Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06.E- Community Development
DOC ID: 1797 K CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION (�Public Hearing err From: Margo Wheeler M/CC Meeting Date: 07/02/2012 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. (At Meeting of May 7, 2012,Item Continued to July 2,2012.) Financial Impact: Building permit fees,based on valuation of labor and materials required for project. The hearing was opened on May 7,2012. 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 approve 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. OR Motion 3: Close the hearing; grant Appeal No. 12-02, and approve CUP No. 12-03, as amended with selected location and design, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) contained in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. OR Motion 4: Close the heating; and refer CUP No. 12-03 back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the new design and location alternatives proposed by the appellant. Synopsis of Previous Council Action: Updated:6/27/2012 by Linda Sutherland K Packet Pg.419 6.E 1797 The Mayor and Common Council heard the item at the May 7, 2012 meeting and continued the item to July 2,2012,to allow the appellant additional time to meet with the neighborhood opponents and address outstanding concerns. Background: • On June 18, 2012,the appellant provided staff with photo-simulations of three alternative designs,based on feedback received from neighborhood meetings (Exhibits 6, 7, 8). • On May 7,2012, the Mayor and Common Council continued the item to July 2, 2012,to allow the appellant additional time to meet with the neighborhood opponents and address outstanding concerns. • 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. • 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). tr • 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 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). 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. 17th Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and the Residential Suburban (RS) land use districts (Exhibit I - Location Map). The project site, located on the northwest comer of"D" and 17th 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. Updated:6/27/2012 by Linda Sutherland K I Packet Pg.420 1797 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." 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: Updated:6/27/2012 by Linda Sutherland K 1797 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 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 �•r 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 Conte, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls voted for denial and Commissioner Durr 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 monopahn 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 Updated:6/27/2012 by Linda Sutherland K 1797 monopalm as a palm tree among an area with several mature live palms, and proposing to locate Cthe 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. At the meeting of May 7, 2012,the Mayor and Common Council continued Appeal No. 12-02 to the July 2, 2012 meeting, to allow the appellant additional time to meet with the neighborhood opponents and address outstanding concerns. On June 18, 2012, the appellant provided staff with photo-stimulations of three alternative designs and an alternative location, based on feedback received from neighborhood meetings. The table below provides a comparison of the original and alternative proposals. Location Design Action Original Proposal To the rear of the Monopahn Tower Planning Commission building located at denied 1702 N. "D" Street Alternative In the landscaping Flag Pole Planning Commission r- Proposals planter in front of the has not reviewed " building located at 1702 N. "D" Street In the landscaping Monocypress Tower Planning Commission planter in front of the has not reviewed building located at 1702 N. "D" Street In the landscaping Unicell Tower Planning Commission planter in front of the has not reviewed building located at 1702 N. "D"Street The cell tower, in the original application, was proposed to be located to the immediate rear of the office building, located at 1702 N. "D" Street. The alternative provided by the appellant, would locate the cell tower in the landscaping planter in front of the building, in order to place it further away from an adjacent residence. The alternative designs differ from the original proposal of a monopalm tower, by providing options for a flag pole, monocypress tower, or a unicell tower. The alternative location and designs were not a part of the original proposal and therefore, Updated:6/27/2012 by Linda Sutherland K 1797 were not previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. 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 i Exhibit 4 Planning Commission Minutes,03/28/12, Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 Exhibit 5 Appeal Application Exhibit 6 Photo-simulation of alternative design#1 (Flag pole) Exhibit 7 Photo-simulation of alternative design#2 (Cypress Tree) Exhibit 8 Photo-simulation of alternative design#3 (Unicell) Exhibit 9 Alternative Site Plan and Elevations Suouortine Documents: 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 5 -Appeal Application (PDF) Exhibit 6-Photo-Simulation of Alternative Design#1 (Flag Pole) (PDF) Exhibit 7- Photo-Simulation of Alternative Design#2 (Monocypress) (PDF) Exhibit 8 -Photo-Simulation of Alternative Design#3 (Unicell) (PDF) Exhibit 9 -Alternative Site Plan (PDF) C Updated: 6/27/2012 by Linda Sutherland K EXHIBIT 1 Location (Zoning) Map CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO � ^ PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP 12-03 (AP 12-02) a LOCATION MAP NORTH 6 z m v o. v. M 0 17 O 0. PF 70 Z ti a v a m 18TH O 0 $ $ U W c 0 PROJECT SITE 0 0 J 17TH xx W r s U A a II EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO *STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION o N PROJECT 6 Z Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 d o. a Owner: Zecharia& Malca Hovav a M O N Applicant: John O. Beke, MetroPCS o Z _ Description: A request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility with a E 65-foot tall, camouflaged monopalm tower and associated equipment ri stored within an existin� commercial building, located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17 Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and D Residential Suburban(RS) land use districts. 