m
systems can provide four times faster data speed than the current WiMAX Release 1 based on IEEE
802.16e technology.
WiMAX Release 2 will provide strong backward c :)mpatibility with Release 1 solutions. It will allow
current WiMAX operators to migrate their Release 1 solutions to Release 2 by upgrading channel cards
or software of their systems. Also, the subscribers , vho use currently available WiMAX devices can
communicate with new WiMAX Release 2 systems without difficulty.
It is anticipated that in a practical deployment, using 4X2 MIMO in the urban microcell scenario with
only a single 20 -MHz TDD channel available system wide, the 802.16m system can support both
120 Mbit/s downlink and 60 Mbit/s uplink per site simultaneously. It is expected that the WiMAX
Release 2 will be available commercially in the 20:.1 -2012 timeframe.
The goal for the long -term evolution of WiMAX is to achieve 100 Mbit/s mobile and 1 Gbit/s fixed -
nomadic bandwidth as set by ITU for 4G NGMN (Next Generation Mobile Network).
Interference
A field test conducted by SUIRG (Satellite Users viterference Reduction Group) with support from the
U.S. Navy, the Global VSAT Forum, and several member organizations yielded results showing
interference at 12 km when using the same channels for both the WiMAX systems and satellites in C-
band. The WiMAX Forum has yet to respond.
Deployments
Main article: List of deployed WiMAX networ ks
As of April 2010, the WiMAX Forum claims there are over 558 WiMAX (fixed and mobile) networks
deployed in over 147 countries.
Yota is the lamest WiMAX network operator in the worldl but has announced that it will move new
network deployments to LTE, and subsequently chinge its existing networks also. [31]
See also
• Evolved HSPA
• High -Speed Packet Access (HSPA)
• List of deployed WiMAX networks
• Mobile broadband
• Mobile VoIP
• Municipal broadband
• Packet Burst Broadband (PBB)
• Switched mesh
• Wireless bridge
• Wireless local loop
1 -41
http : / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiNIAX 143 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
References
Page 14 of 15
1. ^ "Mobile WiMAX Speed Test Results in Perth, Australia - 1 to 37 Mbps, 12mbps Average ".
http: / /forums.whirlpool. net .au /forum- replies.cfm ?t=° 1418240. Retrieved 2010- 04 -14.
2. ^ "Speeding Up WiMax, Today the initial WiMw. system is designed to provide 30 to 40 megabit per second
data rates. ". http:// www. itbusinessedge .com/cm/ci)nimunity/ features /interviews/blog /speeding- up- wimax/?
cs= 40726. Retrieved 2010- 04 -17.
3. ^ "Facts About WiMAX And Why Is It "The Future of Wireless Broadband " ".
http: / /www.techpluto.com/wimax -in- detail /.
4. ^ "WiMax Forum - Technology ". http:// www .winiaxforum.org/technology /. Retrieved 2008- 07 -22.
5. ^ "IEEE 802.16 WirelessMAN Standard: Myths and Facts ". ieee802.org.
http: / /www.ieee802.org/16 /docs /06/C80216- 06_007rl.pdf. Retrieved 2008- 03 -12.
6. ^ " Sprint Eyes WiMax Backhaul ". lightreading.corn. http:// www .lightreading.com/document.asp?
doc_id= 104349. Retrieved 2008- 03 -22.
7. ^ "WiMax signals get stronger in India ". eetimes..;om.
http: / /www.eetimes.com/ news / latest /showArticle.ihtml ?articleED= 206901605. Retrieved 2008- 03 -22.
8. ^ "Overcoming the wire -line bottleneck for 3G w re:less services ". supercommnews.com.
http : / /supercommnews.com/wireless /features /wirc:line_wireless_ networks_ 060305/. Retrieved 2009- 01 -03.
9. ^ "FCC Pushes WIMax OK for Katrina Victims, "I ntel supplies the hardware ". mobilemag.com.
http:// www. mobilemag .com/content/l00 /102/C4618/. Retrieved 2008- 01 -08.
10. ^ "Volunteers use mesh, wimax, wi -fi, in katrina- iii: regions ". wifinetnews.com.
http: / /wifinetnews.com/archives /2005 /10 /volunteers_ use_ mesh_ wimax_wi- fi_in_katrina- hit_regions.html.
Retrieved 2009- 03 -31.
11. ^ hq: / /www.htc.com/www /press.aspx ?id = 76204 &fang =1033
12. ^ http: / /newsreleases. sprint. com /phoenix.zhtml ?c := 127149 &p =irol-
newsArticle_Print_ newsroom &D)=1426178 &hig - di!ght=
13. ^ http: / /www.engadget.com/ 2010 /03 /23/htc- evo- z- g-.is- sprints- android- powered - knight -in- superphone -armo/
14. ^ http:// www. eetimes. com/ news / latest /showArtic'e..ihtml ?articleID= 224201135
15. ^ "IEEE 802.16e Task Group (Mobile WirelessMA') ". ieee802.org. http: / /www.ieee802.org/16 /tge/.
Retrieved 2008- 03 -12.
16. ^ "IEEE 802.16 Task Group d ". ieee802.org. http : / / /tgd/. Retrieved 2008- 03 -12.
17. ^ "The Access Service Network in WiMAX: The Role of ASN -GW ". mustafaergen.com.
http: / /www.mustafaergen.com/asn- gw.pdf. Retrie red 2008- 03 -12.
