Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.D- Community Development DOC ID: 1797 C ® CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing From: Margo Wheeler M/CC Meeting Date: 05/07/2012 Prepared by: Lori Farris, (909) 384-5057 Dept: Community Development Ward(s): 2 Subject: An Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 12-03 to Construct a New Wireless Telecommunications Facility Consisting of a 65-Foot Tall, Camouflaged Monopalm Tower and Associated Equipment Stored Within an Existing Commercial Building, Located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17Th Street in the Commercial Office(CO) and the Residential Suburban(RS)Land Use Districts. Financial Impact: Building permit fees,based on valuation of labor and materials required for project. Mayor to open the hearing. . . Motion 1: Close the hearing; deny Appeal No. 12-02, and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of CUP No. 12-03, based upon the findings of fact contained in the Staff Report to the Mayor and Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission. OR Motion 2: Close the hearing; grant Appeal No. 12-02, and grant CUP No. 12-03, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) contained in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None. Background: • On March 28, 2012,the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03, a request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopam tower and associated equipment stored within an existing commercial building, located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17th Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and the Residential Suburban (RS) land use districts (Exhibit Updated:5/1/2012 by Lori Farris C Packet Pg. 653 1797 [� 1). On April 10, 2012, the appellant filed Appeal No. 12-02 to request that the Mayor and Common Council review the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 (Exhibit 5). • On April 24,2012,the official public hearing notices were mailed out for Appeal No. 12- 02, listing the May 7, 2012 Mayor and Common Council Meeting date, and the legal advertisement regarding the public hearing was published in the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper on April 27, 2012. Appeal: The subject of the appeal is the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit(CUP) No. 12-03, a request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 65- foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and associated equipment stored within an existing commercial building, located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17`h Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and the Residential Suburban (RS) land use districts (Exhibit 1 - Location Map). The project site, located on the northwest comer of"D" and 17`h Streets is currently utilized by two commercial office buildings, each on separate parcels, with a shared parking area. Existing development within a 500-foot radius of the project site is predominately single-family residential, supported by commercial office and church uses along "D" Street. The neighborhood is characterized by large,mature palm trees, lining the streets. On March 28, 2012, the Planning Commission denied CUP No. 12-03 (Exhibit 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report). During the Planning Commission hearing, participants spoke both in opposition and in favor of the proposal. Members of the public opposed to the project questioned the need for new wireless infrastructure, objected to the aesthetic impacts to the neighborhood, and stated concern regarding maintenance of the facility. Some also cited their concern with the potential health impacts of such facilities. However, the City Attorney's Office, Planning Staff, and members of the Planning Commission informed the public and the Planning Commission during the hearing that only the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the environmental effects of RF emissions, including health impacts, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7),which states: "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Updated: 5/1/2012 by Lori Farris C Packet Pg. 654 i 1797 The Planning Commission was concerned about the aesthetic impact that the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the wireless telecommunications facility with monopahn tower had on the unique residential neighborhood and found fault with the following Findings of Fact: "1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code." "5. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City." The following Findings of Fact have been revised to address the faults found by the Planning Commission: 1. The proposed use would impair the integrity and character of the residential land use district and surrounding neighborhood typified by streets lined with live, mature palm trees by creating a noticeable visual impact that would contrast amongst the live palm trees that embody the character and quality of the area. General Plan Policy No. 2.2.10 states that"the protection of the quality of life shall take precedence during the review of new projects. Accordingly, the City shall utilize its discretion to deny or require mitigation of projects that result in impacts that outweigh benefits to the public." Policy 2.3.4 explains that "a cohesive theme" or "sub-themes for neighborhoods" should be developed to "provide identity, help create a sense of community, and add to the City's personality." As the neighborhood has an identity as "The Palms", due to the sub-theme created by the presence of the live palm trees along the streets, the Planning Commission found that the addition of the monopalm tower would create a noticeable visual impact that would negatively affect the quality of life of the residents. 5. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility with monopalm tower are not architecturally compatible with Updated:5/1/2012 by Lori Farris C 1797 the existing neighborhood, comprised of well-maintained and restored single-family residences primarily constructed in the 1910s-20s, and future residential land uses within the general area. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the negative aesthetic quality of the monopalm and its potential to contrast with the live palm trees in the vicinity and the residential neighborhood would create conditions that may negatively affect surrounding property values in the residential neighborhood. After the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Heasley made a motion to deny the project, and Commissioner Jimenez seconded the motion. Commissioners Come, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls voted for denial and Commissioner Dtur voted against the motion. Commissioner Brown was absent. The Planning Commission denied CUP No. 12-03 based on the finding that the project was not compatible with the adjacent residential uses and that the aesthetic impact of the monopalm tower would impair the neighborhood. The appellant filed Appeal No. 12-02 (Exhibit 5) on April 10, 2012, to request that the Mayor& Common Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and remove Condition of Approval #16, a requirement to place the coaxial cable inside the wall of the existing building, due to reasons that the cable will not be significantly visible to the public. The appellant states in the appeal that the site is well designed and appropriately placed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood by camouflaging the monopalm as a palm tree among an area with several mature live palms, and proposing to locate the associated equipment inside the existing commercial building. Additionally, the appellant states that the facility is proposed to be located in a commercial land use district and meets all setbacks and code requirements. Attachments: Exhibit 1 Location Map Exhibit 2 Planning Commission Statement of Action and Staff Report Exhibit 3 Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated March 28, 2012 Exhibit 4 Planning Commission Minutes,03/28/12, Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 Exhibit 5 Appeal Application CSuaaortint= Documents: Updated:5/1/2012 by Lori Farris C i I( 1797 i Exhibit 1 -Location Map (PDF) Exhibit 2 -Planning Commission Statement of Action and Staff Report (PDF) Exhibit 3 - Staff Memo to the Planning Commission Dated March 28, 2012 (PDF) Exhibit 4-Planning Commission Approved Minutes,03.28.12 -CUP 12-03 (PDF) Exhibit 4 -Planning Commission Draft Minutes,03.28.12,CUP 12-03 (PDF) 1 Exhibit 5 -Appeal Application (PDF) 1 Exhibit 5 -Appeal Application (PDF) Exhibit 6 -Applicant Request for Continuance (PDF) t I i Updated: 5/1/2012 by Lori Farris C 7.D.a EXHIBIT 1 Location (Zoning) Map CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP 12-03 (AP 12-02) LOCATION MAP NORTH N 0 z m m a o. Q M O r O g g E tf p 134 ' ( 1 F I a 3 v N PF 18TH 0 0 0 W V' C gg RE PROJECT SITE 41.IFuS CO r�i iX O 2 o 0 O fl J 17TH L W w 3 m In E + r c � u II EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OTATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION o N PROJECT 6 Number: Conditional Use Pennit No. 12-03 d a a Owner: Zecharia& Malca Hovav a M O Applicant: John G. Beke, MetroPCS 0 Z Description: A request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility with a 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and associated equipment a stored within an existin� commercial building, located at 1702 N. "D" y Street and 420 W. 17 Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and D Residential Suburban(RS) land use districts. 0 ACTION: DENIED 0 v Meeting Date: March 28, 2012 a, The Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 based upon finding of incompatibility. o 0. m VOTE Ayes: Coute, Heasley,Jimenez,Lopez, Machen,Mulvihill and Rawls N Nays: Durr a Abstain: None m Absent: Brown o u The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the a o appropriate fee, within 15 days of the Planning Commission action, pursuant to Section c 19.52.100 of the Municipal (Development)Code. E E I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination w of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, o 0 N E E 0 U M. Mhrgo rl^1 eeler,Community Development Director Date c, a cc: Case File, Department File, Plan Check N a L W C d E L U R a 2 Packet Pg. 659 7.D.b N PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT N 6 z CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION i v o. a Q CASE: Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 0 AGENDA ITEM: 5 HEARING DATE: March 28,2012 c z WARD: 2 OWNER: APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: o Zecharia and Malca Hovav John G. Beke 1633 Glenwood Avenue MetroPCS , Upland,CA 91784 2280 Market Street#320 0 909.227.3368 Riverside, CA 92501 909.896.0945 co U r m n REQUEST&LOCATION: 0 0 A request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and associated equipment stored within an existing commercial building, located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17c' Street in the Commercial Office (CO) N and the Residential Suburban (RS)land use districts. n c CONSTRAINTS& OVERLAYS: U a None o z U ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: E ❑ Not Applicable Cn ® Exempt from CEQA,Section 15303—New Construction of Small Structures ❑ No Significant Effects 9 ❑ Potential Effects,Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan £ 0 U STAFF RECOMMENDATION: c c c ® Approval a ® Conditions N ❑ Denial a ❑ Continuance to: L X W c m E z U R Q 3 PacketPg.660 CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date:March 28, 2012 Page 2 N PROJECT DESCRIPTION ° N The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) tinder the authority of z6 Development Code §19.20.030(3)(C)(7) to construct a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 65-foot camouflaged tower and related equipment at n the site of existing commercial buildings located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17`h Street in a the Commercial Office (CO) and the Residential Suburban (RS) land use districts (Attachment q A). The monopole telecommunications tower will be camouflaged as a palm tree, also known as a monopalm(Attachment B). z0 SETTING &SITE CHARACTERISTICS v a _ m 0 9 Subject Site Commercial Office(CO) Commercial Buildings 0 Residential Suburban(RS) m r North Commercial Office(CO) Church c Residential Suburban(RS) Single-Family Residence m o! m South Commercial Office(CO) Commercial Offices o Residential Suburban(RS) Single-Family Residence c 0 u East Residential Suburban(RS) Apartments o E E West Residential Suburban(RS) Single-Family Residence R N c 0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEOA E E The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of 0 the State Guidelines, which exempts construction of small structures that can be adequately o, served by required utilities and public services. c c A BACKGROUND a N • March 20, 1959—Building permits were completed for construction of anew office building, t located at 1702 N. "D"Street. w • July 29, 1964 — Building permits were completed for construction of a new office building, E located at 408-420 W. 171h Street. L u m >r a 4 Packet Pg. 661 CUP No. 72-03 Nearing Date:March 28, 2012 Page 3 • February 21, 2012— Conditional Use Permit(CUP)No. 12-03 was submitted for review to N the Community Development Department. 0 Z • March 15, 2012 — The Development/Environmental Review Committee (D/ERC) reviewed d plans for CUP 12-03 and moved the item to the Planning Commission for consideration. $ a ANALYSIS o N The proposed monopalm structure is designed with camouflage fronds in compliance with z° Section 19.20.030(3) in the Development Code. The project site has five existing mature palm trees, located to the south of the commercial office buildings on-site, providing similar natural objects to the monopalm in the immediate vicinity. The total height of the monopalm structure, - including simulated palm fronds that extend above the top of the pole, will be 65 feet maximum. The proposed site for the monopalm structure will be located to the west of the existing commercial office building, located at 1720 N. "D" Street, with the proposed equipment stored inside the adjacent commercial office building, located at 420 W. 17 Street. Additional air conditioning equipment will be added to the roof and will require screening. The wireless L°, telecommunications facility is subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit due to the fact that the monopalm tower is located within 75 feet of a property designated residential. The proposed monopalm equipment will be in an unmanned facility. r 0 DEVELOPMENT CODE&GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY d it CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT COMPL104 .11. in CODE Use Telecommunications Permitted subject to With Conditional 2 tower located within 75 Conditional Use Permit Use Permit a feet of a property zoned o residential d E d Height 65 feet 75 feet,unless approved Yes y by the Planning g Commission E E 0 U Antenna Setback 6 feet 3 feet minimum Yes rn c c Pole Setback 12 feet 9 inches 10 feet minimum Yes a N a Xx w c v E s u R a 5 PacketPg.662 CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date: March 28,2012 Page 4 N FINDINGS OF FACT ° N 1. The proposed use is conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity and z0 character of the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of v this Development Code. a The proposed 65-foot monopalm is a conditionally permitted use, under the authority of Development Code §19.20.030(3)(C)(7) when the placement of the monopole is within 75- feet from a property designated residential. The adjacent commercial office building, located z0 at 420 W. 17th Street, is currently located in the Residential Suburban(RS)land use district, is E within 75 feet. The proposed equipment will be secured within the commercial building, a located at 420 W. 17th Street, while the monopole will be located on the adjacent property located at 1702 N. "D" Street. The existing structures and mature palm trees on-site will provide screening and will assist in blending the camouflaged monopalm into the existing c surroundings. Therefore, the project would not impair the integrity and character of the 2 subject land use district or be detrimental to surrounding properties. 