0 ACTION: DENIED 0 U Meeting Date: March 28,2012 m r_ The Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 based upon finding of incompatibility. 0 d VOTE Ayes: Coute, Heasley,Jimenez,Lopez, Machen,Mulvihill and Rawls in Nays: Durr Abstain: None m Absent: Brown o U Q The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless a written appeal is filed, with the o appropriate fee, within 15 days of the Planning Commission action, pursuant to Section c 19.52.100 of the Municipal (Development)Code. E m R I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination n of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino. o N N E E 0 LZ - / Z M. Mhrrgoo Wheeler, Community Development Director Date a cc: Case File, Department File, Plan Check a x w C W E L U N a Z Packet Pg.426 6.E.b N PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 0 Z CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION , d a a Q CASE: Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 c AGENDA ITEM: 5 HEARING DATE: March 28,2012 z WARD: 2 OWNER: APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: a" Zecharia and Malca Hovav John G. Beke 1633 Glenwood Avenue MetroPCS , Upland,CA 91784 2280 Market Street 9320 $ 909.227.3368 Riverside, CA 92501 909.896.0945 0 U r a r REQUEST&LOCATION: 0 0 A request to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 65-foot tall, m 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 the Residential Suburban(RS)land use districts. c C CONSTRAINTS& OVERLAYS: 4 U Q None `o c a ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: E v is ❑ Not Applicable ® Exempt from CEQA,Section 15303—New Construction of Small Structures ° N Cl No Significant Effects ❑ Potential Effects,Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan E 0 U STAFF RECOMMENDATION: c c c ® Approval a ® Conditions N ❑ Denial n ❑ Continuance to: z X w c m E r U R Q 3 Packet Pg.427 CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date:March 28, 1012 Page 2 N PROJECT DESCRIPTION ° N The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under the authority of z° Development Code §19.20.030(3)(C)(7) to construct a new unmanned wireless d telecommunications facility consisting of a 65-foot camouflaged tower and related equipment at c the site of existing commercial buildings located at 1702 N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17th Street in a the Commercial Office (CO) and the Residential Suburban (RS) land use districts (Attachment o A). The monopole telecommunications tower will be camouflaged as a palm tree, also known as a monopalm(Attachment B). zo SETTING &SITE CHARACTERISTICS d 91 TH a m G ff ' 9 Subject Site Commercial Office(CO) Commercial Buildings 0 Residential Suburban(RS) n m r North Commercial Office(CO) Church o Residential Suburban(RS) Single-Family Residence m z :? South Commercial Office(CO) Commercial Offices Residential Suburban(RS) Single-Family Residence c 0 u Q East Residential Suburban(RS) Apartments o c E E West Residential Suburban(RS) Single-Family Residence U) G 0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEOA E The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of E E U the State Guidelines, which exempts construction of small structures that can be adequately m served by required utilities and public services. E G 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 c • July 29, 1964 — Building permits were completed for construction of a new office building, E located at 408-420 W. 17th Street. s 0 x Q 4 PafiBt Pg.428 CUP No. 12-03 Hearing 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. 6 Z • March 15, 2012 — The Development/Environmental Review Committee (DIERC) reviewed plans for CUP 12-03 and moved the item to the Planning Commission for consideration. a M ANALYSIS ° N The proposed monopalm structure is designed with camouflage fronds in compliance with z0 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 v 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 70 commercial office building, located at 1720 N. "D" Street, with the proposed equipment stored 2 inside the adjacent commercial office building, located at 420 W. 17 Street. Additional air 6 conditioning equipment will be added to the roof and will require screening. The wireless 0 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. 