18. ^ "U.S. Frequency Allocation Chart". Department of Commerce.
http: / /www.ntia.doc.gov /osmhome /allochrt.pdf. Retrieved 2008- 03 -12.
19. ^ "Auctions Schedule ". Federal Communications Commission. http: // wireless .fcc.gov /auctions /default.htm?
job= auctions_sched. Retrieved 2008- 01 -08.
20. ^ "European Commission proposes TV spectrum for WiMax ". zdnetasia_com.
htt / /www.zdnetasia.com/news /communications / 39044192,62021021,00.htm. Retrieved 2008- 01 - 08.
21. ^ "ITU Radiocommunication Assembly approves new developments for its 3G standards ". itu.int.
http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press Retrieved 2008- 03 -12.
22. ^ "MperMAN / WiMAX Testing ". ETSI. http://Aww.etsi.org/WebSite/technologies/HiperMAN-
WiMAXTesting.aspx. Retrieved 2008- 03 -28.
23. ^ "WiMAX Forum Overview ". http : / /www.wima:dorum.org/about. Retrieved 2008- 08 -01.
24. ^ "WiMAX Forum - Frequently Asked Questions ". wimaxforum.org.
http:// www .wimaxforum.org/technology /faq. Retiieved 2008- 03 -12.
25. ^ "WBA and WiSOA join efforts on WiMAX globa.l roaming ".
http: / /www.wimaxday. net/ site/2008 /04 /24 /wba- aiid••wisoa join - efforts- on- wimax- global- roaming. Retrieved
2008- 12 -10.
26. ^ "802.16m submitted to ITU for IMT- Advanced standardization ".
http: / /www.ieee.org/web /aboutus /news /index.html7WT.mc id= hpn_newsroomu. Retrieved 2009- 10 -18.
27. ^ "Global WiMAX network deployments surpass 500 ". http: / /www.wimaxforum.Qrg/node /1724. Retrieved
2009- 10 -18.
28. ^ "SUIRG full interference test report". suirg.org.
http:// www. suirg. org/ pdf /SUIRG_WiMaxFieldTestReport.pd£ Retrieved 2008- 03 -16.
29. ^ http: / /www.wimaxforum.orgi
1 -42
http : / /en.wikipedia- org/wiki[WiMAX '144 7/8/2010
WiMAX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 15 of 15
30. ^ Maravedis, 4Q 2009, http: / /www.unova.ru/article /2631, http : / /www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?
DocsID= 1310343
31. ^ Russia Today, 21 May 2010 - Scartel dropping Wimax, aiming for LTE - RT - [rt.com/Business/2010-05-
21 /scartel- dropping - wimax -lte. html]
• K. Fazel and S. Kaiser, Multi- Carrier and Spread Spectrum Systems: From OFDM and MC-
CDMA to LTE and WiMAX, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2008, ISBN 978 -0- 470 - 99821 -2
• M. Ergen, Mobile Broadband -Including WiMAX and LTE, Springer, NY, 2009 ISBN 978- 0 -387-
68189-4
External links
• WiMAX Forum
• How WiMAX Works at HowStufEWorks
• Internet Protocol Journal Overview of Mobil- WiMAX
• Patent alliance formed for WiMAX 4G techr.ology
• WiMAX.com
• WiMAX vs. LTE
Internet access
Wired
Wireless
Network
Unlicensed
type
Optical
Coaxial
Twisted
Phone line
Power
terrestrial
Licensed
Satellite
cable
pair
line
bands
terrestrial bands
Wi -Fi -
N ��
Bluetooth
LAN
Ethernet
G.hn
Ethernet
. hn
G.hn
DECT -
Wireless
j
USB
GPRS • iBurst -
PON •
Dial -up •
WiBro/WiMAX -
WAN
DOCSIS
Ethernet
ISDN •
BPL
Muni Wi -Fi
UMTS -TDD,
Satellite i
Ethernet
DSL
HSPA • EVDO
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WM%.X"
Categories: IEEE 802 1 Wireless networking I Metr�)politan area networks I Ethernet I Network access
• This page was last modified on 8 July 2010 at 16:47.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike License; additional terms
may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the 'Nikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non -profit
organization.
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
1 - 43
http: / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiN4AX 145 7/8/2010
Attachment 6
County of Santa Clara
Office of the Sheriff
55 \VeSr YOUnger AVMLle
San iosv. Calitomia 9.3110-1721
(405) S08-4 [)00
UILIAC Smitli
Sheriff
June 23, 2010
Rick Kitson
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, Ca. 95014
Dear Rick,
Recently I had been requested to respond to any concems or needs relating to Public Safety
services, and needs that the Sheriff s Office ma:f have for cell phone services in the City of
Cupertino.
The Sheriff s Office provides the Public Safety services to the city of Cupertino. One of the
tools used by the Sheriffs Office is the Mobil Data Terminals in the vehicles, as well as cell
phones. The MDTs in the vehicle rely upon cell service in order to have a connection, and keep
a connection while on patrol in the city. The deputies also use their cell phones to communicate
from time to time. We have noticed that there are several areas within the city limits of
Cupertino that we do not have good cell service. When the cell service fails, it causes the MDT
in the vehicle to shut down. This creates and service problem for the deputy working in that
area, or passing through that area. He /She then has to wait until they are back in an area where
there is good cell service before they can use thc; :MDT in the vehicle, or their cell phone to
communicate with dispatch. It becomes frustral ng to the deputies to continue to lose cell service
and continually have to restart their systems. Gipertino's coverage is relatively good, but there
are several areas where cell service becomes a F roblem.