0 U 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. r_ m r The proposed monopalm tower is consistent with a number of goals and policies in the General Plan. Policy 9.8.1 in the Utilities Element provides for the continued development o and expansion of telecommunications systems. Land Use Goal 2.2 promotes development that integrates with,and minimizes impacts on, surrounding land uses. With the implementation of the monopahn camouflage design, located in the vicinity of existing mature palm trees, and the storage of the associated equipment inside an existing building, operation of the wireless facility would not be apparent to nearby residents. Further,the construction of the facility will allow for the expansion of telecommunications systems in the City. Therefore the proposed o project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the General Plan. a `o 3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the c requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the E Development Code. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the 65-foot unmanned wireless monopalm facility is o in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and Development Code §19.20.030(6), in that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for new construction of small E structures.No potentially significant effects on the environment are anticipated. o m 4. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. a The proposed project will not have any significant negative impacts upon environmental N quality or natural resources. The project site is developed with two commercial office buildings and is surrounded by urban development to the north, south, east, and west. No w significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result from use of the existing project site. E S. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to 6 Packet Pg.663 CUP No. 11-03 Hearing Date:March 28, 1012 Pages S. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible T with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to 1. be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that z° may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the d public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. a The proposed design is in compliance with the Development Code requirements that are o applicable to location, size, and design for wireless telecommunications facilities. The associated monopole will be camouflaged as a palm tree to blend in with the existing mature z° pahn trees on-site. The equipment associated with the wireless telecommunications facility .£ will be housed inside the existing building on-site and will therefore be hidden from view . d from the public right-of-way. The proposed facility would be un-manned, and would therefore not create any significant noise, traffic, or other conditions that would be detrimental or objectionable to other uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 2 v c 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensify of use being proposed. 0 L) The development plan for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and associated equipment fits easily within the project site,which has adequate access for maintenance of the facility from 17'h Street. The proposed monopole will be located 12 feet 9 inches from the o nearest property line, exceeding the minimum setback distance. The size of the project site is adequate to accommodate the proposed improvements, in compliance with the requirements of the Development Code and the Conditions of Approval (Attachment Q. n v 7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety. co The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or a welfare. The development plan complies with Development Code standards related to c location, access, height, screening and landscaping for wireless telecommunications facilities. E The existing site currently has adequate access to 17'h and "D" Streets, public services and utilities. n C 0 CONCLUSION E The proposed project satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of Conditional Use to Permit No. 12-03. m c c RECOMMENDATION R a Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 N based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report, and subject to the Conditions of a Approval(Attachment Q. w 1 c m L m Packet Pg.6fi4 CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date:March 28, 2012 Page 6 N O N Respectfully Submitted, 6 m v Cn Btv I `'t 0 Lori Farris Assistant Planner 0 z Approved for Distrib lion: m IL �� 01 / m c 0 M.Margo Wheeler,AICP Community Development Director 0 v Attachment A: Location Maps Attachment B: Site Plan&Elevations Attachment C: Conditions of Approval o 0 v 0' @ w v c @ c 0 U a `o c v E v m N c 0 N N E E 0 U m c 'c c @ a N a xx W C E E L U Q g F Packet Pg.,6651 ATTACHMENT A Zoning Map 9 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO z I D PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: I C CUP 12-03 LOCATION MAP NORTH 9 0 z E p 480 V -,,gn 18TH 0 U) 0 Its PROJECT SITE E Cn 17TH E E tv- Z 190W T E 9 Packet Pg CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP 12-03 LOCATION MAP t" � �. ME_. 18TH ST a H R, IN { + t a Je it IV i F ir qq' 17TH ST t IF� 4 E ,t � ! v � '".4 yy, (�( qq��(,, �t,yy In Nlk ' SF. �'{ 7.D.b ATTACHMENT B N O ae v t la aid° f , 11,115 ! a PTA I a 0 f 0 i Z " 6F p a fp ° N P ► t o v l ; d ; 57 Ptif lfp � v � ° Q� �aa 5t � 1 P •,, .. r V o �P9i iU,!9 tlye fP,pPiDH P t t ° s f�(�fdApd7!1 UK W g W A9ipfpi' H w %P[5ip5p6 Q Z a ! ! 5 P P 5ab5pdil,!! �Y � m V w a~i i Ait.ld !�33 ,41 i f 6Et�sre�ae�i� fM Ga o U ppi O w € lilt 75 Pt I li f 1 ill it f Will 1,i I t 15 L E E U w Y Y &pF P �Y ( (f.p N� •F�+7€ (StE a l � L lk di5af ��a°I tr All 8 dif ri5fd 61d��pf5 W C N E L U Q 11 I'. Packet Pg. 668 7.D.b N O e � r tI FHsi! a M O N O Z ----------------t — —-—-—-—-—- I— — I y y m N zf � IT \J I 9 v '1 a O R Q y N ¢ §i y B R C O N N E U b � 1. Ia. itlP MpY6 F P �p1 G tit {S e -, 1 r �� 91[ Y P ►e � Sfi a �r W g sit:It 1e CP3! �4e6 R€Cease m a 12 Packet Pg. 669 7.D.b N 1 O ! ! LE IF N t o! III, z IT- z M O N Z P, p i �: a m N A � Ar 1z. r � g r a N E E 0 A � � 6 s p = 11, fit , II . R 1 � € � P€;a � �i89E8BPC `P �� � �4��r�rrrr � PPt � P; W Etiil�Pf �€gyp€.4� 1 ! l1111 CIF €9PE [ fI63! 5 a l! @ oeooeeeoe ®o®®®®o ©®©®®®®®®®e®® d E L U W a 13 Packet Pg. 670 7 D.b LL N O HC H H Y s(i t t ki; H € g N z M •• i N O e ! aE o •s 2 2 t t p /� Z 2 i i S YS S�t 9 � Yen n n s n n `l3 c � 9+ 5 X1'1 I m t0{S CS 0e i1 N R e g e '" 2 --------T------- -- i� •f 4 ti 1 Q kSx �o s EEE tj C) t V � Wo c fYi � , � spf � } yiiip 61 6 t B IHOittEsgaEEIR1fill,t £ 9Y=.54 959ifIf fflf ffR U ® �®O©O®00DODBO � c C i ff `tY {` :' �� f55g € f iii° ! stf � i9 a 01 : it If If I 1 Y vp I" i t it , Nil OffY OPHR @lffffifAN�$ ; lf�sfB!tff � fiE's!i � W E a . 14 Packet Pg. 671 7.D.b N O ee N gJil iA M F dYl i '-0 E �{� t}r }}t 12`0 "Ea t P }d44 p}p AP }�jtFa }! t �i — tp� m c+ + P m C �t' 1s" I fT El. if Hu {i J 0 � o I Y U i =gL it! 0 ` f ti m }}P{ � P Pa°P xP. �9 PF F9t J I}idi 1}t P IllP P ! 0 F a r 7 p < L .. 113� I� PPiPtt of w en l .; E L U N Q 15 . Packet Pg:.672 N ATTACHMENT C 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL zo Conditional Use Permit No. 12.03 v o. a 1, This approval authorizes construction/installation and operation of a new wireless a telecommunications facility with a 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and o associated equipment stored within an existing commercial building, located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 170' Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and the Residential z° Suburban(RS)land use districts(APN; 0145-091-01, 25). E d 2. Within two years of the CUP approval, commencement of construction shall have v occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the c permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval of the Conditional Use 2 Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary permits must be a obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities included in the c0 Conditions of Approval. r m n Expiration Date: March 28,2014 0 0 3. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code rn provisions. m 4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the `o applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this a matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the c City of San Bernardino (City), the Economic Development Agency of the City of San Bernardino (EDA), any departments, agencies, divisions,boards or commission of either E the City or EDA as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of either the City or EDA in from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. o The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which H the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such E participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 0 0 The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall c be considered as "attorneys fees" for the purpose of this condition. As part of the `m consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in effect if this a Conditional Use Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of applicant. B L X w 5. All development shall be in substantial conformance to submitted plans date stamped • February 21,2012. m E L U 10 Q 16 Pack®t P,g..673 CUP A70. 12.03 Hearing Date:March 28, 2012 N O N 6 2 6. Any modification to the plans shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the a Development Code Chapter 19.60,Minor Modifications. a 7. The project shall comply with the requirements of other outside agencies, as applicable (e.g. State Board of Equalization,Federal Communications Commission, etc.). 0 Z 8. The applicant shall ensure that the communications tower and related equipment shall be removed within three months after the use is abandoned. 0 d 9. The use of barbed wire, electrified fence, or razor wire in conjunction with any fence, wall,roof,hedge,etc. is prohibited per Development Code Section 19.20.030(8)(C)(1). 0 10. The operation of the antenna shall not cause interference with any electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods (e.g., television, radio, telephone, computer, inclusive of 0 the City's trunked 800MHz public safety radio system, etc.) or with Police or Fire Department communications equipment unless exempted by Federal Regulations. If notified by a City official that the antenna is creating interference with public safety communications, the use of the antenna shall cease immediately and remain out of use o until the problem is resolved. 11. The facility operator and property owner shall be responsible for regular maintenance of .2 the project site. The site shall be maintained in a clean condition and free of litter and any other undesirable material(s). Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris shall be removed and cleaned up within 48 hours and the aesthetic appearance of the faux tree shall be 3 maintained in a condition where it still serves the purpose of disguising the pole. a `0 12. The applicant shall store all associated equipment to the monopalm tower inside the m existing commercial structure, or on the roof, as indicated on the approved site plan. E 13. The pole shall be a camouflaged as a palm tree with heavy-density branch coverage w (minimum of 60 palm fronds) and shall extend beyond the antennas for adequate 3 concealment,to the satisfaction of the Director. E 14. Antennas shall be painted to match the monopalm branches or cladding, as appropriate. 0 m 15. The pole shall be covered with simulated palm bark cladding to a minimum height of 35 E feet above ground level. Any portion of the pole not covered with pine bark cladding m shall be painted brown to match. a N 16. The coax cable, which connects to the associated equipment inside the adjacent a commercial building, shall be installed inside the building. X c v E r U N Q 17 Pactret @g 674' CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date: March 28, 2012 17. The proposed air conditioning equipment on the roof of 420 W. 17'h Street shall be N adequately screened from view from the public right-of-way in a manner architecturally c compatible with the existing structure. z A d 18. No part of the monopole shall be located within ten feet of the property line to the west of a the proposed monopahn location. 0 19. A building permit shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division for the : construction of the unmanned wireless telecommunications facility. z 20. Submittal requirements for permit applications with the Building and Safety Division a shall include all Conditions of Approval issued with this approval, printed on the plan w sheets. c 21. All Conditions of Approval shall be completed prior to final inspection, sign-off, and before antennas can be activated. c 0 U End of Attachment C m r 0 a m m N B C A C O U Q w O C d E d m N c O y N E 0 U M S c c R IL N a Xx W c d E L u m Q 18 Packet.,P9.67S EXHIBIT 3 C �^ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO o Community Development Department—Planning Division z Interoffice Memorandum d n n Q TO: Planning Commission 0 r FROM: Lori Farris,Assistant Planner d z SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 -Agenda Item 5 E d a DATE: March 28,2012 w COPIES: M. Margo Wheeler,Director;Tony Stewart,Deputy Director/City Planner; Henry Empelfo Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney 'a c O U Please find included the following items for consideration, regarding Conditional Use n Permit No. 12-03: • Handout entitled Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular&PCS Sites,by the Federal Communications Commission—Provided by N the applicant. N r u • Handout entitled A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance, by the Federal v Communications Commission—Provided by the applicant. m 0 • Letter of opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03, from John R. Bums, 440 West 17th Street,San Bernardino, CA 92405,dated March 21,2012. H E • Letter of opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03, from Daisy Kirkmon, c0 430 West 17th Street,San Bernardino,CA 92405, dated March 24,2012. .E c n a a L O O E d nr N M a X X W C d E L u m a 19 PackefPg.676 Human Exposure I o kadio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular dh PU6 sites Vage 1 of 3 Scdre13 1 RSS I t 1 Li I FFliatr I 1n;tiatlYt;S I sumers .con � c 1. . 1 R d a Consumer&Governmental Affairs Bureau a MAR 2 6 2012 M FSeS..>�®�ypg>�,pLLymO��l�rp�>HUmen Expwu2 to RF FlBIM Inw t o N O Dy Z Hurrjen Exposure 'T'o radio Frequency FCC Meld ' Consumer Facts Guidelines For Cellular & PGS Sites 0 0 O U Background n Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service,including cellular and Personal Communications Service (PCs), are usually located outdoors on towers, water N tanks, and other elevated structures like rooftops and sides of buildings. The combination Of N antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a"cellular or PCs cell N site"or"base station." Cellular or PCs cell site towers are typically 50-200 feet high. Antennas are usually arranged in groups of three, with one antenna in each group used to 2 transmit signals to mobile units, and the other two antennas used to receive signals from mobile units. 0 d At a cell site,the total radio frequency(RF) power that can be transmitted from each o transmitting antenna depends on the number of radio channels(transmitters)that have o been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)and the power of each 0 transmitter. Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power(ERP)of up to 500 wafts per channel(depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular or PCs cell sites in E urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. u M An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, depending on F the type of antenna used. In urban areas, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per channel or less. For PCs cell sites, even lower ERPs are typical. As with all forms of a electromagnetic energy,the power density from a cellular or PCs transmitter rapidly t decreases as distance from the antenna increases. 