0 0 DEVELOPMENT CODE & GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY (" 'CATEGORY PROPOSAI, DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE N CODE v @ Use Telecommunications Permitted subject to With Conditional 3 tower located within 75 Conditional Use Permit Use Permit a feet of a property zoned o residential c @ E @ m Height 65 feet 75 feet,unless approved Yes by the Planning 0 Commission " " E E 0 U Antenna Setback 6 feet 3 feet minimum Yes c Pole Setback 12 feet 9 inches 10 feet minimum Yes a N .2 L X W C @ E z U Q 5 PacketPg:429 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 zd character of the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of d this Development Code. a The proposed 65-foot monopalm is a conditionally permitted use, under the authority of o 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 Z at 420 W. 170i Street, is currently located in the Residential Suburban(RS)land use district, is within 75 feet. The proposed equipment will be secured within the commercial building, a located at 420 W. 170i 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 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 L) 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. r rn 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 N 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 0 3. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the Z requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the E Development Code. 2 Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the 65-foot unmanned wireless monopalm facility is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and Development Code §19.20.030(6), in that u" 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. 0 m 4. There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. `m a. The proposed project will not have any significant negative impacts upon environmental y quality or natural resources. The project site is developed with two commercial office a 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 5. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible E with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to a 6 Packet Pg.430 CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date:March 28, 2012 Pages N 5. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible N 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 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 a The proposed design is in compliance with the Development Code requirements that are q 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° palm trees on-site. The equipment associated with the wireless telecommunications facility E will be housed inside the existing building on-site and will therefore be hidden from view from the public right-of-way. The proposed facility would be un-manned, and would therefore d 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. 4 v 6. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed. `o U 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 17th 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. in a 7. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and m services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety. co U Q The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or o welfare. The development plan complies with Development Code standards related to Z location, access, height, screening and landscaping for wireless telecommunications facilities. E The existing site currently has adequate access to 17th and "D" Streets, public services and m utilities, m C 0 CONCLUSION E The proposed project satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of Conditional Use u Permit No. 12-03. m c RECOMMENDATION E a Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report, and subject to the Conditions of Approval(Attachment Q. w c m E r m a CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date:March 28, 2012 Page N O N O Respectfully Submitted, z m v /''' a 01MIL (`ucu/ a M Lori Farris 6 Assistant Planner Z E Approved for DlStrib tion: a N O M.Margo Wheeler,AICP Community Development Director 0 r Attachment A: Location Maps Attachment B: Site Plan&Elevations Attachment C: Conditions of Approval o m rr m U) v c m c O .; Q O C d E v c 0 .N N E E O U m c 'c c m a N a x X W C E E z u m Q 6.E.b ATTACHMENT A N Zoning Map ° N ° CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Z PLANNING DIVISION a PROJECT: CUP 12-03 M LOCATION MAP NORTH ° 0 z E `w a N C ° 3 j V 18TH 0 W Ills j PROJECT SITE ° <F N 17TH E ° W c m E r ° m z Q 9 Packet Pg.433 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: CUP 12-03 LOCATION MAP +� 18TH ST i ce �u.. i dY� '^•' �a 1,( 11� � � G F +F 4 1 , 1 + f F j ry 1!TH ST,.. _ ml p _ ' .00 � S �L°. � ��'i,it Yl '.+aF�tY � �i •q Vii:, :1 6.E.b ATTACHMENT B N 6 ! O 4 f� 8 z° ,I L M 0 N i a 0 i Z ! f6 a a N v liii � R al 2 : 3ss7 ffiifCp ; E o c g 8 � r�+ ® g9aaspa Irt 1 �• v O ,�, a al as [al z a^lY9a''tee 3, V ai S a ii4 p• . l6 rJ .m w W Q f ! ! �{ g p4�lBlae.... {.'., t.9_ : m V 4 a a & w 6 Iatg! t 2 tr a"F 3 a f�f f�f a f44aP1llillaa g�pP� � O Raa.l•• , V lV 47 14 r w N Z a stf!af i A81 ,eee:a poi {.. .:, 1 � a { i •• - @ 4 LO o 48 V g o N W itei _Q z y d i �•!R { i - E a!ya`4° � f�6E 4aa IAiE Raisia � py N �yO tp 6a°fi g Ulm i a i e 3a • i$ °— hi!1 �BitlEeis fis�ls�aiLicBP� = o m Y R E {Fy; pp E YpEYp tt1 @ W •' aaat as! as^ � al'c{ la$ai {a$td N pied ta� fl i alf(i. i.1ta i.. a v — E L U Q 11 ` cket Pg. 435 6.E.b N O Lilil! z M O N O Z —_— 0- _-________�_— N I)3YId . aJ 1 I. al5. 0 N 3 � m c i o U a 0 d � c co 0 E E 0 qq 6 U z If gs �! 1� 12 IFp I BJ"I - '§B IJi ,EI !�� �#++ 9pp9B`@ k`g �rg•P qP�€�: ®g 9 R ig isYtlAA a plg M. hiss P A a 12 PacketPg.436 6.E.b N O NA F116 ! a M O pp 9e 5s ! z a �Yr ------------ 300111 A r � C1 ' i A o 1 kjc`.x m i � � rn R � R w 0 rn c 0 E E 0 $ U 1 z a 6 � g 4 i fill ! i 1 ► fel, @�EE,eifsl � l6Eig' � Elif � g � g { NI "g W C � CI�ECiiF96ttCCCCCC1it.CCiIC4CCCiCi�i4C w�i�. i E L U °aw.r A a 13 Packet Pg:437 �.E.b N ftl� all �� g tV Z M t3€ a O /big •i i i i i i i �i � ��' `V � z �. .. "i e „ — 60 It 6i 64 ip N k 4 O 5 Y .. I l -� ° ; i A ® W e o �1jg � Y S MI W C 9 W • � m 1 € eei aF 4 N e € c IN HIM fit Coff!1141€ 1f� I ��� I ` RiE1! Ii[ 111 €(plo4 0 000000000 0 E z ° a 14 Packet Pg.438 6.E.b N O 7 t R 6 M itf[.