Sheriff s Office would stron sup port an 3• additional cell towers that could b pla(Zed__
city of Cupertino to improve those areas that lack coverage. This would help assure that deputies
remain connected in order to provide service obligations to the city. The additional cell coverage
will help to increase officer safety by not losing access to MDTs and cell phones. It would also
assist when we have to set up an Incident Comnia.nd Post to monitor and run an incident. When
in an area with little to no cell service, commun.cation for an incident becomes critical and no
service puts residents and law enforcement pers :)nnel at risk.
Sincerely,
Captain Terry Calderon
West Valley Division Commander
6�
1 -44
146
Attachment 7
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Traci Caton
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:16 PM
To: 'Claire Arnold'
Cc: Colin Jung
Subject: RE: Wimax
Hi Ms. Arnold,
Thank you for your e-mail. Please find attached the original approval for the project of
interest.
The decision of the Community Development Director is being by a resident in the
neighborhood. The appeal hearings are scheduled as follows:
Planning Commission Tuesday, July 27, 2010
City Council Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Traci Caton
408.777.3253
Community Development
City of Cupertino
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Claire Arnold [ mailto :ClaireA 2006@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:41 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Wimax
Hi,
I am a resident near Hyde middle'school and have had a letter dropped into my mailbox last
night that I would like some on..
__ The .l_e.tt.er s tates a W imax Tower is .going. up on the corner of Bollinger an Miller on Church
property. I got the report from the church that reported on various bands of radiation that
seem very innocuous. However, when my husband looked up WiMax, it seemed different than those
listed in the report. Could you please verify what exactly the tower will be putting out, the
radiation in the report or, something slightly different not stated in the report?
Thanks,
Claire Arnold
898 Hyde Avenue
Cupertino
1 -45
147
Beth Ebben
From: Gary Chao
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:113 AM
To: Beth Ebben
Subject: FW. Planning public input
From: Pkot @aol.com [mailto:Pkot @aol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 10 :05 PM
To: Piu Ghosh
Cc: Gary Chao
Subject: Planning public input
Hi Piu
I see that the City is soliciting public input on its planning process. I have 2 suggestions:
1. Make the bldg permits more readable as underwriters at ElofA cannot read a bldg permit. We went thru 2 recent refis,
and BofA just did not understand that our bldg permit WAS final. Maybe add a clearly defined bold block with final date
and signature and remove the bottom small reference to finals as that is misleading.
2. The planning process really needs to come into the 21st century and consider safety of technological developments
going on in the city. I am particularly concerned with the placement of Wimax towers near ANY residential homes. WiMax
is NOT a cell tower. It emits 20 watts and that is HUGE. The cell companies are giving financial incentives to churches
to allow a Wimax to be placed on their roofs and the radiat on emitted is NOT safe. My understanding is that planning
really doesn't care (as long as its not ugly). Need to bring n some knowledge to the staff on this Wimax stuff as its way
more radiation than a cell tower. Maybe add something to the environmental impact to address radiation safety.
thanks
Pat Kot
1 -46
148
Beth Ebben
From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:24 AM
To: Colin Jung; Gary Chao
Cc: Beth Ebben; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: FW: Objection to installing WilAax Radio tower at 6191 Bollinger Rd, Application NO
DIR- 2010 -05
fyi
From: Xin Guo [mailto:xin.guo08 @gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:09 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Objection to installing WiMax Radio tower at 6191 Bollinger Rd, Application NO DIR- 2010 -05
City of Cupertino,
I am writing regarding to the matter of Application N.) DIR- 2010 -05 that proposing installing of WiMax radio
tower at 6101 Bollinger Rd. I won't be able to make ii. to the pulic hearing so I want my opinion being counted.
I am very concerned with long term health effect of such a high power radio tower being installed in such a
densely populated area. My house is less than 200 yai d from it. Without an unbiased long term health study
showing that it is safe to do so, I strongly object the plan to install such tower.
Regards,
Xin Guo
Resident at 6105 Castleknoll Drive, San Jose, CA 95129.
1 -47
149
ATTACHMENT C
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficiel-it studies to determine that the radiation produced by
the antennae will have no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new
technology, we are concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
ce
tN
S�+o
f
vl VIJY
A
V r
9
150
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Valley Presbyterian Church - until there are sufficient studies to determine that the radiation produced by
the antennae will have no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since Wimax is such a new
technology, we are concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
G) Morn.
A IA -H L)P Ad UK 1111`jAL
N
I G C. C vi d
T
lt
A (:4 AIV
D
&L RE
Mo,
1
PO
A/
v
CL
�2
v V 61
151
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficiern studies . to determine that the radiation produced by
the antennae will have no detrimental effects to us End our children. Since WiMax is such a new
technology, we are concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
e-
`? 5C
.,CA
XLC)l Ave
Clg
�Lk n N I e e 0 7
IL4 -I �)00
D
C4 - 7pl
.. ........... ................................... . . ,
- ---------
2f 74 LI-Q
y ' CYfEA1 CHEI�
afazf Wev Ave
10 7cIZ-
i s,
�� �L � �
� 11 ri � �� � / -
r
5
1 V ��
12e
152 ,
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to determine that the radiation produced by
the antennae will have no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new
technology, we are concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
i✓h� La
r l 1 0 ,mil u
Lt
L A Lt
n v
0 -T
C? Oulu
VO
0 1
e
cvn,�
Y V Y' � �/�,�
� � L �� l.. Yra � t/ i' r
Al
C,
FUMEW
153
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and Cily of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax
Antennae at West Valley Presbyterian Churcl, until ther are sufficient studies to
determine that the radiation produced by the antennae will have no detrimental effects to
us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new technology, :ire are concerned that there
are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
cm?