0 Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less than the exposure that might be 0 encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCs call sites have shown that ground-level power densities are well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safety LO standards used by the FCC. n M Guidelines a L In 1996, the FCC adopted updated guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF fields w from fixed transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular and PCs cell sites.The FCC's guidelines are identical to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation E L U j� M11 http://www.fec.gov/cgb/consurnerfacts/rfexposure.htrnl 3123/2011 a 20 Packet Pg.677 Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular&PCs Sites Yage 2 of 3 Protection and Measurements(NCRP), a non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection.The FCC's guidelines also resemble the 1992 guidelines recommended by the Institute of Electrical o and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a non-profit technical and professional engineering z society, and endorsed by the American National Standards Institute(ANSI), a non-profit, v privately-funded, membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary n national standards in the United States, M In the case of cellular and PCs cell site transmitters,the FCC's RF exposure guidelines N recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square centimeter.This limit is many times greater than RF levels zo typically found near the base of cellular or PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other, lower-powered cell site transmitters. a Calculations corresponding to a "worst-case"situation(all transmitters operating w simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power)show that, In order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC's guidelines,an individual would essentially have to c remain in the main transmitting beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several 4 minutes or longer.Thus,the possibility that a member of the general public could be c exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. 0 When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF emissions could exceed higher than desirable guideline levels on the rooftop itself,even though rooftop antennas usually operate at lower power levels than free-standing power antennas. Such levels might become an issue for maintenance or other personnel working on the rooftop. Exposures exceeding the guidelines levels, however, are only likely to be encountered very close to, $ and directly in front of,the antennas. In such cases, precautions such as time limits can N avoid exposure in excess of the guidelines. Individuals living or working within the building L are not at risk. For More Information v m For more Information on this Issue, visit the FCC's RF Safety Web site at o www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. For further information about any other telecommunications- o related issues,visit the FCC's Consumer&Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site at N www.fcc.cov/cgb, or contact the FCC's Consumer Center by e-mailing fccinfoCo2fcc.aov; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC( -888-835-5322) E 1 TTY; faxing 1.866-418-0232; or writing to: 0 Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Consumer Information and Complaints Division a 44512 St. SW y Washington, DC 20554. o 0 E d For this or any other consumer publication In an accessible format n (electronic ASCII text,Braille,large print,or audlo)please write or N call us at the address or phone number below,or send an a-mail to ECC604fd1fcag_9v. M To receive Information on this and other FCC consumer topics through t' the Commission's electronic subscriber service,click on a h ito:/ ,(ygov/cab/contacts/ 'X X w This document Is for consumer education purposes only end is not Intended to affect any proceeding or cases involving this subject matter or related issues. m E s u Q http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consurnerfacts/rfexposure.html 3123/2011 21 PacketPg.67a I-Juman Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular&PCS Sites Page 3 of'3 6 FOOral Commw1oatbna Con)MIS.Im-Oon rw&OmmmonMI Affalm Bumau-445 12th St,8-M-WashIngim.00 20554 z - 1888CALL-FCC(1.088.226.5322) - -F=140"18002 -OwrxImuAMUN cz last reviewed/updated On 11109M7 FCC Home I Search I M I Update I E-Fpinta I Initiatives I Consumers I EU141.P Dole 9 0 Federal CommunfeadonsCommisslon Phone:1.888-CALL-FCC(1488-225- -Privacy Policy z 44512th Street SW 5322) -Website E011610r&Notices r jDa -pj-ug Washington,DC 20554 TTY:1-888-TELL-FCC(IMB-835- -Reaulred BM02 E More FQQ gntaic—Information,,, 5322) -Ef-eAQW-91 lu�fl Act a. Far.1.866.418-0232 E-mall:fminfoOkc.go 0 L) O U 0 E E 0 L) rn 0 0 E 72 X LU http://www.fcc.gov/cgl)/consumerfacts/rfcxposure.html 323/2011 22 N O z m Federal Load axid State a Communications Governsuent a Commission Advisory q 40 Committee 0 z E a a v N 7 R C A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: o Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance r m r N O N W N I L u `m ' s a � o 0 N N E E O U m C .0 C N a a L 0 0 E m m N D June 2, 2000 a MAR 2 6 2012 x D w By E L U A Q 23 Packet Pg. 680 N O Z A Local Government official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance 9 Over the past two years,the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)and its Local Z and State Government Advisory Committee(LSGAC)have been working together to prepare a voluntary guide to assist state and local governments in devising efficient procedures for `a ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC's limits for Q. human exposure to mdiofrequency(RF)electromagnetic fields. The attached guide is the U product of this joint effort. @ c We encourage state and local government officials to consult this guide when addressing issues of facilities siting within their communities. This guide contains basic information,in a form accessible to officials and citizens alike,that will alleviate misunderstandings in the complex area of RF emissions safety. This guide is not intended to replace OET Bulletin 65, which contains detailed technical information regarding RF issues,and should continue to be m used and consulted for complex sites. The guide contains information,tables,and a model checklist to assist state and local officials in identifying sites that do not raise concerns regarding a compliance with the Commission's RF exposure limits. In many cases,the model checklist N offer:a quick and effective way for state and local officials to establish that particular RF facilities are unlikely to exceed specific federal guidelines that protect the public from the w environmental effects of RF emissions. Thus,we believe this guide will facilitate federal,state, v and local governments working together to protect the public while bringing advanced and ianovative communications services to consumers as rapidly as possible. We hope and expect -� that use of this guide will benefit state and local governments,service providers,and,most importantly,the American public. ° C O We wish all of you good luck in your facilities siting endeavors. .y E E 0 U m c William E.Kennard,Chairman Kenneth S.Feldman, Chair 'E Federal Communications Commission Local and State Government _n Advisory Committee n v s 0 0 E m m a X W C d E t U A a 24 Packet Pg.681 7.D.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide tOFtB' o Z m A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S GUIDE TO TRANSMITTING ANTENNA RF EMISSION SAFETY:RULES,PROCEDURES,AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE - G M A common question raised in discussions about the siting of wireless telecommunications and N broadcast antennas is,"Will this tower create any health concerns for our citizens?" We have o designed this guide to provide you with information and guidance in devising efficient Z procedures for assuring that the anicana facilities located in your community comply with the E Federal Communication Commission's(FCC's)limits for human exposure to radiofiequency (RF)elcenomagnetic fields.) v N We have included a checklist and tables to help you quickly identify siting applications that do not raise RF exposure concerns. Appendix A to this guide contains a checklist that you may use to identify"categorically excluded"facilities that are unlikely to cause RF exposures in excess of 0 the FCC's guidelines. Appendix B contains tables and figures that set forth,for some of the most common types of facilities,"worst case"distances beyond which there is no realistic 0 possibility that exposure could exceed the FCC's guidelines, an an As discussed below,FCC rules require transmitting facilities to comply with RF exposure guidelines. The limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with N a very large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by federal health and safety N agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. The FCC's rules have been upheld by a Federal Court of Appeals? As discussed below,most N facilities create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Moreover,the u limits themselves are many times below levels that arc generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Nonetheless,it is recognized that any instance of noncompliance v with the guidelines is potentially very serious,and the FCC has therefore implemented procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. At the same time,state and local governments o may wish to verify compliance with the FCC's exposure limits in order to protect thew own o citizens. Asa state or local government official,you can play an important role in ensuring that 0 innovative and beneficial communications services are provided in a manner that is consistent .E with public health and safety. o U This document addresses only the issue of compliance with RF exposure limits established by the FCC. It does not address other issues such as construction,siting,permits,inspection, zoning,environmental review,and placement of antenna facilities within communities. Such issues fall generally under the jurisdiction of states and local governments,within the limits a imposed for personal wireless service facilities by Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Acts 0 0 E v 'This guide is intended to complement,but not to replace,the FCC'$OET Bulletin 65,"Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields;'August 1997. Bulletin 65 `n can be obtained from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology(pbma:202.418-2464 or e-mail: rn rfsafety@fbe.gov). Bulletin 65 can also be ecccssed and downloaded from the FCC's"RF Safety"website: http:/Aw .roc.gDv/oeVrfsefety. a °Sat Cellular Phone Taskforee v.FCC, 205 P.3d 82(2d Cir.2000). z X i= m 1 E V a1 Q 25 Packet Pg. 682 N FCC"GAC Local OffIclaFs Guide to RF d z m T a This document is not intended to provide legal guidance regarding the scope of state or local government authority under Section 332(c)(7)or any other provision of law. Section 332(c)(7)4 c generally preserves state and local authority over decisions regarding the placement, ry construction,and modification of personal wireless service facilities,'subject to specific o limitations set forth in Section 332(c)(7).Among other things,Section 332(c)(7)provides that z g4ri State or local government or instrnmentallty thereof may regulate the placement, construction,and modification of persona)wireless service facilities on the basis of the ; environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the[FCC's]regulations concerning such emissions." The full text of Section 332(c)(7)is set froth in Appendix C. 0 State and local governments and the FCC may differ regarding the extent of state and local legal authority under Section 332(c)(7)and other provisions of law. To the extent questions arise o regarding such authority,they are being addressed by the courts, Rather than address these legal v questions,this document 7000goiMS that as a practical matter,state and local governments have a role to play in ensuring compliance with the FCC's limits,and it provides guidance to assist m you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1)to define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you,as a local official concerned about N transmitting antenna emissions,with adequate assurance of compliance,while(2),at the same N time,avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or N the FCC's licensees. s U First we'll start with a summary of the FCC's RF exposure guidelines and some background information that you'll find helpful. Next,well review the FCC's procedures for verifying compliance with the guidelines and enforcing its roles. Finally,we'll offer you some practical m guidance to help you determine if personal wireless service facilities M raise compliance ° concerns. Note,however,that this guide is only intended to help you distinguish sites that are o unlikely to raise compliance concerns from those that may raise compliance concerns,not to w identify sites that are out of compliance. Detailed technical information necessary to determine E compliance for individual sites is contained in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65(see footnote I, o above). rn c C c s 47 U.S.C.§332(ex7). Under limited cireumstancas,the FCC also playa a role in the siting of wireless facilities. a Specifically,the FCC reviews applications for tacit fie'that tall within certain environmental catcgories under the v National Envirann ental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA),see 47 C.F.R.y 1.1307(a).Antenna Structures that em over 200 feet in height or located near suport runways must be marked or lighted as specified by the Federal Aviation o Administration and must be registered with the FCC,see 47 C.P.A Part 17. 0 t Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act is identical to Section 704(x)of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. m t"Personal wireless services"generally includes wireless telaommunications services that are interconnected with y the public telephone network and are offered commercially to the public. Examples include cellular and similar services(such as Personal Communications Service or"PCS"),paging and similar services,certain dispatch +- services,cod services that use wireless technology to provide telephone service to a fixed location inch es a home or 'a s office w c E 2 r U N Q 26 Packet Pg. 683 7.D.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF o Z Before we start,however,let's take a short tour of the radiofrequency spectrum. RF signals may o be transmitted over a wide range of frequencies. The frequency of an RF signal is expressed in a terms of cycles per second or"Hertz,"abbreviated"Hz," One kilohertz(kHz)equals one thousand Hz,one megahertz(MHz)equals one million Hz,and one gigabertz(GHz)equals one N billion Hz. In the figure below,you'll we that AM radio signals are at the lower end of the RF spectrum,while other radio services,such as analog and digital TV(DTV),cellular and PCS zo telephony,and point-to-point microwave services are much higher in frequency. d a Cortliese Cordless Co @leas y Shod%We Radlo Phones Phones Phones 0 AM Bass smart Mlcrcwaves — @ « 0 c 0 CB VHF VHF UHF P.C.S.Phones U TV+DTV N-DTV TV+DTV Hens Maur pagers Ceeular Phones m r FM aentl _ 0.3 Mhz 3 Mhz 30 Mhz 300 Mhz soon Mhz- N 0 As the frequency Increases,the wavelength of dra Imnwhied signal daaessea N Mhz=Moaeheaz=Millions of cycles per eemnd Illustration 1 s 0 The FCC's limits for maximum permissible exposure(MPE)to RF emissions depend on the frequency or frequencies that a person is exposed to. Different frequencies may have different m MPE levels. Later in this document well show you how this relationship of frequency to WE m limit works. ° c 0 ut I. The FCC's RF Exposure Guidelines and Rules. E Part I of the FCC's Rules and Regulations contains provisions implementing the National Bnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NBPA). NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the c potential environmental significance of an agency action, Exposure to RF energy has been identified by the FCC as a potential environmental factor that must be considered before a @ facility,operation or transmitter can be authorized or licensed. The FCC's requirements dealing - with RF exposure can be found in Part 1 of its rules at 47 C.F.R.