`� �lr; .,o..M.yle+ 2• �il �i 1 s ^ i. E PPI 9 t it I ,ag Rh fit !P a to It g�i! Sys r� � '�` �' �. I I� It �---� ® � jf ti PEi�• ) o E 0 141 r7= U ,e 0 � PC s ry x �`e P9i iP �ie� iP kr�Sv�.Y7/.�2 E t u Q 15 Packet Pg.439 N ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL zo Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 R m a o. 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. 171h Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and the Residential z° Suburban(RS)land use districts(APN: 0145-091-01, 25). E v 2. Within two years of the CUP approval, commencement of construction shall have d 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 rZ permittapproval shall become null and void. However, approval of the Conditional Use 4 Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities included in the 0 Conditions of Approval. 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 a 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 w 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 w 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. rn The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as "attorneys fees" for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for issuing this permit, this condition shall remain in effect if this o Conditional Use Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of w applicant. a c X w 5. All development shall be in substantial conformance to submitted plans date stamped c February 21,2012. m E L V N a 16 P,aeket#!g ,440 CUP No. 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 Development Code Chapter 19.60,Minor Modifications. 7. The project shall comply with the requirements of other outside agencies, as applicable (e.g. State Board of Equalization,Federal Communications Commission,etc.). d Z 8. The applicant shall ensure that the communications tower and related equipment shall be E removed within three months after the use is abandoned. a m 9. The use of barbed wire, electrified fence, or razor wire in conjunction with any fence, n 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 tmnked 8001% Hz 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 c until the problem is resolved. 11. The facility operator and property owner shall be responsible for regular maintenance of y 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 2 maintained in a condition where it still serves the purpose of disguising the pole. a 0 0 12. The applicant shall store all associated equipment to the monopalm tower inside the 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 (minimum of 60 palm fronds) and shall extend beyond the antennas for adequate concealment,to the satisfaction of the Director. E 14. Antennas shall be painted to match the monopalm branches or cladding, as appropriate. 0 rn 15. The pole shall be covered with simulated palm bark cladding to a minimum height of 35 feet above ground level. Any portion of the pole not covered with pine bark cladding A shall be painted brown to match. ° N 16. The coax cable, which connects to the associated equipment inside the adjacent commercial building, shall be installed inside the building. X x LIJ c E E z 0 M z a 17 Rgt:ket Pg'.445 CUP No. 12-03 Hearing Date:March 28, 2012 iz 17. The proposed air conditioning equipment on the roof of 420 W. 17`h Street shall be a adequately screened from view from the public right-of-way in a manner architecturally compatible with the existing structure. z d 18. No part of the monopole shall be located within ten feet of the property line to the West of a the proposed monopalm location. M 0 19. A building permit shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division for the construction of the unmanned wireless telecommunications facility. 0 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 h sheets. m c 21. All Conditions of Approval shall be completed prior to final inspection, sign-off, and ao before antennas can be activated. c 0 U End of Attachment C m n t: O 6 d A U) V C m c 0 .J Q `0 E E m is N C O .N N E E O U m c 'E c A a N a Xx w m E z U A Q 18 Packet Pg.402 i 6.E.c EXHIBIT 3 N CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 0 Community Development Department—Planning Division z Interoffice Memorandum o a a TO: Planning Commission 0 FROM: Lori Farris,Assistant Planner�F 0 z SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 -Agenda Item 5 E m a DATE: March 28, 2012 w COPIES: M.Margo Wheeler,Director;Tony Stewart,Deputy Director/City Planner; c Henry Empeflo Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney 4 a c 0 U Please find included the following items for consideration, regarding Conditional Use r Permit No. 12-03: • Handout entitled Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For N Cellular&PCS Sites,by the Federal Communications Commission—Provided by $ the applicant. N L V • 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. • Letter of opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03, from John R. Bums, 440 West 17`h Street,San Bernardino,CA 92405, dated March 21, 2012. H E • Letter of opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03, from Daisy Kirkmon, 0 430 West 17`h Street,San Bernardino,CA 92405,dated March 24,2012. it E c m a d L O O E m m rn n a z x al c m t v m a 19 P,acke#Pa;It3 Human Exposure'lo Kadlo Frequency Fields:Guidelines For Cellular dt 10t:6 bites Ill 1 of 3 s. Sc In I R5$ I p itlei S,l U$l 1NkI•rtlYGS I umer$ 1 a Find.R it z v Consumer&Govemmental Affairs Bureau a MAR 2 6 2012 M fM,QQRjjypp>jgtayLn9rfjq�r�pp;>Human Rpm,.to RF FIBId. [In.. F 9 N O Z Human Exposure 'lo radio Frequency FCC Cdteids' Consumer Facts " Guideiiires For Cellular & PCS Sites O C 0 U Background 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 R antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a"cellular or PCS cell 06 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. v m 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 2 transmitter. Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power(ERP) of up to 500 watts A 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 rn An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, depending on 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 ° encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS cell sites have shown that ground-level power densities are well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safely R standards used by the FCC. y 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 U a 3iltp:/lwaw.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.html 3123!2071 20 Packet Pg.444 Human Exposurc To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular&PCS Sites Page 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, privately-funded, membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary a national standards In the United States. a n 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. Calculations corresponding to a "worst-case" situation(all transmitters operating y 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 2 minutes or longer.Thus, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. rC 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 n 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, m f For More Information a For more information on this Issue, visit the FCC's RF Safety Web site at o www.fcc.govloetIrfaafety. For further information about any other telecommunications- 0 related issues,visit the FCC's Consumer&Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site at 0 www.fcc.gov/cab,or contact the FCC's Consumer Center by e-mailing fccinfoCCDfcc.aov; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835-5322) E TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to: 0 m Federal Communications Commission `- Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau E Consumer Information and Complaints Division a 44512 St. SW a Washington, DC 20554. 0 0 E a f For this or any other consumer publlcation In an accessible format (electronic ASCII text,Braille,large print, or audio)please write or N call us at the address or phone number below,or send an a-mall to I_CC604@Jfcc.agy. M To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through - a the Commission's electronic subscriber service, click on t htto//wvnv j�c aov2n4/contac(s! X This document Is for consumer education purposes only and is not Intended to affect any proceeding or cases Involving this subject matter or related issues. - E E v a http://www.fcc.gov/egb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.html 3123/2011 21 Packet Pg.445 Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular&PCS Sites Page 3 of 3 11/08/07 6 mLqw% FtlaIaICn wt dons Cwmlsslon-CONuMw&e wMBnIaIAff.IMB.mw-445121h St.SA-Washlngloq.0020554 z 1-888-CALLFCC(A88-225 5322) 1.S88.TF -FCC(1-588A35-S322)-Faw14!68418-0232 -MWAM OWMV O. last reviewedlupdatedw 11/0"7 F dome I search I M I Update I E-MlIng I Initiatlyes I Consumers I EtOLLPeople C? 0 Federal CommuNcations Commission Phone:1-888-CALL-FOC(14M-225- -Privacy Policy z 44512th Street SW 5322) - a wpk nfpficea E Washington,DC 20554 TTY:1.888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835- -Rae u gUjreA Browser Plujjpti More FCC Contacl lnfvmallq . 5322) -E(eedgnl of WtMjfiEA Fax,1-868.410.0232 E-mail:fccinfoOfcc. go 0 0 O N 0 ti E E 0 rn fl 0 4-7 0 0 E V) X W E http://www,fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.html 3123/2011 22 N O Z m Federal Local and State a Communications Government a Commission Advisory o Committee 40 0 z_ E d o. m m m c A Local Government Official's Guide to $ Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: o Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance r rn r N O N of N L V N : d A C O N b E E 0 U m c c c m a m r 0 0 E v m {� rn June 2, 20oo a MAR 2 6 2012 D W d By E a 23 Packet Pg. 447 6.E.c N 6 Z A A Local Government Official's Guide to Q Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: a Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance 9 Over the past two years,the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)and its Local 0 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 ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC's limits for a. human exposure to mdiofrequeney(RF)electromagnetic fields. The attached guide is the product of this joint effort. 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 0 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 n 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 N compliance with the Commission's RF exposure limits. In many cases,the model checklist b offers 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 N environmental effects of RP emissions. Thus,we believe this guide will facilitate federal,state, v and local governments working together to protect the public while bringing advanced and innovative communications services to consumers as rapidly as possible. We hope and expect 0 that use of this guide will benefit state and local governments,service providers,and,most m importantly,the American public. c 0 We wish all of you good luck in your facilities siting endeavors. .N E E 0 U M William E.Kennard,Chairman Kenneth S.Felhman,Chair '� Federal Communications Commission Local and State Government @ Advisory Committee a m L_ 0 0 E v @ N 9 L W C d E L U Q 24 Packet Pg.44g N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to 1tY 6 Z A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S GUIDE TO TRANSMITTING ANTENNA RF v a EMISSION SAFETY:RULES,PROCEDURES,AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE 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 designed this guide to provide you with information and guidance in devising efficient z0 procedures for assuring that the antenna facilities located in your community comply with the .