Signature
i :��� �a
A
0
e C)
qK
-6 �Aas et j
9 I � r ,� f � vC�
� a' � �I� �.
ke', (;vv'
ato &ep-- kw'll
k 5
154
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installkion of the WiMax
Antenriae at West Valley Presbyterian C.-,urch until there are sufficient studie t
determine that the radiation produced by the antennae will have no detrimental effects to
us and our children. Since WiMax is such a r,,. technology, we are concerned that there
are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
v
le v- L)t'�i4
✓L 1 ��Z � . ��� ctt (k
Ile
7"
90
' Jul
vw
J
Yt
C2
C, 2
155
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax
Antennae at West Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to
determine that the radiation produced by the antennae will have no detrimental effects to
us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new technology, we are concerned that there
are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signa ture
Itl L"
I
16
� �
� �-
ld . ,.1 C1 L`'r`'
('•L AZT '(f n�-' Z i `'� � r �
`�
n
, J
t
/ l
jC7 ° Tru 6
�T G� ►tit i L L C7�. yb�
------ •-- •- /�- - - - - --
L 0� cw,� � l%' �'
�ZIZ 1 sN i a { � `rte 1 i
C
S ( 7, -----
-- -- -- — --
�
r . .- ;+ J'1. •,,�, rte`."''
v -- - -�
rl
$SS Vv'\ L
�q A` f
1
J ,1
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to determine that the radiation produced by
the antennae will have no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new
technology, we are concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
iT-P-69
� L
! V Y
t I\
Tl� Poe
Ok
Dr
� R 6t, b-
LY,
co&(+ JOOJ
157
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reccnsider the installation of the WiMax
Antennae at West Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to
determine that the radiation produced by.thc antennae will have no detrimental effects to
us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new technology, we are concerned that there
are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
eq
D
47)
IV
Ll- V L
W.,
j
�
/ �t
5,A1 11 F"
1 46 0 ,,,
U i
158
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully'request that you please reconsider the installation of the Wimax
Antennae at West Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to
determine that the radiation produced by -the antennae will have no detrimental effects to
us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new technology, we are concerned that there
are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Si natAre
L I
IL
/ 7
159
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
Nye respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to determine that the radiation produced by
the antennae will have no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new
technology, we are concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
-- _--
Address -.-- -__ —_ ^-
_- ---� - -- Signature - -_ —_ --
Y t(e A
CCL CA 'Jn
yo J
/ v
cS�i -�c
C L-{.�
�/�'S�Z 6A Ij I
UL
to
I L
L
I AJ,� 14e
v
160
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to determine that the radiation produced by
the antennae will have no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new
technology, we are concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature
CA
E al 1 '
WO C
� _ J
161
.erian Church and City of Cupertino
:st that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West
Church until there are sufficient studies to determine that the radiation produced by
.lave no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new
.re concerned that there are no studies on its effects.
Name
Address
Signature
t
i j� ti c o 1, i..i %(%
162
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax
Antennae at West Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to
determine that the radiation produced by the antennae will have no detrimental effects to
us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new technology, we are concerned that there
are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
Signature _
163
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax
Antennae at West Valley Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to
determine that the radiation produced by.the antennae will have no detrimental effects to
us and our children. Since WiMax is such a :Zew technology, we are concerned that there
are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
Name
Address
- Signature
V rye,
rr
'164
Traci Caton ATTACHMENT D
From: Traci Caton on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:11 AM
To: Colin Jung
Cc: Gary Chao
Subject: FW: Strongly against the installation of a personal wireless service facility in West
Valley Presbyterian Church
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Wenjie Li [mailto:wenjielitang @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 8:55 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Strongly against the installation of a personal wireless service facility in West
Valley Presbyterian Church
To whom it may concern:
As a resident in this area, I have received the letter to be informed that a personal
wireless service facility is planning to be installed on the roof of West Valley Presbyterian
Church. I was so shocked to know that the city chooses this area for installation. The
location is so close to Hyde Middle school and the residential area. The installation in
such condense population area is not a good choice.
The wireless may hurt so many kids and residents health and life. As a resident in the area,
I strongly against the choice to install facility in this area.
A resident
1
165
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
w►Max
mot +rple- en,,ta((5
Linda Lagergren
From: Marcia Ludwig [mludwig417 @earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 7:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: West Valley Church Cell Tower
Dear City Council Members:
I am a 40 -year resident of Cupertino living at 6247 Shadygrove Drive which is directly behind West
Valley Presbyterian Church. I have recently received notices from my neighbors objecting to the
proposal before you to grant permission for the church to install a cell tower inside a cupola.