§ 1,1307(b). The exposure limits themselves are specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.13 10 in terms of frequency,field strength,power density and averaging time. Facilities and transmitters licensed and authorized by the FCC mustt either comply with these guidelines or else an applicant must file an Environmental Assessment (EA)with the FCC as specified in 47 C.F.R. §1.1301 et seq. An EA is an official document required by the FCC's rules whenever an action may have a significant environmental impact (see discussion below). In practice,however,a potential environmental RF exposure problem is typically resolved before an EA would become necessary, Therefore,compliance with the M FCC's RF guidelines constitutes a de facto threshold for obtaining FCC approval to construct or a operate a station or transmitter. The FCC guidelines are based on exposure criteria x w c d 3 E s U Q 27 Packet Pg. 684 7.D.c N_ FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF d Z m recommended in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements n (NCRP)and on the 1991 standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics a Engineers(IEEE)and later adopted as a standard by the American National Standards Institute c (ANSVIEEE C95.1-1992). N 0 The FCC's guidelines establish separate MPE limits for"general population/uncontrolled z exposure"and for"occupational/controlled exposure." The general population/uncontrolled E limits set the maximum exposure to which most people may be subjected. People in this group ; include the general public not associated with the installation and maintenance of the . transmitting equipment. Higher exposure limits are permitted under the"occupational/controlled exposure"category,but only for persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment (e.g.,wireless radio engineers,technicians). To qualify for the oceupafional/controlled exposure category,exposed persons must be made fully aware of the potential for exposure(e.g.,through training),and they must be able to exercise control over their exposure, In addition,people o passing through a location,who are made aware of the potential for exposure,may be exposed under the occupational/controlled criteria. The MPE limits adopted by the FCC for occupational/controlled and general population/uncontrolled exposure incorporate a substand ot margin of safety and have been established to be well below levels generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. 0 N Determining whether a potential health hazard could exist with respect to a given transmitting 06 antenna is not always a simple matter. Several important factors must be considered in making r that determination, They include the following: (1)What is the frequency of the RF signal being transmitted? (2)What is the operating power of the transmitting station and what is the actual M power radiated from the antenna?a(3)flow long will someone be exposed to the RF signal at a given distance from the antemia?(4)What other antennas are located in the area,and what is the m exposure from those antennas? We'll explore each of these issues in greater detail below. o c 0 For all frequency ranges at which FCC licensees operate,Section 11310 of the FCC's niles .N establishes maximum permissible exposure(MPE)limits to which people may be exposed.The 'j_ MPE limits vary by frequency because of the different absorptive properties of the human body o at different frequencies when exposed to whole-body RF fields. Section 1.1310 establishes MPE L) limits in terms of"electric field strength, "magnetic field strength,"and"far-field equivalent power density'(power density). For most frequencies used by the wireless services,the most 'E relevant measurement is power density. The MPE limits for power density are given in terms of "miiliwatts per square centimeter"or mW/emz. One milliwatt equals one thousandth of one watt v (1/1000 of a watt).'In terms of power density,for a given frequency the FCC MPE limits can be interpreted as specifying the maximum rate that energy can be transferred(i.e.,the power)to a o square centimeter of a person's body over a period of time(either 6 or 30 minutes,as explained E E s Power travels from a transmitter though cable or other comtetling device to the tadiatmgmierme. "Operating power of the transmitims station"refers to the power nut is fed from the transmitter(transmitter output power)info 10 the cable or connecting device. "Actual power radiated from the antenna"is the transmitter output power tninw o, power lost(power losses)in the connecting device plag an apparent increase in power(if my)due to the design of as the antenna. Radiated power Is often specified in term of"effective radiated power"or"ERP"or"effective isotropic radiated power'or"EIRP"(sea footnote 14), a L X ''Thus,by say of illustrtion,it takes 100,000 milliwatis of power to fully illuminate a 100 watt ligbt bulb. W c m 4 s U m a 23 Packet Pg. 685 7.D.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to EtF 6 Z m below). In practice,however,since it is unrealistic to measure separately the exposure of each a square centimeter of the body,actual compliance with the FCC limits on RF emissions should be ¢ determined by"spatially averaging"a person's exposure over the projected area of an adult M human body(this concept is discussed in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65). N 0 Z For determining compliance, exposure is averaged over the approximate projected area of the a body. 0 w y R � c 0 a c ,{ 0 U Power decreases as the distance from the antenna Increases. V Illustration 2 N 0 N Electric field strength and magnetic field strength are used to measure"near field"exposure. At N frequencies below 300 MHz,these are typically the more relevant measures of exposure,and s power density values are given primarily for reference purposes. However,evaluation of far- field equivalent power density exposure may still be appropriate for evaluating exposure in some such cases. For frequencies above 300 MHz,only one field component need be evaluated,and exposure is usually more easily characterized in terms of power density. Transmitters and o antennas that operate at 300 MHz or lower include radio broadcast stations,some television c broadcast stations,and certain personal wireless service facilities(e.g., some paging stations). o Most personal wireless services,including all cellular and FCS,as well as some television broadcast stations,operate at frequencies above 300 MHz.(See Illustration l.) E 0 As noted above,the MPE limits are specified as time-averaged exposure limits.This means that exposure can be averaged over the identified time interval(30 minutes for general populatiouluncontrolled exposure or 6 minutes for occupationallcontrolled exposure). However, for the case of exposure of the general public,time averaging is usually not applied because of 10 uncertainties over exact exposure conditions and difficulty in controlling time of exposure. d Therefore,the typical conservative approach is to assume that any RF exposure to the general public will be continuous. The FCC's limits for exposure at different frequencies are shown in Illustration 3,below: 0 0 m in ro a_ r x W a U 5 E U A ¢ 29 Packet Pg. 686 7.D.c N FCCILI Local Official's Guide to RF o Z m a a Illustration 3. FCC Limirsfar Maximum Permissible Exposure(MPE) Q n (A) Limits for Occupational/Contr011ed Exposure ° Frequency Electric Field Megoetic Field Strength Power Density Averaging Time 0 Range Strength(E) (H) (S) 1 IEIz,IHI'or S MHz V/111 Alm MW/em minutes E 0.3.3.0 614 1.63 1000 6 0 3.030 18421f 4.89/f 900/fa * 6 w 30.300 61-.4 0.163 1.0 6 300.1500 — 0300 6 m 1500-100000 — 5 6 0 v c 0 (B) Limits for General Population/UncontrolledExposure Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Density Averaging Time Range Strength(E) (H) (S) 1 IEIz,IHI'or S MHz /m p/m mW/om minutes r 0.3.1.34 614 1.63 100 * 30 N 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f 180/ • 30 30.300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1500 V1500 30 1500.100000 — — !.0 30 `m f a frequency in MHz *Planawave equivalent power density Ts v NOTE 1:OroupelionaVconlroilad llmlu apply in situatiomin which persons NO exposed as sconsequence Of their employment m provided Non persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exorcise cuntrot onr thou exposure.Lints for O owupatianaUeontrotledaxposure also apply in ati situons when an individual is transient hrough a location where .m m occapationaVcuatrolled llmile apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for axposum. 'E E 0 NOTE 2:Outset population/uncontrolled expoa area apply in situations in which the seism public may be exposed,or in which persons the ue exposed ae a consequence of their employment may not be Polly aware of the potential far exposure or cannot e c exemiee control over their exposure. n a 0 s Finally,it is important to understand that the FCC's limits apply cumulatively to all sources of o RF emissions affecting a given area.A common example is where two or more wireless operators have agreed to share the cost of building and maintaining a tower,and to place thew a antennas on that joint structure. in such a case,the total exposure from the two facilities taken g together must be within the FCC guidelines,or else an EA will be required. rn A. .Cafaga rlcdlly "iadtd Fialllfi10 M The Commission has determined throuI calculations and technical analysis that due to their low :2 power or height above ground level; itaitq;fati'iitie by.th u very natur i e 1 g}lly uulilEaij w c m 6 E U N Q 30 Packet Pg. 687 Fcc/LSGAC Local official's Guide to RF z -cc 16,M.. ihtX and operators of 1120118 facilities are 0 exempt from routinely having to determine compliance. Okiliffi"'Old'Atesie 1 -A - - X. - I < from the requirement for routine environmental processing M for RF exposure. 9 Section 1.1307(b)(1)of the Commission's rules sets forth which facilities are categorically 0 z excluded.' If a facility is categorically excluded,an applicant or licensee may ordinarily assume E compliance with the guideline limits for exposure. However,an applicant or licensee must evaluate and determine compliance for a facility that is otherwise categorically excluded if specifically requested to do so by the FCC.9 If potential environmental significance is found as a result an EA must be filed with the FCC. CE C No radio or television broadcast facilities are categorically excluded.Thus,broadcast applicants .0 and licensees must affirmatively determine their facility compliance with the guidelines before construction,and upon every facility modification or license renewal application. With respect 0 to personal wireless services,a cellular facility is categorically excluded if the total affective radiated power(ERP)of an channels operated by the licensee at a site is 1000 watts or less. If the facility uses sectorized antennas,only the total effective radiated power in each direction is considered. Examples of a 3 sector and a single sector antenna array are shown below: Fr<arrrple of a 3 sector Fxwpte of a singie sector antenm array antenna array cd Sector C swor B panne Aney� A Antenna Array la je(WA Antenna Army aingh Sector M 0 In E E 0 U Illustration 4 0 0 E "'The appropriate exposure,limits are generally applicable to all facilities,operations and transmitters regulated 2 by the Commission. However,a dotanninlitiDn Of compliance with the exposure limits.. .(routine environmental 4m: evaluation),and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded,is necessary only for facilities,operations and rp ,,mDjitjm that fail into its categories listed in table I[of 11,1307),Or those specified in paragraph(b)(2)of this section. All other facilities,operations and transmitters are categorically excluded from melting studies or prewng an BA. X 9 See 47 C.171§1.1307(c)and(d). ur 7 E U M 32 7.D.d N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF z6 R in addition,a cellular facility is categorically excluded,regardless of its power,if it is qgl a mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters`(N`lsY V01'Ebtt) a "4 6hvt g'i'ind30OW A,broadband PCS antenna array is categorically excluded if the total o effective radiated power of all channels operated by the licensee at a site(or all channels in any N one direction,in the case of sectorized antennas)is 2000 watts or less. Like cellular,another o way for a broadband PCS facility to be categorically excluded is if it is DOI mounted on a ? building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 ureteral kllIbod,4,yf2 (§V t�6R14 E `14tiE1:The power threshold for categorical exclusion is higher for broadband Pt;s than-for a cellular because broadband PCS operates at a higher frequency where exposure limits are less restrictive. Fm categorical exclusion thresholds for other personal wireless services,consult Table I of Section 1.1307(b)(1).10 c 0 For your convenience,we have developed the checklist in Appendix A that may be used to streamline the process of determining whether a proposed facility is categorically excluded. o You are encouraged to adopt the use of this checklist in your jurisdiction,although such use is v not mandatory. m r_ B. What If An Applicant Or Licensee Wants To Exceed The Limits Shown N In Illustration 37 ° N Any FCC applicant or licensee who wishes to construct or operate a facility that,by itself or in combination with other sources of emissions(i.e.,other transmitting antennas),may cause v human exposures in excess of the guideline limits must file an Environmental Assessment(EA) with the FCC. Where more than one antenna is collocated(for example,on a single tower or v rooftop or at a hilltop site),the applicant must take into consideration all of the RF power transmitted by all of the antennas when determining maximum exposure levels. Compliance at o an existing site is the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce exposure a levels in excess of 5%of the applicable exposure limit. A new applicant is responsible for .0 compliance(or submitting an EA)at a multiple-use site if the proposed transmitter would cause .0 non-compliance and if it would produce exposure levels in excess of 5%of the applicable limit,'] o U An applicant or licensee is not permitted to construct or operate a facility that would result in exposure in excess of the guideline limits until the FCC has reviewed the EA and either found no significant environmental impact,or pursued further environmental processing including the A preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement. As a practical matter,however,this a process is almost never invoked for RF exposure issues because applicants and licensees normally undertake corrective actions to ensure compliance with the guidelines before o submitting an application to the FCC. 0 E 0 Unless a facility is categorically excluded(explained above),the FCC's Hiles reauire a licensee to evaluate a proposed or existing facility's compliance with the RF exposure guidelines and to m rn M 10 Table I of§1,1307(b)(1)is reproduced it Appendix A to this guide L For more inforrration,sea OET Bulletin 65,or sea 47 CFA§1.1301(b)(3). tL c m E e U a 32 Packet Pg. 689 7;D.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF o z R determine whether an EA is required. In the case of broadcast licensees,who are required to a obtain a construction permit from the FCC,this evaluation is required before the application for a construction permit is filed,or the facility is constructed. In addition,if a facility requires the o filing of an EA for any reason other than RF emissions,the RF evaluation must be performed N before the EA is filed.Factors other than RF emissions that may require the filing of an EA are o set out in 47 C.F.R§ 1.1307(a).Otherwise,new facilities that do not require FCC-issued z construction permits should be evaluated before they are placed in operation,The FCC also E requires its licensees to evaluate existing facilities and operations that are 2 categorically excluded if the licensee seeks to modify its facilities or renew its license.These requirements are . intended to enhance public safety by requiring periodic site compliance reviews. All facilities that were laced in service before October 15, 1997(when the current RF exposure c P a guidelines became effective)are expected to comply with the currant guidelines no}star than September 1,2000,or the date of a license renewal,whichever is earlier. If a facility cannot meet the September 1,2000,date,the licensee of that facility must file an EA by that date. 0 Section 1.1307(6)of the FCC's rules requires the licensee to provide the FCC with technical information showing the basis for its determination of compliance upon request. n N [L now the FCC Verifies Compliance with and Enforces Its Rules. R A. Procedures Upon initial Construction,Modlflcatlon,and Renewal. z U The FCC's procedures for verifying that a new facility,or a facility that is the subject of a facility modification or license renewal application,will comply with the RF exposure rules vary a depending upon the service involved. Applications for broadcast services(for example,AM and FM stations,and television stations)are reviewed by the FCC's Mass Media Bureau(MMB). As o part of every relevant application,the MMB requires an applicant to submit an explanation of c what steps will be taken to limit RF exposure and comply with FCC guidelines. The applicant '0 must certify that RF exposure procedures will be coordinated with all collocated entities(usually other stations at a common transmitter site or hill or mountain peak).If the submitted explanation does not adequately demonstrate a facility's compliance with the guidelines,the MMB will 0 require additional supporting data before granting the application. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau(WTB)reviews personal wireless service applications (for cellular,PCS,SMR,etc.). For those services that operate under blanket area licenses, including cellular and PCS,the license application and renewal form require the applicant to 5 certify whether grant of the application would have a significant environmental impact so as to 0 require submission of an EA.The applicant's answer to this question covers all of the facilities o sites included within the area of the license. For those services that continue to be licensed by site(e.g.,certain paging renewals),the W TB requires a similar certification on the application form for each site, To comply with the FCC's w Hiles,an applicant must determine its own compliance before completing this certification for M a s "Prior to October 15,1997,the Commission applied a different set of substantive guidelines. W c m 9 E v m Q 33 PacketPg.690 7.D.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF z° every site that is not categorically excluded.The WTB does not,however,routinely require the a submission of any information supporting the determination of compliance. M 0 N B. Procedures For Responding To Complaints About Existing Facilities. o z The FCC frequently receives inquiries from members of the public as to whether a particular site complies with the RF exposure guidelines.Upon receiving these inquiries,FCC staff may ask the d inquiring party to describe the site at issue. In many instances,the information provided by the °- inquiring party does not raise any concern that the site could exceed the limits in the guidelines. FCC staff will then inform the inquiring party of this determination. — m In some cases,the information provided by the inquiring party does not preclude the possibility a that the limits could be exceeded.Under these circumstances,FCC staff may ask the licensee who operates the facility to supply information demonstrating its compliance.FCC staff may 0 also inspect the site to determine whether it is accessible to the public,and examine other relevant physical attributes. Usually,the information obtained in this manner is sufficient to establish compliance. If compliance is established in this way,FCC staff will inform the inquiring party of this determination. 0 In some instances,a licensee may be unable to provide information sufficient to establish compliance with the guideline limits.In these cases,FCC staff may test the output levels of w individual facilities and evaluate the physical installation.Keep in mind,however,that instances v in which physical testing is necessary to verify compliance are relatively rare. v If a site is found to be out of compliance with the RF guidelines,the FCC will require the licensees at the site to remedy the situation. Depending on the service and the nature and extent o of the violation,these remedies can include,for example,an immediate reduction in power,a o modification of safety barriers,or a modification of the equipment or its installation. Actions .N necessary to bring a site into compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose 'E facilities cause exposures in that area that exceed 5%of the applicable MBE limit.In addition, o licensees may be subject to sanctions for violating the FCC's rules and/or for misrepresentation, u rn c The FCC is committed to responding Hilly,promptly,and accurately to all inquiries regarding compliance with the RF exposure guidelines,and to taking swift and appropriate action whenever the evidence suggests potential noncompliance. To perform this function effectively, n. however,the FCC needs accurate information about potentially problematic situations. By applying the principles discussed in this guide about RF emissions,exposure and the FCC's o guidelines,state and local officials can fulfill a vital role in identifying and winnowing out E situations that merit further attention. m m III. Practical Guidance Regarding Compliance. rn . M This section is intended to provide some general guidelines that can be used to identify sites that a should not raise serious questions about compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines.Sites that s don't fall into the categories described here may still meet the guidelines,but the determination w d E 10 a a 34 Packet Pg. 691 7.D.c N FCCILSGAC Local official's Guide to RIF z6 m of compliance will not be as straightforward. in such cases, a detailed review maybe required. a The tables and graphs shown in Appendix B are intended only to assist in distinguishing sites a that should not raise serious issues from sites that may require further inquiry. They are llo o intended for use in identifying sites that are out of compliance.As noted above,the factors that N can affect exposure at any individual site,particularly a site containing multiple facilities,are too 0 numerous and subtle to be practically encompassed within this framework. z Applying the basic principles discussed in this guide should allow you to eliminate a large a number of sites from further consideration with respect to health concerns. You may find it 0 useful to contact a qualified radio engineer to assist you in your inquiry. Many larger cities and counties,and most states,have radio engineers on staff or under contract. In smaller m jurisdictions,we recommend you seek initial assistance from other jurisdictions,universities that `o have RF engineering programs,or perhaps the engineer in charge of your local broadcast station(s). t0 We'll exclude any discussion of broadcast sites. As explained before,broadcast licensees are required to submit site-specific information on each facility to the FCC for review,and that information is publicly available at the station as long as the application is pending. The focus in this section is on personal wireless services,particularly cellular and broadband PCS,the services that currently require the largest numbers of new and modified facilities.Many other N personal wireless services,however,such as paging services,operate in approximately the same N frequency ranges as cellular and broadband PCS.' Much of the information here is broadly applicable to those services as well,and specific information is provided in Appendix B for paging and narrowband PCS operations over frequency bands between 901 and 940 MHz. a 0 Finally,this section only addresses the general population/uncontrolled exposure guidelines, o since compliance with these guidelines generally causes the most concern to state and local governments.Compliance with occupationallcontrolled exposure limits should be examined u independently. E E A. Categorically Excluded Facilities. 0 As a first step in evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines,you c will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in a making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any a exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines,determination that a facility is categorically o excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. 0 E B. Single Facility Sites. If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded,you may want to evaluate .2 potential exposure using the methods discussed below and the tables and figures in Appendix B. M is The major exception is fixed wireless services,which often opereta at much higher frequencies.In addition,som 4 e s paging and other licensee operate at lower frequencies K W c m E I I r u Q 35 Packet Pg. 692 7.D.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Ofil lal's Guide to RF d Z d If you"run the numbers"using the conservative approaches promoted in this paper and the site a in question does not exceed these values,then you generally need look no further. Alternately,if a the"numbers"don't pass muster,you may have a genuine concem. But remearber,there maybe o other factors(i.e.,power level,height,blockages,etc.)that contribute to whether the site N complies with FCC guidelines. • 6 Z Where a site contains only one antenna array,the maximum exposure at any point in the horizontal plane can be predicted by calculations.The tables and graphs in Appendix B show the a maximum distances in the horizontal plane from an antenna at which a person could possibly be m exposed in excess of the guidelines at various levels of effective radiated power(ERP).14 us if ps-ggle are not able to come closer to an antertait th anthowlicabledi cta a shown ip Appendix m B the should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines.The o tables and graphs apply to the following wireless antennas; (1)cellular otnar•duectlonal antennas(Table B 1.1 and Figure BI-1);(2)cellular sectorized anterm is(Table BI-2 and Figure u Bl-2);(3)broadband PCS sectorized antennas(Table BI-3 and Figure BI-3);re and(4)high- power(900 MHz-band)paging antennas(Table BI-4 and Figure B 1-4). Table Br-4 and Figure B14 can also be used for omni-directional,narrowband(900 MHz)PCS antennas.Note that both tables and figures in Appendix B have been provided. In some cases it may be easier to use N a table to estimate exposure distances,but figures may also be used when a more precise value is c needed that may not be listed in a table. N It's important to note that the predicted distances set forth in Appendix B are based on a very conservative,"worst case"scenario. In other words,Appendix B identifies the furthest distance n from the antenna that presents even a remote realistic possibility of RF exposure that could exceed the FCC guidelines.The power levels are based on the approximate maximum number of w channels that an operator is likely to operate at one site.It is further assumed that each channel o operates with the maximum power permitted under the FCC's rules and that all of these channels o are"on"simultaneously,an unlikely scenario.This is a very conservative assumption. In reality, 0 most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power and many sites use fewer than the maximum number of channels.Therefore,actual exposure levels would be expected to be E well below the predicted values.Another mitigating factor could be the presence of intervening 0 structures,such as walls,that will reduce RF exposure by variable amounts.For all these M reasons,the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative and c should over-predict actual exposure levels. a v s 0 0 E m g ERP is the apparent s five amount of power leaving the transmit antenna. The ERP is determined by factors including but not limited to transmitter output power,coaxial line loss between the transmitter and the antenna,and N the"gain"(focusing effect)of the antenna. In some cases,power may also be expressed in terms of EIRP(effective isotropically radiated power). Therefore,tot convenience,the tables in Appendix B also include a column for M ERP. ERP end EIRP we related by the mathematical expression: (1.64)X ERP®EIRP. n L Decause broadband PCS antennes are virtually always sectorized,no information is provided for omnl-directional X w PCS antimau s. .. c d E 12 u nr a 36 Packet Pg. 693 7.D.c N FCClLSGAC Local Offleial's Guide to RF d Z m v a a ,�s57tFnf r<t O O Z .a. m N Power decreases as the distance from the antenna Increases m c 0 v c 0 U IDusfration 5 r m Personal wireless service antennas typically do not emit high levels of RF energy directed above N or below the horizontal plane of the antenna. Although the precise amount of energy transmitted outside the horizontal plane will depend upon the type of antenna used,we are aware of no wireless antennas that produce significant non-horizontal transmissions. Thus,exposures even a N small distance below the horizontal piano of these antennas would be significantly less than in the horizontal plane. As discussed above,the tables and figures in Appendix B show distances in the horizontal plane from typical antennas at which exposures could potentially exceed the guidelines,assuming"worst case"operating conditions at maximum possible power levels, In -O tiny direction other than horizontal,including diagonal or straight down,these"worst case, o distances would be significantly less. 0 Where unidirectional antennas are used,exposure levels within or outside the horizontal plane in E directions other than those where the antennas are aimed will typically be insignificant.In E addition,many new antennas are being designed with shielding capabilities to minimize u emissions in undesired directions. m c C. Multiple Facility Sites. A a Where multiple facilities are located at a single site,the FCC's rules require the total exposure d from all facilities to fall within the guideline limits,unless an EA is filed and approved. In such Y cases,however,calculations of predicted exposure levels and overall evaluation of the site may o become much more complicated.For example,different transmitters at a site may operate E different numbers of channels,or the operating power per channel may very from transmitter to transmitter. Transmitters may also operate on different frequencies(for example,one antenna w array may belong to a PCS operator,while the other belongs to a cellular operator). A large N number of variables such as these make the calculations more time consuming,and make it difficult to apply a simple rule-of-thumb test. See the following illustration. y n z X W c v 13 E L O 0 Q 37 Packet Pg. 694 7.D.