£ Federal Communication Commission's(FCC's)limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF)electromagnetic fields.l N We have included a checklist and tables to help you quickly identify siting applications that do D not raise RF exposure concerns. Appendix A to this guide contains a checklist that you may use c to identify"categorically excluded"facilities that are unlikely to cause RF exposures in excess of 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, r m 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 o 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 discussedbelow,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 are generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Nonetheless,it is recognized that any instance of noncompliance -0 with the guidelines is potentially very serious,and the FCC has therefore implemented procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. At the same time,stale and local governments o may wish to verify compliance with the FCC's exposure limits in order to protect their own o citizens. As a state or local government official,you can play an important role in ensuring that 'y 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, E 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 Commutdcations w Act.3 Y0 0 E m 'This guide is intended to complement,but not to replace,the FCCs OET Bulletin 65,"Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to kadiofregnency Electromagnetic Fields,"August 1997. Bulletin 65 can be obtained from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology(pberw:202-618.2464 or a-moil: rn rfssfety@ibc.gov). Bulletin 65 can also be accessed and downloaded from the FCC's"RF Safety"website: M http:Uwww.fcc.goviostfrhafety, n See Cellular Phone rwkforce P.FCC, 205 F.3d 82(2d Cit.2000). t X c m 1 E u w Q 25 Packet Pg.449 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local official's Guide to RF 6 z MU d 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, 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 "[n)o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, E construction,and mollification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the ; environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with a the[FCC's)regulations concerning such emissions." The full text of Section 332(c)(7)is set forth in Appendix C. 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 low. To the extent questions arise c regarding such authority,they are being addressed by the courts. Rather than address these legal 0 questions,this document recognizes that,as a practical matter,state and local governments have r a role to play in ensuring compliance with the FCC's limits,and it provides guidance to assist 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 the FCC's licensees. s U First,we'll start with a summary of the FCC's RF exposure guidelines and some background g information that you'll fund helpful. Next,we'll review the FCC's procedures for verifying compliance with the guidelines and enforcing its mles. 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 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 1, o above). L) m c c c R '47 U.S.C.§332(c)(7). Under limned circumstances,the FCC also playa s role in the siting of wirolasa facilities. a Specifically,the FCC reviews applications for Mildest that fall within certain onvironmental categories order the m National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA),see 47 C.F.R.§1.1307(1).Antenna structures that an over $ 200 feel in height or located near airport runways must be marked or lighted as specified by the Federal Aviation o Administration and must be registered with the FCC,see 47 C.F.K Part 17. E s Section 332(°)(7)of the Communications Act is identical to Section 704(a)of the Telecom unications Act of 1996. `m "Terwnal wireless services"generally includes wireless telecommunications services that an interconnected with the public telephone network and ere offered commercially to the public. Examples include wllular and similar services(such as Personal Communications Service or"PCS"),paging and similar services,certain dispatch w "mien,and services that use wireless technology to provide telephone service to a fixed location such as a home or a L OfECe. X W C al 2 L U R Q 26 Packet Pg.450 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF o Z Before we stert,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 C 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 gigabartz(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 z0 telephony,and point-to-point microwave services are much higher in frequency. .E d 0 COttllase Comlaea Comlese y shortwave Radio Phones Phmas Phones w AM and Airalm Mlaowrevee m C O a C O CB VHF VHF UHF P.D.S.planes U N+DTV TV+DTV N+DTV Hem Ham pagers (cellular Phones on FM Bend _ 0.3 Mhz 3 MI2 30 Mhz 3D0 Mhz 3D00 Mhz N 0 As the frequency Increases,the wavelength of the transmitted signal datmersas N Mhz=McBahedz-Millions of cydes per second aj Illustration 1 t U 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 MPS levels. Later in this document well show you how this relationship of frequency to MPE m Emit works. o c 0 N a I. The FCC's RF Exposure Guidelines and Rules. E 0 Part 1 of the FCC's Rules and Regulations contains provisions implementing the National tD Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA). NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the 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 d with RF exposure can be found in Part 1 of its tulles at 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1307(b). The exposure $ Emits 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 must 0 either comply with these guidelines or else an applicant must file an Environmental Assessmeat 0 (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 riles whenever an action may have a significant environmental impact m (see discussion below). In practice,however,a potential environmental RF exposure problem is n 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 0 3 E L u m Q 27 Packet Pg.451 6.E.