Because you are hearing from my neighbors who object, I am want to let you know that at least one
neighbor believes this tower is FINE. I see NO OBJECTIONS to having it placed there. I welcome
the chance to have better reception. I see no danger in receiving radiation. The design is fitting for a
church. I am a Presbyterian but not a member of that church. I know that many other Presbyterian
churches have also installed towers on their property and have had no ill effects.
I respectfully ask that you please pass this request.
Marcia Ludwig
i
c 6 -18 -3 -/o /l
Linda Lagergren
From: Sara Jamie Newell [bearnkd @rocF:etmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 3:19 AM
To: Gilbert Wong
Subject: Clearwire antennae
Dear Council member,
I came home to find a protest form at my door. I agree with what was on the form. A Presbyterian church
would never have a cupola on it. That is for Catholic an Baptist churches. I believe the whole cupola deal was a
cleverly disguised ruse to get the antennae up in that location. Shame on the city and clearwire for lying and
scheming to put people in harms way! It seems the city just cannot be square with people. I will make sure my
father signs the protest form and goes toi the city council meeting.
Sara Jamie Newell
i
Linda Lagergren
From: kemito kemito [kemito68 @hotmaii.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 12:55 PM
To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang
Subject: WiMax antennae issue
Dear Mayor and Council Member,
I am writing this email about the installation of the WiMax Antenna at West Valley Presbyterian Church next to Hyde
middle school.
I do believe that every parent in Hyde middle school has the right to know what is going on with this project.
Church and Clearwire deliberately chose this timing to file application so no one in Hyde middle will be informed since it is
closed for summer.
Here is the link to the related the petition and some details about this project.
ht tp : / /noroof4wimax,wordpress.com/
Thanks,
Aioub
Our petition is on San Jose Mercury News Paper, 07/30/2010, 2nd page. OR:
Check the link below.
http: / /www.mercurynews.com /ci 15633558?IADID= Se www.mercurynews.com-
www.mercurynews.com &nclick check =l>
Just an update: So far about 150 people from our neighborhood signed the petition. I believe more on
the way.
1
NO Roof for WiMAX Antenna Page 1 of 5
c� /g -3 -io # Il
• Ilonic
• About
• Au�-3
• Make a Stand
• Show Support!
• What WiMAX?
• Search
NO Roof for WiMAX Antenna
EVERY ONE, Aug -3, says NO to Cupertino DIR- 2010 -05
Feeds:
Posts
Comments
Church WiMax Planning Commission Meeting on Monday night
August 1, 2010 by noroof4wimax
From the Yuens,
Please let any concerned neighbors know about this meeting.
We will still meet to plan at 7pm at our home if you would like to come and we can walk over to the church at
7:45pm.
Thanks again for all of your support.
Regards,
From: Mikkel Lantz
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 2:17 PM
Ms. Yuen,
I have been able to contact many of our board members: I have arranged to hold a meeting the the
Sanctuary at Monday Aug 2 at 8:00pm to 9:00pm.
Sincerely
Mikkel Lantz
Posted in Uncate org ized I Leave a Comment
Received a call from the Church
July 31, 2010 by noroof4wimax
Hi All,
I received a call from the church and Mikkel Lantz, the president, is attempting to get a meeting together for
Monday night before the Tuesday night City Council meeting. I would love to be able to give him the petition
then, so if you have any signed petitions, please get them to me by Monday morning so I can add the addresses to
our map and make copies before our meeting. Thanks for your efforts!
http : / /noroof4wimax.wordpress.com/ 8/2/2010
NO Roof for WiMAX Antenna Page 2 of 5
I will keep you all informed if I hear anything more from him. He did mention that many people have called the
church ... Thank you.
Warm Regards,
Ione
Posted in Uncate >orized I Leave a Comment »
Petition on San Jose Mercury News Paper
July 31, 2010 by noroof4wimax
Hello all,
Our petition on San Jose Mercury News Paper, 07/30/2010, 2nd page.
Here is the link. (Neighbors take wireless antenna battle into their own hands)
Neighbors near Hyde Middle School in Cupertino have launched a campaign to stop the installation of
a broadband Internet antenna with three microwave dishes at West Valley Presbyterian Church, citing
potential health hazards.
Just an update: So far about 150 people from our neighborhood signed our petition. I believe more on the way.
Please forward to anyone, if interested. even church, City of Cupertino, City Consol, mayor.....
Thanks,
Posted in Uncate org ized I Leave a Comment »
Next Steps for WiMax antennae issue
July 30, 2010 by noroof4wimax
(From The Yuens)
Hi all,
I did get a response from Mikkel Lantz, the President of WVPC. Since it is summer, he thinks that we can have a
meeting in a few weeks. Apparently the pastor is on vacation until August, but this Sunday someone else is giving
the message.
I did mention that the City Council meeting is this Tuesday, so that a meeting a few weeks from now is not helpful,
but I have not received a response yet.
I think that it would be best if we could approach the meeting with the church as a large organized contingent of the
neighborhood. I know that some have suggested trying to stop by at the church on Sunday, but Norman and I have
responsibilities at our church on Sunday so we are unable to be there. However, if you feel you would like to
express your concerns to the church with phone calls or visits, I hope that the church will be responsive. So far we
have about 150 neighbors who have signed our petition. 1 ::lope this is something that the church will consider
when we get the opportunity to meet with them.