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to PY d z i m a a t�la, • \ ; I d E m a _ m s-, Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases M c 0 v 0 0 Illustration 6 U r However,we can be overly conservative and estimate a"worst case"exposure distance for compliance by assuming that the total power(e.g.,ERP)of all transmitting antennas at the site is concentrated in the antenna that is closest to the area in question. (ho the illustration above,this would be the antenna that is mounted lower on the building.) Then the values in the tables and N graphs in Appendix B may be used as if this were the only antenna at the site,with radiated 06 power equal to the sum of the actual radiated power of all antennas at the site. Actual RF z exposure at any point will always be less than the exposure calculated using these assumptions. Thus if people are not able to come closer to a group of oneness than the applicable distance shown in Appendix B using these assumptions there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines This is admittedly an extremely conservative procedure, o but it may be of assistance in making a"first cut"at eliminating sites from further consideration. c 0 N N IV. Conclusion. E We've highlighted many of the most common concerns and questions raised by the siting of ci wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas. Applying the principles outlined in this guide will allow you to make initial conservative judgments about whether RF emissions are or should be of concern,consistent with the FCC's rules. a As we have explained,when first evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines,you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded o under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will E guide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to E cause any exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines,determination that a facility is categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry. y If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded,you may want to evaluate potential exposure using the methods discussed in Part M of this paper and the tables and figures a in Appendix B. If the site in question does not exceed the values,then you generally need look no further. Alternately,if the values don't pass muster,you may have a genuine concern. But w c w 14 E s U a 38 Packet Pg. 695 N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF o Z 0 remember,there maybe other factors(i.e.,power level,height,blockages,etc.)that contribute to a whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. ° a M If you have questions about compliance,your initial point of exploration should be with the N facilities operator in question. That operator is required to understand the FCC's rules and to know how to apply them in specific cases at specific sites. If,after diligently pursuing answers Z from the operator,you still have genuine questions regarding compliance,you should contact the .E FCC at one of the numbers listed below. Provision of the information identified in the checklist in Appendix A may assist the FCC in evaluating your inquiry. Q. m General Information:Compliance and Information Bureau,(888)CALL-FCC m c Concerns About RF Emissions Exposure at a Particular Site:Office of Engineering and .0 Technology,RF Safety Program,phone(202)418-2464,FAX(202)418-1918,e-mail rfsafetvnfcc.gov c0 Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,Commercial Wireless Division,(202)418-0620 N Licensing and Site Information Regarding Broadcast Radio Services:Mass Media c Bureau,Audio Services Division,(202)418-2700 06 N Licensing and Site Information Regarding Television Service(Including DTV):Mass Media Bureau,Video Services Division,(202)418-1600 9 Also,note that the RF Safety Program Web site is a valuable source of general information on the topic of potential biological effects and hazards of RF energy. For example,OET recently p updated its OBT Bulletin 56("Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential o Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"). This latest version is available from the 'y program and can be accessed and downloaded from the FCC's web site at: 'E E http:!/www.fcc.gov/oedrfsafety/ U m c c c m a m L_ O O E d tt N rrl st M .2 L W u G E t5 E r u w Q 39 Packet Pg. 696 Date: March 21,2012 MAR 2 7 2012 To: City of San Bernardino Planning Commission CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO n City Hall DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Q 300 North"D"Street DEPARTMENT San Bernardino,CA 92418 N From: John R Bums Z 440 West 17th Street E San Bernardino,CA 92405 i N RE: Opposition To Conditional Use Permit NO. 12-03, Ward No. 2 C City of San Bernardino Planning Commission, a C We are against the construction of a 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and U associated microwave communications equipment being installed at, 1702 North "D" Street,which will be 500 feet from our home. The City of San Bernardino Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council members o have a responsibility to protect the Health and Welfare of its citizens. Installation of any microwave,or electromagnetic tower within this community will have a negative impact on the good health of anyone who lives within 1,312.34 feet of this hazardous equipment. R Cell Phone Towers emit microwave radiation and or electromagnetic fields,.which are v known to be harmful to human health. The closer a person lives to a Cell Phone Tower; e the higher the risk for potential disease,such as Cancer and other harmful health risks. 0 .y Cancer studies in Germany an the U.S. for the past ten years indicate a high percentage of E Cancer in human beings who live within 1,312.34 feet of Cell Phone Towers. (Dangers of c Living Near Cell Phone Towers-By Michele Tometta,eHow 5/23/11) v m c We hope you will oppose this installation based on the fact it will be harmful to the cc health of City of San Bernardino residents and their children. It should be your duty to a protect us from any harmful radiation from any towers radiating harmful electromagnetic t fields, which may increase Cancer and other health related disease. o 0 Hopefully you will consider alternative remote areas, tall building tops, or areas already v established as communications sites. A It would also be in the best interest of the City of San Bernardino and its Residents if a n study were done on the Dangers of Microwave Towers In Residential Areas. a John R Bums,FCC License# PG 11-32357 (Reference articles attached) w m - E u Q 40 PacketP9•;697 DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE TOWERS RAISED �.D.O 3/ \ / ; A .... :- EAST COUNTY MAGAZINE a Published on East County Magazine(htto://eastcountymagazine.ora) o N Home,DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE TOWERS RAISED 0 Z E DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE N TOWERS RAISED m _ D More November 2008 Articles Health News 0 Share ISave 10 ,4 : o 0 r La Mesa Council holds hearing Nov. 5 on proposal to erect cell phone tower in Lake Murray area 0 By Miriam Flattery N N N r I When Mom asked me to look into possible health hazards posed by 2 tr , \ cell phone 1 panel antennas that a church in her neighborhood wants to put up, 1 expected o j)1 to find reassuring facts to allay Mom's concerns. Instead, I found = i .v deeply disturbing data that makes me wonder why the public is not N being informed E about health risks—and why our government seems intent on covering o up \ ;,t troubling truths. Cell phone companies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration a assert that v cell phone towers don't pose health risks to the public. Some studies o support this assertion, but other studies suggest just the opposite. 0 Harvard-trained Dr. Andrew Weil at the University of Arizona's medical a center recently observed, "In January 2008, the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy N of Engineering, issued a report saying that we simply don't know enough about M the potential health risks of long-term exposure to RF energy from cell phones themselves, cell towers, television towers, and other components of our communications t system. The scientists who prepared the report emphasized, in particular, the w unknown risks to the health of children, pregnant women, and fetuses as well as of workers whose jobs entail high exposure to RF (radiofrequency) energy....Because E U A http://eastcounrymagazine.o,g/pflnt/238 Page 1 of Q 41 Packet Pg. 698 DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PNDNETOWERS RAISED 3/ so much of cell phone technology is new and evolving, we don't have data on the consequences of 10, 20 or 30 years worth of exposure to the RF energy they emit," Weil concluded. The report called for long-term safety Z studies on all wireless devices including cell phones, computers, and cell phone towers. n a A 2006 report issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) o L offered some reassurance and found no scientific evidence that radiofrequency signals from cell towers cause adverse health effects. The report noted that up to five times more of the RF signals from FM radio and television (than from cell towers) are absorbed by the body with no known adverse effects on E d i health in the more than 50 years that radio and TV broadcast stations have a been operating. But an Australian study found that children living near TV and o r FM broadcast towers, which emit similar radiation to cell towers, developed a leukemia at three times the rate of children living over seven miles away. If you live within a quarter mile of'a cell phone antenna or tower, you may be at risk of serious harm to your health, according to a German study cited at www•EMF- N Health.com, N a site devoted to exposing hazards associated with electromagnetic frequencies N from cell phone towers and other sources. r Cancer rates more than tripled among people living within 400 meters of cell phone towers or antennas, a German study found. Those within 100 meters were exposed to radiation at 100 times normal levels. An Israeli study o found risk of cancer quadrupled among people living within 350 meters (1,148 feet) of a cell phone transmitter—and seven out of eight cancer victims N were women. Both studies focused only on people who had lived at the e same address for many years. rn Other studies have found that levels of radiation emitted from cell phone towers can damage cell tissues and DNA, causing miscarriage, suppressing immune R function, and causing other health problems. a d 3= Astoundingly, the federal government does not allow rejection of a cell phone g tower based on health risks, according E to a 2005 article. A Googte search found no evidence that this situation has changed. Yet over 1.9 N million cell phone towers and antennae have been approved nationwide without a federal studies to assure safety of those living nearby. r >< w How many cell phone towers and antennas are in your neighborhood? Find out at www.antennasearch.com. I E U U N http://easicauntymagazine.org/print/238 Page 2 of Q 92 PacketPg.e99 DANCERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE TOWERS RAISED 7.D.0 3/ plugged in my address on Mt. Helix, hardly an urban stronghold, and was astounded to discover that there are 96 cell phone towers, 286 antennas and 2 proposals IN for new towers within four miles of my home! z So how about Mom's neighborhood, where an Evangelical church insists o a new tower is needed? Mom gets perfectly fine cell phone reception, and so do the neighbors she's spoken with—not surprising since there are o already 113 towers and 335 antennas within a four-mile radius. 0 Churches, schools, fire stations, and other buildings are increasingly erecting Z cell phone towers or antennas because cell phone companies are willing to pay € rental fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month—welcome a infusions for cash-strapped budgets. But at what cost to the public's health? There are young children in Mom's neighborhood, less than one block from the proposed cell phone antenna site. o In Sweden, the government requires interventions to protect the public from o electromagnetic frequencies. Why isn't the U.S. government paying L) attention to this potential risk to public safety? r If you wish to share your views on the T-Mobile proposed cell phone tower N at 5777 Lake Murray Blvd. (near Marengo Avenue), the La Mesa City Council will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, November 5th at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers at the La Mesa City Hall, 8130 Allison Ave., La Mesa. r U N Source URL(retrieved on 03/21/2012- 13:15): httD:/f a t co mtvmaca in .org/cell phone towers 238 a v m 0 c 0 N _N E E 0 U rn c c c n a d L_ O O E d ni N M s x w c m E r U A hifp://easmauntymagazlne.org/prinl/738 Page 3 of Q 43 PacketPg. 700 Invisible Radiation Dangers Of Cell Towers 7.D.0 3/Z 0 Oki, �ffih.tiloAo,e GM1 888. x.9886 -� CltihlitfMb1111wott8Cotwlfitlon wtWNtlnrnetrtMQ n Z `m a _ m .._ _.. '.."rni.,:•a _-_ _ Search I m m c Home I STORE I EMF METERS I EH9 ( FAq I PRODUCTS I Contact Us I View Cart - O 'o c 0 U r m Sign up for our FREE EMF � t` newsletter Invisible Radiation Dangers Of Cell Towers and receive "Your 10 Free Tips on How : o to Protect Yourself From : Cell phone towers have spread throughout neighborhoods across the world Cell Phone Radiation" : and people are not focused on the invisible radiation dangers of cell towers- : : They are focused solely on the quality of cell phone service that they Name receive each day. Cell phone towers emit an electromagnetic field that spreads low-level radiation throughout neighborhoods. While these fields v Email �M- are invisible to the naked eye, the damage caused from radiation from these _ . • Phone � • cell towers are not. ❑ c 0 Questions:F '+'--"— ; Electromagnetic fields have have reported health concerns because tumors N called acoustic neuroma were discovered growing from inside the ear canal. E Subscribe Now : The Research Center for Wireless Technology has polled physicians, E cientists, and the World Heath Organization and all of these professionals .........................� say that the invisible radiation dangers of cell towers cause radiation c poisoning on certain levels throughout the United States and the world. Products Recent scientific tests relate that just two hours of exposure to high- v frequency electromagnetic fields can lead to permanent damage to DNA, Testimonials noted specifically in brain and sex cells. Low-frequency radiation is emitted 0 0 _— from many electronics devices that are used in homes everyday, such as cell d Airtube Headsets phones, microwave ovens, bluetooth headsets and personal laptop 2 computers. For these devices to receive an electromagnetic signal to operate, they require a cell phone tower to be present within 100 feet of N Qlink Pendants their home or office. Consistent exposure to this type of low frequency radiation can cause all types of health concerns to occur. EMF Protection Chips People use bluetooth headsets with hands-free mechanisms on them to w comply with certain laws. These bluetooth headsets work primarily from the signal projected from a cell phone mast, or cell tower that is close by. Articles Knowinq the health consequences, many businesses allow these cell phone u 0 http://w .emfnews.org/Invlslble-Radlatton-Dangers-Of-Cell-Towers.htlnl page t of 3 Q 44 Packet Pg. 707 Invisible Radiation Dangers Of Cell Towers 3/ towers to be projected from their buildings, because many business owners N Radiation Blog are compensated for each tower that is placed on non-commercial land. Certain studies have shown that the electromagnetic fields generated from Z Radio Shows these mobile phone towers have had a negative impact on the brain's m Speaking Engagements bioelectric activity. n a Other results from studies completed in Germany at the Neurological ,., Hospital of the University of Freiburg show that the high frequencies N emitted from cell phone towers lead to a significant increase in blood o FEATURED PRODUCT pressure to those that live around the electromagnetic fields created by cel z phone towers. Many biological processes are also affected by the electromagnetic fields emitted by cellular telephones, and children are truly i susceptible to brain damage because their skulls are still soft, and not much g will hinder these signals from getting in and causing damage. � � m XWO ol, The invisible radiation dangers of cell towers are evident by the number of o mww;w t">`d people that are diagnosed each day with symptoms of low-grade radiation v poisoning. The damage from this type of poisoning is shown in tests to be o se"Rom r ,� e b� on a cellular level. These tests show exposure to radiation in areas where U ''� `0•.,rr 1�r , r mobile phones are placed on the body, mainly the head and midriff regions of the body. All associated organs in these areas of the body showed e" evidence of electromagnetic radiation poisoning. The cell phone chip that is N " found in cell phones, bluetooth headsets, and home appliances was found to 0 be the cause for this low-grade radiation exposure. People can protect themselves from this type of radiation exposure by In 24 hours time you will learn using cell phone accessories that were designed to block the more about emfs,cell phone electromagnetic field radiation. Airtube headsets will protect people from radiation, cell towers and how to the harmful radiation emitted by a cell phone or personal digital assistant. m protect yourself than 98%of the The airtube headset can also reduce the cognitive impairment and cancer o world. Get your digital ebook c now. risk associated with radiofrequency radiation exposure. Qlink pendants can block larger amounts of harmful radiation that come from the invisible "- Click here to learn more: radiation dangers projected by cell phone towers. Fueled by the wearer, the E Qlink pendants filters out negative energy promoted by cell phone towers 0 and mobile phones. rn c c c a "Revolutionary New Technologies z Protect You from the Harmful Effects of Cell Phone Radiation, o Computers, Bluetooth Headsets, Microwave Ovens, o Cordless Phones, and other Wireless Technologies.,, d Click on any of the pictures below .22 to loam more rn n ^� i' X \ u ' '"{+ T W __ httpq/w,vw.em(news.org/Invisible-Radiation-Dangers-Ol-Cell-Tawers.html Page 2 of Q 45 Packet Pg. 702 Radlallon&Children-PARENTS ACT-Parents Against Cell Towers 7.D.0 3/i N O PARENTS ACT - Parents Against Coll Towers a Q a a;y�lACyN Tlsativsysv n'®,ainblbauxtlevw.trve,sauwwnn+arwmm�w�v�.nvm msnunrn,uwvnnxvwae,nw,evrirtmso�nw'»sw,:au,npum:,mamruesemumasys.