A website for us to utilize: http: / /noroot4wimax."oidpres
I think that it would be great if everyone can log on and begin to organize our presentation for Tuesday's City
http : / /noroof4wimax.wordpress.com/ 8/2/2010
NO Roof for WiMAX Antenna Page 3 of 5
Council meeting. The agenda is already posted at Cupertino.org and under City council agenda all of the documents
are posted including the updated staff report. Unfortunately we are listed as item number 10 on the agenda.
One suggestion we received is that the best way to delay th installation is to have a petition to say that the
neighbors think that the aesthetics of the cupola is bad. Since that is the only power that the city has, if the
neighbors think that the it is ugly, then the city could deny this design and they would have to redo it.....although it
is not the real issue, it would allow the city to vote along with us. So if you have the time to circulate this second
petition, that would be great, unfortunately because Norman and I are unable to do it this weekend.
I have attached the letter I sent to WVPC, the most recent flyer that we have been circulating, the original petition
and the Aesthetic Rejection petition.
Wimax petition Aestetics Rejection of Wimax Cupola petition
We would like to invite anyone who is interested to our home to discuss the details for the City Council meeting on
Monday at 7:OOpm.
Thanks for all of your support!
lone
Posted in Uncate org ized I Leave a Comment »
The petition to: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City
of Cupertino
July 29, 2010 by noroof4wimax
To: West Valley Presbyterian Church and City of Cupertino
We respectfully request that you please reconsider the installation of the WiMax Antennae at West Valley
Presbyterian Church until there are sufficient studies to determine that the radiation produced by the antennae will
have no detrimental effects to us and our children. Since WiMax is such a new technology, we are concerned that
there are no studies on its effects.
Thank you.
(Please print and sign the hard copy: Wimax petition
Posted in Uncate org ized I Leave a Comment »
New Flyer for neighbors
July 29, 2010 by noroof4wimax
I have made a flyer
• For your neighbor: Flyer4Home.0729
Please print them out and share with others before the meeting.
Eric. Wu
Posted in Uncate orized I Leave a Comment »
http : / /noroof4wimax.wordpress.com/ 8/2/2010
NO Roof for WiMAX Antenna Page 4 of 5
A letter from Ione Yuen ...
July 29, 2010 by noroof4wimax
July 28, 2010
Dear Mikkel and members of West Valley Presbyterian Church,
I was disappointed that I did not see a representative of the church this evening at the Cupertino Planning
Commission Meeting regarding the installation of the WiMax Antennae. Brad Head, representing Clearwire, was
present and the engineering firm was present to hear our concerns but we were hoping to present our concerns to a
representative of the church. It has been disappointing that the church has not been more open to hearing our
concerns and has removed itself from any connection to the neighbors in this process.
A group of neighbors would like to meet with you and your pastor to be able to discuss the concerns we have about
the tower before the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 3rd. I would like to present to you a petition that
has been signed by 113 neighbors asking you and the church to reconsider the installation of the WiMax antennae.
We had over 30 neighbors who attended the meeting tonight and many were extremely upset about the antenna
being installed at West Valley Pres. I hope you will look at the planning commission meeting, as it is televised on
the City channel and it is also available online in the city archives. We were also disappointed that the applicant
did not allow us to have the hearing when parents of students from Hyde Middle School could be notified.
I understand that you are very busy, so we are willing to come to the church on Sunday to meet with you. Please let
me know as soon as possible so I can let my neighbors know the time to come. I look forward to hearing from you.
Please feel free to call me.
Regards,
lone Yuen
Posted in Uncateg_orized I Leave a Comment »
• Site Management
• Register
• Log in
• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• WordPress.com
• Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sign me up!
• Recent Posts
Church WiMax Planning Commission Meetin;; on Monday nigh
ight
o Received a call from the Church
http : / /noroof4wimax.wordpress.com/ 8/2/2010
NO Roof for WiMAX Antenna Page 5 of 5
• Petition on San Jose Mercury News Paper
• Next Steps for WiMax antennae issue
• The petition to: West Valle Presbyterian resbyterian Church and Cit. of f Cupertino
• New Flyer for neighbors
• A letter from Ione Yuen ...
Blop- at WordPress.com
Theme: Mistylook by Sadish
http : / /noroof4wimax.wordpress.com/ 8/2/2010
ce-18 -3 -14 # !
Linda Lagergren
From: Kevin [rseascape @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 8:04 PM
To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City
Manager's Office
Cc: Brendan Lahiff; Doug Thompson; Anshuman Nadkarni; Jason and Jane Cu; Dennis Shafer
Subject: Primary Reason you must deny Faux Cupola and Wimax Antenna Installation @ WVC
- Bollinger /Miller Location.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager,
Its no secret that the residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the West Valley Presbyterian Church are
vehemently opposed to the installation of the C1earWire Wimax antenna. While I have read the FCC guidelines
and understand that the only reason that the City of Cupertino can deny the installation is for aesthetic reasons
only. That being the case, I submit that the installation is less than a legal matter and more a hoax to get the
antenna in the location whereas it clearly would not be allowed as a stand alone fixture.