^eap M O N Home Expert on Radiation Warns of Dangers of Cell Towers Near Schools z6 Protect our Children "There is increasingly strong evidence the E About Us r� ` ` ' a prolonged exposure to radlofrequenc, a Stop radiation,such as that from radio and cel N Press Releases towers, increases the risk of N uktn leukemia, ant m Take Our Poll • ' that prolonged use of a cell phone helc o / against the head increases the risk of brair Radiation&Children cancer. It is foolish and dangerous to put e o cell Towers on Schools $ I ` cell tower on a school where children wil , of be exposed constantly to radiofrequenct m Fact Sheet ts,.. e. n ,. � radiation." Contact ParentsACT rA9� N David O. Carpenter, M.D N Director, Institute for Health and the co N Environment L F^) University at Albany m ter/ v View full report by Dr.Carpenter and international team of scientists that warn of the risk to :! human health due to increased exposure to electromagnetic radiation such as that emitted by cell o towers (click he eL, o M m Cancer Cluster Found in Canadian School Surrounded by Cell Towers E E We know cell towers emit enormous amounts ofradiation, more than cell phones,yet school 0 officials want to build them on and near Schools! Watch the news report below and read on c cancer clusters near cell towers in Great Britain 'E c a v L_ O O E a m th n a L X W C d E L 0 m http://parenisaa.weebly.com/radiatlon--children.htmi Page lof! Q 46 Packet Pg. 703 Rad 111101&Children-PARENTS ACT-Parents Against Cell Towers 3/ 7.x.6 TIMES Z v a Cancer Clusters at Phone Masts a M Daniel Foggo From The Sunday Times - April 22,2007 d Z SEVEN clusters of cancer and other serious illnesses have been discovered around mobile phone masts, E raising concerns over the technology's potential impact on health. W IL as m Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer,brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure withil :3 a radius of 400 yards of mobile phone masts. m 0 0 One of the studies,in Warwickshire, showed a cluster of 31 cancers around a single street.A quarter of the 30 staff at a special school within sight of the 90ft high mast have developed tumours since 2000, p while another quarter have suffered significant health problems. U r "fhe mast is being pulled down by the mobile phone after the presentation of the evidenceoperator 02 n by local protesters.While rejecting any links to ill-health,02 admitted the decision was"clearly rare am unusual". N 0 N Phone masts have provoked protests throughout Britain with thousands of people objecting each week ad to planning applications.There are about 47,000 masts In the UK. t U Dr john Walker,a scientist who compiled the cluster studies with the help of local campaigners in 10 Devon, Lincolnshire,Staffordshire and the West Midlands,said he was convinced they showed a a potential link between the angle of the beam of radiation emitted from the masts'antennae and illnesses discovered in local populations. O 0 0 "Masts should be moved away from conurbations and schools and the power turned down;"he said. .N Some scientists already believe such a link exists and studies in other European countries suggest a rise E in cancers close to masts. In 2005 Sir William Stewart,chairman of the Health Protection Agency, said he U found four such studies to be of concern but that the health risk remained unproven. rn a Source.,htto://www.timesonfine.ca.uk/tof/news/uk/artic/el687491.ece# c m a tp r 0 Create a free website with o E d to VJ M a X>< W c m E s 0 m hitp://parentsae.weehly.com/radiation--chllEren.html Page Z of Q 47 7.D.c RF Safety and Health Studies-Cell Towers and Safety 3/2 N ® c O seuch i H, H, Q N Stlaty and health Studio Call Towers and Safety Y 110 E M __. __._..__ .._ _____ _._.... _..... - . _ _ _ G 0 RF SAFETY AND HEALTH STUDIES - CELL TOWERS AND SAFETY IN o ra� Parts Then Rnm 4m' Z Part 2.Radio-Freoo-frrouPnN Enavur v Explained 1.877•�t6.6937 Pan 3-RF Safely and Health Studies E Part e-Enemy Gddclinn in,RF Emoaore N a u RF SAFETY AND HEALTH STUDIES A frequent cmrem Is RF afor,the threat a cancer caused Ram exposure to RF energy.Studies on slut lam ez m Nen,Must gat apMm mrxap Y aP°p'e trgY posure CO l'anpwarNnal Crown Connie haw,dawn little to m evidence that RF energy can lead to the dewNu Waste of cancer at the tents used In candar nary,fhrywantedlpp dead lrammissiors.Even at substantially higher tevets.only a few laboratory tests have reported a possible correlation between MM px rMiMlnxpran tamer and RF safety levels to test animals,lint these lens ham failed attempts at cmferrourn.Some of these studies C udafNn al lzozlatow Mil be have slwwn'cluder5 a corer Cates In areas near cell lowers.or"a$counter that these roses ate of malty wtlaus kinds O upping thappperdt of coma,and it Is mghly unlikely Mat they share a cunmon taupe.Further,with the sheer pioneer of cell towers In use, L). I rhougbe It ma it asap deal ytalntics suggen shat fNMhlg on Centers,by client,is lnedmMe. A n` Anyaq,Rm,thanks agamfw Many nations,including the Amer.Cancer Society,say that there is little theoretical reason to betsew that RF eapmure — par hip can(cad to tamer,and similar non thenml effects The problem is that,es cell Haney are a metively oev technology, N not enough lime has elapsed for tang--term satiety.Saerel organicalions lave taken a cautionary stance m RF safety until Robrt hap Indf re-Crmm such studies can be performed.The International aumlalion of Fire Fighters IWF)adopted a resolution to oppose base G N CunloLYpw Ama6perefm station options,being installed an any Fkathames In 1994 citing sewaal studies dmMlg possible health risks from RF expopee.However,mum a the¢studies were orminited at tevets much higher Ilan used in re1War transmissoms, or N otherwise focused an mobile and tandem phases themselves,net coddle,base slattern. t U FVllawing recent moves to wintry constants to enact recerrxmmaliom about RF safety ag iiMl excessive cell photo use by Is ml,,many hew also started to tall against base stations being paled on top a srhmis.Often.ilia,reasons are Ml famed an potently Hales of cell phone use,rather than thou Momenta the base satins.It Is bnpertant to renrember d that many of this mrearns ova Ilsabge planes Ihemsetws scam from the fact that they beam RF art*M a tameted 0 mrlbn of the head.As base stagms radiate Mar energy outward,there Is on path Iwtspot of exposure.Spare aburwrs tote Mat broadtml antennas(which operate at much higher levels than cell towers)ham failed to prow airy long term C O beallh risks,desdte otilg mpand for well over fifty Years. 'y N_ Far One Wrpme a shot term eapowre,the scientific<ommualy IwIM a conxns.that the N ena9,minted by base E Haler Is safe as toig as It follows guidelines set by regulatory bodies,such as Me FCC.but it will be puma than helm. E larg-term swJles can be caancted on RF sales,levels. O U 'there are reenlatmy mounalmnts that haldino owners with cell site louses should be awesa of and Concerned sells.Our C related law firm,{,It Taxed Anormw,can help building warn,tmsidedm leering pme an haw treaty leased space to C a wxetess'inner. C A a Studies; on RF energy haw been N arlgam her decades. The results t N mna, a the carom report, 0 .loused the sit led.,nntuau, adapted by Me FCC am pine, O -international agencies 1. other F y mmuixies. Studies relating to call town bay 'tondo, however, lave btto operational,poorly due la the difficulty in arn'amy N Antcrminilg IndiNtluo6' levee of t M BF expmwe. a A commonly cited mxsteramu e L iron E001 suffered hour this X,ry W omblem Participants ha ad !►{yam mluntarlly,after being rauhal.l ,• 'a "'°"-' the siowy tlrprgh p ers, ratio and weh sun.rhosters included i t ' U m ht tp://wsvw.steelinthealr.com/celitawer101/ff-safery.himi Page 1 of Q 48 PacketPg. 705 RF Safety and Health Studies-Cell Towers and Safety 7.D.0 3/21/121.16 Pfd .Age. gender wmphers, ad the �e Participants ed'maletl distance from base Mature. Thor hvw, more than 300 meters away were material a refereme group. 1. m d - xullivle symptoms were reported up to 200 meters away,including It �- Musea,initabBhy aryl beeducl e4, leading the authors to advise that 'Inwe uatmM should net be died 0' closer than 300 metres -to ,1 r IMpulMiMf. IF., 1,., I�E�B. O ab4erven not ed.,"a,(returned � F "!1� Z of wrtk(wllan bias, As those 'E responding to the survey ,mor mcmeMS were likely N a already concave about the N i"Int of base slaHam ml of `•� U'"e M safety.Fuller,IM questionnaire w_ 7 atlempte to Ifnk distance froars lowers with exposure. According h O to Me Journal of Exponre Attends all Environmental EpidemiiNgy, 'it would be inappropriate to conduct epkemiab&cal Investigations hosed oa Memo,M mobile phone lime stations sips.this expeswe metric is A cem C sulmgate for M IndividI exposure to radio waves' O U to sp4cifically address Mt%issue,same studies atlempuo replicate base station expmore in a lalrmmmnmenl.One such n 2006 dutly subjected a trial of 117 Whitby sublets p3 who identified tiwnrehsy4 as semmve to RF radiation,and 84 who _ r n-semRive)to Bose S(atlomlike expoMre.The double blind sessions were held at nw<ek Intervals, and held at the same lime M day each session. N The study found an correlation for RF safely between wait Wing and pacewe strength wish the actual exposure level.In N general,the semWVe subjects reported more health protmn and perceived right field strength in all conditions.At 10 Vt.,the s dymame for one of six tasks slowed fns the sensitive subject, while auura Deed ce q was affected in a N sePuale task IM de and see3tive q m,x Hawaner, both effects dbaVpeered after Mttlple end point adjusleerd L (sugeesllr,they were clue mercy locarncel. U Al Mel other Cpmmonly cited studies have focused on mobge phones,themselves.Wher the results hate been inconclusive 2 and edged,their tignificance to Be.Station risky sheeselvas is hauled.as mobile shorn produce a much Me,targeted MI radiation,affecting a specific portion of Me body directly,and at date range.Moire these differeaces,such sluMe4 are ill often held up as examples of research demwnlraling possible health Aarards from cell towers.Confusing the is"further � are wmvns canlerbn an power lines all the maerelk field,they produce. Althwryh sane studies have suggest, C Increase rates in childhood leukemia near power hires, the Eleclramzgntic F'ieW4 W FMF) they produce wmk it O fundamentally different want nom f grad eg 4yaces,such as rase staam.as they d not radiellon,ups do not wnlnue to east once t ha rsoun h protluce man bnlgdng M m al. �E An example Of the frequent copulation of tone different sources of radiation b revealed In [be recently released O MolntlMlMe Report,issued the alolnBlalim working Grand,a collection of 4tlenlhls,researchers and pubic health policy U Prufeeslonal4.It conclude that through ends In sampling buds.mhfireamrelaMon of data,men funding Was that Me,of C the studies wee Raw.,while simullanmady,licensing to other studies that had drawn possible links to man the health risks. _M The report Makes little delineation between FNF and RF eMrgy,stringing together sections dealing with one w vie Other a wiWoM making clear reference to the Mff0eacn,and suggests,fractions cmcem.,one are relevant a the mher. L Sarefal organhation4 8mludis, IMe Operating At(be nylest Of vad.s gwaTmenlsi ,,enehi la the repay, ore W new '.Undad i that it neither dntraduced aw larCa,mI 4uymrle douses verb dou wM1M1 dissem inate XI..Thm respaw.s ,ere compiled in a Viewpoint by the burette manufaclmei s farmn.The viewpoint alto need that sumo the Report was E teased In late 21107,it M r4 t n s not led to the mmon Many the established safety guidalin used by various rati y fl%c1nRM CMEen41R or the Xlemldlf[Wrminnrty is Mat N.Mt ltlm sladl'ea have 1Mlnld mill.C/IdMCe to LggQCI paa4lre darner,to rumen health from fellular base emnMS.Hannover,for risks such as famrr,dgntOcanl lag IoM Studies(of m den were or nme3 must be perfaeed before airy definitive mntlmiass can be drawn about U safety.Be that as heavy,it in is important to understand the differences between various sources 01 radiation,and the findings contents,them.Nicks ..,.(.led with exhile penes to not necessarily eaieud ro Bare gMtiay,and Ashy trap the Wes of ppmw Haas one nrelaled entirely. part 1-Pan Cultures an,station W Pad 2-Red io-Itenmlmy Eharsv Cluumad C Pant-RF Safety and 11etsh Studies N Parts Emrev fu ft1glings for R Emo re E L O m hip://v .ateellnthealr.CGM/celfto r20t/rf-safety.html Page 2 of 3 Q 99 PacketPg. 706 7.D.c n What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone iowersi 3/21/1: N d Z m u a a Q M O N What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers? z z by www<IxWise com E v a Over 190 million cell Phones are In use in the United States, with users often scrambling to N another room, building or street to get better reception. As consumers, it Is frustrating when your cell phone reception gets dropped 0 pled or is too garbled to hear. But beyond "Can c You hear me now?" is another considerably more Important question: Are the cell towers and antennas popping up all over the count a depend on for clear reception and a wide coverage area -- safe? -the very ones that we 0 This may have been a moot Issue In the past when the towers were sparse and limited to obscure cornfields and r hilltops. But the number of these cell "sites," as they're called, has increased tenfold since 1994. Among the more I than 175,000 cell sites in the United States are antennas on i - schools, churches, firehouses, cemeteries and national parks N There's even a cell tower near Old Faithful In Yellowstone, 1 U u "Don't Put That Tower Here" "Our companies are always running into this conundrum P y g which Is, We want cell Phone service, but don't put that r °� tower here.' When you're dealing with communications .0 through the air, you have to have antennas and towers," said a Joe Farren, a spokesman for E the Indus[ CTIA-The Wireless Association, E Industry's trade group, E 0 Aesthetics aside, the Primary reason most people don't want U cell sites near their homes and Communttles is because c they're afraid of the potential health effects. c Health, not aesthetics, Is n Already, more than 500 cases have sprung u the primary reason why o• country in which people have tried to stop cell phone sites residents o Ppose cell from being constructed, according to Washington attorney Ed : towns,towers In their o Donohue, who represents several cell phone companies. 0 E Most of the time, the cell phone companies win because, as it stands, federal law does not v allow rejection of a tower based on health risks. 2 m Cell Phone Towers: Risky 1 ky or Not? If you ask the government, no studies have shown conclusive evidence that radio- frequency emissions, a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), from cell towers are w L harmful. According to the Food and Drug Administration: 0 L ...pl//wvw.sixwise.com/newsletters/oS/09/281what_ale the dangers_oLiiving near cell-Phone towe".htm Q Page I of 3 50 Packet Pg. 707 What are the nangers of Llving Near Cell Phone Towers? 31 GI ILCIIIIO OI IV LIM UCIIOVIVI oUUOIUCU VV IU III IIVC 40y J. VV I ICI LIIC UV,v Y GoI VIUUg11L back near the antenna, the symptoms returned. N Incentives for Cell Phone Towers z Why would a church, school or other private property allow a cell phone antenna to be d placed on the grounds? Cell phone companies pay "rent" for their placement that can a range anywhere from $800 to $2,000 a month. This can mean all the difference for an a under-funded school district or church, n 0 N still, many people are wary that the Incentives do not come close to matching the potential risk involved. This Includes the International Association of Fire Fighters who, in 2004, 0 • came out against the use of firehouses for cell antennas "until a study with the highest £ scientific merit" can prove they are safe. `w ' a • These sentiments are echoed by residents of St. Louis where T-Mobile plans to put a cell w site on an 89-year-old church. "That revenue Is in exchange for our potential well-being, our peace of mind and our property values," said resident David O'Brien. "None of us are m willing to take that risk." o Recommended Reading 0 Noise Pollution: How Bad is it. How Bad Could it Get What are the Effects? U r Bottled Water: Which City's Tao Water System is Making a Flood of Cash off of You? N Sources N Food and Druo Administration: Cell Phone Facts N L Health Effects Associated With Mobile Base Stations in Communities m Are Cell Phone Towers Makino You Sick7 v to Mount Shasta Bioreci onal Ecoloav Center o c Wired News: Cell Phone Tower Debate Grows °- N N Extraordinary Behaviors in Cows in Proximity to Transmission Towers E E 0 U rn L C C N a v r 0 0 14 comments Add a comment E m Shanell Dumas-Macon,Georgia n I have one practically In my backyard and had a miscarriage about 6 months ago. in I've had 2 healthy children before.I've been In my home for about 2 years. Don't know if there is even a connection but it definitely has sparked my curiosity. Reply•Like •November 3, 2011 at 7:58pm L X 193 Tweet 2 . O Emdil to d Friend I print Thin.,, m ...._.. _._..