A Cupola is a common church - architectural addition to amend and compliment the function of the church. It
normally acts as a belfry or a belvedere. Its primary function is to house the church bell to summon people to
worship their faith, or act as a lookout. In this case, the Capola proposed is a Faux Cupola (Fake CUPOLA). It
serves no function that is architecturally appropriate to the neighborhood or the church given the fact that it is
fake! It is merely a ploy to disguise the dangerous Wimw. active microwave transmitter /receiver for a location
installation that is desirable to the Wimax function. I have; reviewed the proposed Faux Cupola design and feel
that is larger than would normally be installed as a normal and authentic cupola housing an actual bell for the
intended purpose in which a cupola is an architectural element of a church. It is significantly larger by scale
than needed as a bell enclosure. I believe that this should not only be denied for its deliberate deception imposed
to get it to "PASS" muster through the city proceedings, but the fact that it must be disguised is Mens rea on the
part of the City of Cupertino and Clearwire. I believe the installation under the currently proposed installation
guideline is a fraud that the people of the neighborhood can legally and in good conscience pursue in the event
that health and safety concerns manifest themselves appropriately to demonstrate that the installation is indeed
responsible.
I respectfully request that you deny the installation of the Wimax Antennae located on the Roof in a Faux
Cupola at the West Valley Presbyterian Church at the corner of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue for aesthetic
and /or architectural reasons.
I also respectfully request the the Church be designated a Historical Building and be subject to strict code
enforcement.
I also believe that the democratic process in the City will have failed the people of Cupertino by perpetuating
this kind of fraudulent and misleading way of doing business in the future. You are Public Servants to the
citizens of Cupertino, not a corporation. The people spoke and you did not listen. Find a way to put it
somewhere legitimate without having to disguise it as something it is not. Cancer in a box near school children
is still Cancer in a box near school children. It does not make a difference how nice a Faux Cupola looks when
it is a fraud to disguise dangerous new and untested technology. The fact that the site was even considered is
mind boggling given the attraction to Cupertino Schools. You are really out of touch with the people of this
city!
Thank You,
Kevin Reed
POA, Janet C. Reed
i
6276 Shadygrove Court. Cupertino Ca 95014
To all those CC'd, Please show up and voice your opinion. August 3rd, @645 PM at the City Council Meeting.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e -mail if you have received this e -mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
z
Cc / 6 - 3 - # I/
Linda Lagergren
From: Kevin [rseascape @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:48 ANI
To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City
Manager's Office
Subject: Protest Form: Brendan and Lorinda Lahiff attached
Attachments: Wimax Protest - Brendan Lahiff- Lorinda Lahiff.pdf
Unable to attend the City Council meeting on August 3, 2010, My neighbor, Brendan Lahiff, has asked me to
scan and forward this to you ahead of time.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e -mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e -mail if you have received this e -mail by mistake and
delete this e -mail from your system.
i
To City of Cupertino City Council Members,
August 3, 2010
Re: City Council Meeting; Wimax Antennae @ West Valley P - esbyterian Church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To.: City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of the Clearwire Wimax antennae. I understand that the only reason that the
City of Cupertino City Council can deny the installation is for aesthetic reasons only, not health concerns /reasons.
That being the case, I submit that the installation is a carefully engineered hoax to get the antenna in the location
whereas it clearly would not be allowed as a standalone fixture. I submit the following protest.
A Cupola is a common church - architectural addition to amend and compliment the function of the church. It
normally acts as a belfry and /or a belvedere. Its primary function is to house the church bell to summon people to
worship their faith, or act as a lookout. In this case, the Cupola proposed is a Faux Cupola (Fake CUPOLA). It serves
no function that is architecturally appropriate to the neighborhood or the church given the fact that it is fake, and
it was not installed in the years during subsequent remodels and maintenance by the West Valley Presbyterian
Church. I submit that it is merely a cleverly engineered ploy - o disguise the dangerous Wimax active microwave
transmitter /receiver antennae for a location installation that: is desirable to the Wimax function. Regardless of the
health risk, I have reviewed the proposed Faux Cupola design and feel that is larger than would normally be
installed as a normal and authentic cupola housing an actual bell for the intended purpose in which a cupola is an
architectural element of a church. I feel it is significantly larger by scale than needed as merely decorative cupola
enclosure. I believe that this should not only be denied for aesthetic reasons, but for its deliberate deception as an
architectural element specific to a church to get it to pass mister through the City of Cupertino's proceedings for
approval. I feel that the fact that it must be disguised is a clear demonstration of Mens rea on the part of Clearwire
and the City of Cupertino Planning Commission. I believe the installation under the currently proposed installation
guideline was carefully engineered in such a way to go un- opposed. I hereby submit formally and in writing my
protest for the record . I also reserve the right to pursue any legal remedies against The City of Cupertino and
Clearwire for future injuries /damages that may arise as a result of the installation of the antennae at West Valley
Church on Bollinger Road /Miller Avenue.
I respectfully request that you deny the installation of the Clearwire Wimax Antennae located on the Roof in a
Faux Cupola at the West Valley Presbyterian Church at the corner of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue based
on /for aesthetic and /or architectural reasons.
I also respectfully request the Church be designated a Historical Cupertino Structure and be subject to strict code
enforcement as such.
Signed, and submitted in person to the City Council on August 3, 2010, in the City of Cupertino
-= ��'--- s- = = -` -- ��--== - --- -= - - -- Cupertino Resident and Homeowner
x - - ------------ -- ---------------- Witness
cc-18-3 -1 011
To City of Cupertino City Council Members,
August 3, 2010
Re: City Council Meeting; Wimax Antennae @ West Valley Presbyterian Church
To: City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of the Clearwire Wimax antennae. I understand that the only reason that the
City of Cupertino City Council can deny the installation is for aesthetic reasons only, not health concerns /reasons.