___. _ .. .. E L U N http://..cizwlse.con/newsletters/05/09/28/what are the dangers ofjlving_near cell-phone towerf.htln Page 3 of Q 51 PacketPg.708 EM! T March 24,2012 To: City of San Bernardino Planning Commission a 300 North"D" Street M San Bernardino, CA. 92418 ° N_ O From: Z Daisy Kirkmon E 430 W. 17'h Street a San Bernardino,CA. 92405 N Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03,Ward#2 ° v c 0 U This letter states the following reasons why I am against the construction of a 65 foot tall, r camouflaged mono-palm tower and associated microwave communications equipment being installed at 1702 N."D"Street and 420 W. 17'h Street. N 1. 1 have grave concerns because of my closeness to this structure. I live at 430 W. N 17'"Street which means that I am the closest resident to the structure. N 2. Because of being a senior citizen with some health issues, I am a top at risk t, person for the harmful effects of a tower that will emit microwave/radiation or pose any other dangers to ones health. v 3. Several days a week,my great grand children spend long periods of time with me. They play in my back yard.This would put a 6 year old and an eleven year old in ° c a tremendously dangerous position. I feel that this is very unfair to them. 4 4. The owner of the proposed property does not live on or anywhere near the site. He is by no means in harms way. I do not feel that ones desire for financial gains E should rule over the health and well being of others. 0 m c I do hope that you will give serious consideration to my statements, as well as to the concerns of others who would be directly impacted by the installation of the tower. It is, A indeed,my hope that you will rule against the structure and I thank-you in advance. v r 0 0 Sincerely, E A--.' ✓Q/ C i Daisy Kirkmon Long time resident M of 430 W. 17'h Street a x x W c m E L ° A 1r Q 52 Packet Pg.709 EXHIBIT 4 �" Bn John Coule,Chair N Larry Z"',Yce-Chan � La�° CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO z Andr"°Maehan COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT m Amelha S.Lopez ho�a,x George BawB 300 North `D"Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 a Dan C Xmenez Phone:(909)384-505715071 • Fax:(909)384-5080 Q Bob Brown.All n O N O PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES z REGULAR MEETING E MARCH 28, 2012 a m m GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-04, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 19330 m (SUBDIVISION No. 11-02)&DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 NO. 11-04 c 16 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 12-01 °o v GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-02, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19369 (SUBDIVISION NO. 12-01),&DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 NO. 12-02 M CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-03 N a. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 12-02 N lh O N d J C_ Z > O Q a C 0 N m £ 0 U m c 'c c A a v a x w m L R Q I Page 1 of 03/28,2012 Packet Pg. 710 i EXHIBIT 4 N Chair Conte called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. d Z Vice-Chair Heasley led the flag salute. o a Present: Commissioners Conte, Durr, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. a Excused: Absent Brown. Staff present: M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director; c Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Tony Stewart, City Planner; Aron Liang; Senior Planner and Daren Maynard,Planning Aide. z° ADMINISTRATION OF OATH £ v a Aron Liang administered the oath. CONSENT AGENDA: 2 0 M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, recommended the meeting minutes of February 22,2012 for approval. 0 j .. Chair Conte made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of February 22, 2012. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Conte, Dun•, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen c and Mulvihill.Nays: None. Abstain: Rawls. Absent: Brown. a PUBLIC COMMENTS -ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA D No comments. N PUBLIC HEARINGS o ui m 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-03—A request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility with a 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and associated equipment stored within an existing commercial building, located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17`s Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and Residential c Suburban(RS) land use districts. a a a Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15303 — New o Construction of Small Structures w Owner: Zecharia&Malca Hovav £ Applicant: John G. Beke,MetroPCS 0 APNs: 0145-091-01, 25 Ward: 2 c Tony Stewart,City Planner,gave a brief description of the project. a e John G.Beke,2280 Market Street,Suite 320,MetroPCS,Project Applicant, introduced t himself to the Planning Commission and explained the importance of the project. Mr. Beke w noted his disagreement with Conditional of Approval#16,regarding the requirement to install the coax cable inside the existing structure. £ E u Q Page 2 of 5 03/28/2012 PacketPg. 717 EXHIBIT 4 A (� O lam/ John Motley,380 W. 17th Street,provided a prepared document to the Planning Z Commission, discussing objections of neighborhood residents and explained his a disagreement with the Findings of Fact listed in the Staff Report. a M Commissioner Lopez inquired about whether the property owner has been contacted about N property maintenance of the existing facility. c Z John Matley explained to the Planning Commission that the neighborhood has not been able £ to get ahold of the property owner regarding maintenance issues and have not had a chance to a meet with the applicant. Commissioner Jimenez inquired about how many residents were represented in the o neighborhood. a c 0 John Malley explained that 2 or 3 of the residents have submitted letters of opposition and v approximately 6 or 7 neighbors in the immediate area have expressed concern to them. Commissioner Lopez complimented the homes in the neighborhood and stated that she was o aware of property maintenance issues on the subject property. A a Debbi Matley,380 W. 17`h Street,introduced herself as the local neighborhood association president and spoke about the architectural and historic significance of the area. She N expressed concerns regarding decreased property values and quality of life. N M Zecharia Hovav, 1633 Glenwood Avenue,Upland,CA 91784,introduced himself to the Planning Commission as the property owner, and expressed his support of the proposed project. Mr. Hovav also stated an objection to Condition of Approval#16. v Commissioner Mulvihill, asked Mr.Hovav if he's ever met with local residents regarding their concerns. a a Q Zecharia Hovav stated that he had never been contacted by residents regarding concerns and o that he would support having a working relationship with local neighbors. Mr. Hovav W provided information on previous and future improvements to the properties. E E 0 Commissioner Lopez inquired with the property owner on whether the property was m occupied or vacant. S c m Zecharia Hovav stated that the property had current tenants operating business but that the o. buildings were not fully occupied at the current time. e a Chair Coate inquired on the percentage of occupancy the structures have currently. K w Zecharia Hovav clarified that approximately 55 to 60 percent of the units were occupied. E z u n Q Page 3 of 5 03/28/2012 Packet Pg. 712 EXHIBIT 4 zo.d N Daisy Kirkmon,430 W. 17`h Street, introduced herself to the Planning Commission as the o closest resident to the project site. Ms. Kirkmon stated that she has lived in her home for Z more than 25 years and expressed her concerns regarding health and safety to herself and her a great grandchildren. a M Commissioner Mulvihill asked Ms. Wheeler about the density of the pahn fronds N camouflaging the monopole. o Z M. Margo Wheeler stated that Condition of Approval#13 addressed this matter. E `w a Commissioner Jimenez inquired about what the positive economic impact the proposed project will have on the City. A c 0 John G.Beke,Project Applicant, explained the positive impacts to MetroPCS customers in San Bernardino. Mr. Beke explained the frequencies used by separate wireless carriers and o refuted the claim that the facility will negatively affect the service provided by other carriers. u m Commissioner Rawls asked staff for comments or concerns regarding the modification of Conditional of Approval#16. M O N Tony Stewart explained that the applicant has not provided any reason,beyond a. inconvenience,that the coax cable cannot be installed inside the existing building. N Commissioner Rawls asked staff if any other alternatives were agreed upon with the applicant. Cl! 0 Tony Stewart noted that since evidence indicating the condition was not structurally feasible has not been provided, staff stands by Condition of Approval,as written. 'c Commissioner Lopez inquired about the impacts on the beauty and historical nature of the area. 0 a a Q M.Margo Wheeler discussed the Findings of Fact with the Planning Commission that the o Conditional Use Permit is required to meet for approval and that if the Commissioners could 2 En not make those findings, then denial of the project is required. E E 0 Commissioner Jimenez inquired on whether any other similar wireless facilities were L) located in residential areas. c C N Tony Stewart indicated that similar wireless facilities near residential areas did exist. a a Henry Empeno advised the Planning Commission on federal laws that prevent the denial of wireless telecommunication facilities solely on health effects. x w Vice-Chair Heasley made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03. v M0 m Page 4 of 5 03/28/2012 PacketPg.713 EXHIBIT 4 N Commissioner Jimenez seconded the motion. o Z The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Conte, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, o Mulvihill and Rawls.Nays: Durr.Abstain:None. Absent: Brown. a M M. Margo Wheeler explained that the action was final in absence of an appeal submitted within a the next 15 days. c Z Minutes Adopted by Commissioners: Coate,Durr,Heasley,Lopez,Machen and Mulvihill Date Approved: April 25,2012 d Minutes Prepared by: . VJ N C Melissa Thurman _0 Executive Assistant c O U r m n M O N a. U N OJ N M O d J C_ 9 d O a a c 0 N N E E 0 U rn c c c n a v a L X W C C L O A S✓ Q Page 5 of 5 03/28/2012 7.D.e EXHIBIT 5 OUHRerpar CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Community Development Department, Planning Division 300 North"D"Street, 31d Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 Phone(909)384-5057 • Fax(909) 384-5080 Web address: www.sbcity.org N APPLICATION FOR APPEAL 6 APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one) z 0 ❑ Community Development Director a ❑ Development/Environmental Review Committee ® Planning Commission o N Casenumber(s): Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 Z Project address: 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 N. i7th street a Appellant's name: MetroPCS California, LLC c/o Jeffrey Clarke 7 N Appellant's address: 350 commerce, suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 0 Appellant's phone: 714-730-3242 c Appellant's e-mail address: iclaxke®metropcs.com U r Contact person's name: MetroPCS California, LLC c/o John Bake Contact person's address: 2280 Market Street, Suite 320 Riverside, CA 92501 C Contact person's phone: 909-896-0946 u n Contact person's e-mail address: ibekeemetxopce.com a ro v a a a a Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application form w within 15 days following the final date of action,accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee. I a Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common L Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified,in writing, of the specific date and time of the appeal hearing. ¢ OFFICE USE ONLY Date appeal filed: C)q/00P ,Received by: UT- 11104 64 Packet Pg. 715 REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR AN APPEAL Specific action being appealed and the date of that action: March 28th Planning Commission (PC) denial of Conditional use Permit 12-03. we had a staff recommendation of approval. The day of the hearing, staff received two letters of opposition on the unfounded assertion that ,radiation- from cell tower, is harmful to the health of those in the area. At the hearing, the authors of the letters and N O one other person spoke in opposition, again primarily focussed on the health risks of radio frequency emissions. N O Z Specific grounds forthe appeal: we belive that the PC let the emotional issues, of radio frequency emissions and D the testimony of an emotional resident saying she will have to move because of her fear of "radiation`, cloud a Q their judgement and caused them to err and deny the case going against the staff's recommendation of o N approval. The PC suddenly motioned that the proposed site is "inappropriate•. The staff report and 0 Z the facts surrounding the case all point to the site being well designed and appropriate. The "palm', E 1a amongst many taller live palms, is in a commercial zone, meets all setbacks and code requirement a. m a 0 m Action sought; overturn the March 28th PC denial of COP 12-03 and the deletion of condition 16, a requirement — m c to place the coaxial cable inside the wall of the existing building. The public has insignificant visibility to the O 9 interior courtyard where the cable tray is proposed. Further, the cable Cray is proposed to be colored and textured C O to match the existing building. U n A C O Additional information: MetroPCS has over one million customers in the greater Los Angeles area. In the A u_ City of San Bernardino, we have 25,683 customers, there are 22 authorized retailers of metroPCS 6 CL products and services which employ 47 persona. MetroPCS needs this site to continue to provide our Q m existing and future customers with world class affordable cell service including 9G LT6 aery a icee. O. Q The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) prohibits a decision making body from considering health concerns 2z in the decision making process. we believe the PC did rely on the emotional testimony regarding "radiation" fears :2 L of the three persona in opposition. That testimony removed, what you are left with is a proposed W stealth cell site,disguised as a palm tree in an area with a. significant amount of existing live palms, y that meets the development standards of both the zone and the city's wireless facilities ordinance, c U m is in a commercialzone, is 10' under the height limit and has the equipment located inside Q the existing building. Signature of appellant: Date: 11/04 65 Packet Pg. 716.. 7.D.e 3 O N O V � N 6 O N N O � c � Q p1Itt m � Q W V Ql O � aa U d a 1 � f49 ��Nd •ryV� '� � U � fEz./ W O O 3 U Q v✓ r m F a �y 6 9 Pa Mi C }6 Q :rCCi G c 3 66 Packet Pg. 717 7.D.e H041SO N O N C� p Q a v a D 0 v m 7 � i m u i a a Q "*a h a r x �y W bNF �ff- � ILY � ry W v � 67 PacketPg.718 JE AMW IND , IAR.Ijr xm WWW ' S u a - N CL C. F e y O i Z 6 i d s a 2 \ G C t rY� m f N Z w ? r tt In Q p Z a Q 0 " a tst c �, _ a• J ,z _ a a in a B + ff t 7 x V V s 69 v Packet Pg. 720 } - i ` ) \ . a . . � . - � C. \ - � { . : � ! } 4 / @ j § \ b ° \ / - g� } 3 ± : § - � / l | 71 Pac m R 722 p:.,. d { Y Y 3: p �yy 3L..YY J t u • Y 4 +4 e acd pa x » e i �Ri`b[,a ♦�w. i t IF 1 � T-7 - x �� .ewxa, vx• d` ° � ... . .:. . hate. ..