That being the case, I submit that the installation is a carefully engineered hoax to get the antenna in the location
whereas it clearly would not be allowed as a standalone fix:ure. I submit the following protest.
A Cupola is a common church - architectural addition to amend and compliment the function of the church. It
normally acts as a belfry and /or a belvedere. Its primary function is to house the church bell to summon people to
worship their faith, or act as a lookout. In this case, the Cupola proposed is a Faux Cupola (Fake CUPOLA). It serves
no function that is architecturally appropriate to the neighborhood or the church given the fact that it is fake, and
it was not installed in the years during subsequent remodels and maintenance by the West Valley Presbyterian
Church. I submit that it is merely a cleverly engineered ploy to disguise the dangerous Wimax active microwave
transmitter /receiver antennae for a location installation that is desirable to the Wimax function. Regardless of the
health risk, I have reviewed the proposed Faux Cupola design and feel that is larger than would normally be
installed as a normal and authentic cupola housing an actual bell for the intended purpose in which a cupola is an
architectural element of a church. I feel it is significantly larger by scale than needed as merely decorative cupola
enclosure. I believe that this should not only be denied for aesthetic reasons, but for its deliberate deception as an
architectural element specific to a church to get it to pass muster through the City of Cupertino's proceedings for
approval. I feel that the fact that it must be disguised is a clear demonstration of Mens rea on the part of Clearwire
and the City of Cupertino Planning Commission. I believe the installation under the currently proposed installation
guideline was carefully engineered in such a way to go un- opposed. I hereby submit formally and in writing my
protest for the record . I also reserve the right to pursue any legal remedies against The City of Cupertino and
Clearwire for future injuries /damages that may arise as a result of the installation of the antennae at West Valley
Church on Bollinger Road /Miller Avenue.
I respectfully request that you deny the installation of the Clearwire Wimax Antennae located on the Roof in a
Faux Cupola at the West Valley Presbyterian Church at the corner of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue based
on /for aesthetic and /or architectural reasons.
I also respectfully request the Church be designated a Historical Cupertino Structure and be subject to strict code
enforcement as such.
Signed, an submitted in person to the City Council on August 3, 2010, in the City of Cupertino
- -� -- -- - -- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------- - - - - -- Cupertino Resident and Homeowner
Witness l , 4 l 6eriq Jro - e Ov.
C:C ��3 /Ili
To City of Cupertino City Council Members,
August 3, 2010 City Council Meeting, 6:45 PM. City Council Chambers opposite the Library
Re: City Council Meeting; Wimax Antennae @ West Valley Presbyterian Church, 6191 Bollinger Road
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: City of Cupertino City Council,
I am opposed to the installation of the Clearwire Wimax antennae. I understand that the only reason that the
City of Cupertino City Council can deny the installation is for aesthetic reasons only, not health concerns /reasons.
That being the case, I submit that the installation is a carefully engineered hoax to get the antenna in the location
whereas it clearly would not be allowed as a standalone fixture. I submit the following protest.
A Cupola is a common church - architectural addition to amend and compliment the function of the church. It
normally acts as a belfry and /or a belvedere. Its primary fur ction is to house the church bell to summon people to
worship their faith, or act as a lookout. In this case, the Cupola proposed is a Faux Cupola (Fake CUPOLA). It serves
no function that is architecturally appropriate to the neighborhood or the Presbyterian Church given the fact that
it is admittedly fake, and that it was not installed in the years during subsequent remodels and maintenance by the
West Valley Presbyterian Church as a functional architectural element. I submit that it is merely a cleverly
engineered ploy to disguise the dangerous Wimax active microwave transmitter /receiver antennae for a location
installation that is desirable to the Wimax function. Regardless of the health risk, I have reviewed the proposed
Faux Cupola design and feel that is larger than would normally be installed as a normal and authentic cupola
housing an actual bell for the intended purpose in which a cupola is an architectural element of a church. I feel it is
significantly larger by scale than needed as merely decorative cupola enclosure serving no other function. I believe
that this should not only be denied for aesthetic reasons, but for its deliberate deception as an architectural
element specific to a church to get it to pass muster through the City of Cupertino's proceedings for approval. I feel
that the fact that it must be disguised is a clear demonstration of Mens rea on the part of Clearwire and the City of
Cupertino Planning Commission. I believe the installation under the currently proposed installation guideline was
carefully engineered in such a way to go un- opposed. I hereby submit formally and in writing my protest for the
record . I also reserve the right to pursue any legal remedies against The City of Cupertino and Clearwire for future
injuries /damages that may arise as a result of the installation of the antennae at West Valley Church on Bollinger
Road /Miller Avenue.
I respectfully request that you deny the installation of the Clearwire Wimax Antennae located on
the Roof in a Faux Cupola at the West Valley Presbyterian Church at 6191 Bollinger Road, the corner
of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue based on /for aesthetic and /or architectural reasons.
I also respectfully request the Church be designated a Historical Cupertino Structure and be subject to strict code
enforcement as such.
Signed, and submit .tolhe U7 Council on Ayg4i\ 3, 2010, in the City of Cupertino
------- --1� -� - =- - =-s -�- �= _` - =- Cupertino Resident and Homeowner
i
---------------------------------------------- '----------------- - - - - -- Witness