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 a (NCRP)and on the 1991 standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Q Engineers(IEEE)and later adopted as a standard by the American National Standard%Institute o (ANSMEE C95.1-1992). v The FCC's guidelines establish separate MPE limits for"general population/uncontrolled z exposure"and for"occupational/controlled exposure." The general population/uncontrolled limits set the maximum exposure to which most people may be subjected. People in this group include the general public got associated with the installation and maintenance of the . transmitting equipment. Higher exposure limits are permitted under the"occupotional/coutrolled exposure"category,but only for persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment m (e.g.,witeless radio engineers,technicians). To qualify for the occupationaltrontrolled exposure o 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 though a location,who are made aware of the potential for exposure,may be exposed cr under the occupational/controlled criteria. The MPE limits adopted by the FCC for r occupational/controlled and general population/uncontroiled exposure incorporate a substantial margin of safety and have been established to be well below levels generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects. 0 Determining whether a potential health hazard could exist with respect to a given transmitting antenna is not always a simple matter. Several important factors must be considered in molding s 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 power radiated from the antenna?a(3)How long will someone be exposed to the RF signal at a given distance from the antemta?(4)What other antennas are located in the area,and what is the is 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 1.1310 of the FCC's rules .y establishes maximum permissible exposure(MPE)limits to which people may be exposed.The 'E 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 v 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 � "milliwatts per square centimeter"or mW/emz. One milliwatt equals one thousandth of one watt a (1 11000 of a watt).'In terms of power density,for a given frequency the FCC MPE limits can be w 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 atranemitter through cable or other connecting device to the radiating amanna. "Operating tt: power of the transmitting station"raters;to the power that is fad from the transmitter(tra0amitter output power)into 'o the cable or connecting device. "Actual power radiated from the antenna"is the transmitter output power Minna the to power lost(power losses)in the connecting device tiler an apparent increase in power(if any)due to the design of rn the antenna. Radiated power is often specified in terms of"effective radiated power"or'RRP"or"effective isotropic radiated power'or"EIRP"(see foomento 14)• a X X t Thus,byway of illustration,it takes 100,000 milliwatts of power to fully illuminate a 100 watt light bulb. w c W 4 E U m Q 28 Packet Pg. 452 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF ci 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 c human body(this concept is discussed in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65). C� 0 Z For determining compliance, exposure is averaged over the `m approximate projected area of the Q. body. u° c Uc o U Power decreases as the distance ^ from the antenna Increases. Mustration 2 0 N Electric field strength and magnetic field strength are used to measure"near field"exposure. At N frequencies p.Ww 300 MHz,these are typically the more relevant measures of exposure,and z power density values are given primarily for reference purposes. However,evaluation of fair- 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 broadcast stations,and certain personal wireless service facilities(e.g.,some paging stations). Most personal wireless services,including all cellular and PCS,as well as some television broadcast stations,operate at frequencies above 300 MHz.(See illustration 1.) 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 c population/uncontrolled exposure or 6 minutes for occupational/controlled exposure). However, E for the case of exposure of the general public,time averaging is usually not applied because of —° uncertainties over exact exposure conditions and difficulty in controlling time of exposure. 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 E v m in M a Xx W C d S E U W Q 29 Packet Pg. 453 6.E.c N FCCILSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF o Z m a a Illustration 3. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissi6fe Exposure(MPE) a M O (A) Limits for Occupadmadi/ControlledExposure a Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Density Ave H°or Time 0 Range Strength(B) (H) (S) r I I I I E ptHy V/m A/m mW/em minutes 0.3.3.0 614 1.63 100 • 6 c- 3.0-30 18421f 4.89/f 900/1 * 6 30300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300.1500 _ 0300 6 m 1500-Im"0 — 5 6 0 is C 0 (B) Limits;for General PopulatlonNncontrolledExposure L) n eticFieldStr Power Density Averaging Time Frequency Electric Field Mag,f (S) Ill?,IHP or S Range Strength(E) IH ) m)V/om l minutes air MHz /m A/m 0.3.1,34 614 1.63 100 • 30 c 1.34-30 824/f 2.191f 180/ • 30 c 30.300 27.5 0.073 0/1500 30 'CCs 300-1500 — 0 30 1500.100 000 — t @ *Plana-wave equivalent power density f=frequency in MHz .a or NOTE 1:Omupalionallcontroiled Omlu apply in situations in which persona are exposed as a cotaequm"of their amploynani m provided Nose persons era fully aware of the POlential for exposure and can exeWiae onatural over their exposure.Limits for C 0 mupalioNUconeolled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where .N A occupationsucuntrolled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. 'E E 0 NOTE 2:oeauai populmion/uncontrolied exposures apply in situations in which the gataertl public may be exposed,or in which persons that are exposed ae a consequence of their°mploYrnmt MY not be fUll)'aware of the pateMiei for exposure or cannot C E C caemiee control over their exposure. m a v r 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 cast of building and maintaining a tower,and to place their a, antennas on that joint structure. In such a case,the total exposure from the two facilities taken 2 together must be within the FCC guidelines,or else an EA will be required. tt: wild, N Y A'.,&^ ,(;Y Bgtll'�CJ�(�''Ivttd Facilifii',� M The Commission has determined throu&h calculations and technical analysis that due to thew low s power or height above ground lavelf;►Sleby labiCl by tltir-;very napue2113 uat> ( a>' w c m 6 E 0 ro Q 30 Packet Pg.454 6.E.c N BCCUCAC Local Official's Guide to RIP o z = dellpe limitgi and operators of those facilities are ° aiq 6tuf1ailte posuYes inerkbe3srif the±gw a exempt from routinely having to determine compliance. 1? ddrtte4;with these gtieYactensgce aze; r a -giti''gideYed.categbriduRyeiielUdddl from the requirement for routine anviromnentsl processing forRF exposure 0 Section 1.1307(b)( ) 1 of the Commission's rules sets forth which facilities are categorically 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 a specifically requested to do so by the FCC.9 If potential environmental sigoificanee is found as a j result,an EA must be filed witb the FCC. c No radio or television broadcast facilities are categorically excluded.Thus,broadcast applicants .0 and licensees must affirmatively determine their facility's compliance with the guidelines before construction,and upon every facility modification or license renewal application. With respect 0 to persona(wireless services,a cellular facility is categorically excluded if the total effective .. radiated power(ERP)of all channels operated by the licensee at a site is 1000 watts or less. If m 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: N 0 Exempk at a 3aeclar Example,amemnaarra eactor N antenna array antenna array N OCT N sedoTc sector t Jenne Arm y A, A Mlenne Y ,`y boa n ? m Antenna s Array 61n�B� @ alma rey C) 0 O m E E 0 U rn c c @ a d S Illustration 4 0 0 E m e"The appropriate exposure limits...are generally applicable to all facilities,operations and transmitters regulated t- bythe Commission. However,a determination ofcompliance with the exposure limits-..(routine envlrownwtsi evaluation),and preparation of m HA lithe limns are exceeded,is necessary only for facilities,operations and m transmitters that fall into the categories listed in table 1(of§1.1307],or those specified in paragraph(b)(2)of this ' section. All other facilities,operations and transmitters am categorically excluded from malting studies or prepadag M an BA.. a X X See 47 C ER§1.1307(c)and(d). w c v 7 E r O a 31 Packet Pg. 455 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF zd m In addition,a cellular facility is categorically excluded,regardless of its power,if it is$4l o mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters'(Nt11G3'#tlet) a @hove$Ko tlSle6('rt 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 Egi mounted on a z building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 metersrU a�t5j3 �xVt;groliP E JOi V� i;The power threshold for categorical exclusion is higher for broadband PG5 than for a cellular because broadband PCS operates at a higher frequency where exposure limits are less restrictive. For categorical exclusion thresholds for other personal wireless services,consult Table I of Section 1.1307(b)(1)." 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 U not mandatory. m r_ B. What If An Applicant Or Licensee Wants To Ficeed The Limits Shown N In Illustration 32 ° 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 g levels in excess of 5%of the applicable exposure limit. A new applicant is responsible for .y compliance(or submitting an EA)at a multiple-use site if the proposed transmitter would cause 'E non-compliance and if it would produce exposure levels in excess of 5%of the applicable limit." E U An applicant or licensee is goF permitted to construct or operate a facility that would result in s exposure in excess of the guideline limits until the FCC has reviewed the EA and either found no significant cirvirownemad impact,or pursued further environmental processing including the 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 3 submitting an application to the FCC. 0 E m Unless a facility is categorically excluded(explained above),the FCC's rules require a licensee to evaluate a proposed or existing facility's compliance with the RF exposure guidelines and to N M 1O Table 1 of§1.1307(b)(1)is reproduced in Appendix A to this guide. a_ z For more intom>etion,see OET Bulletin 65,or ace 47 CFR§1.1307(b)(3). w c m E 6 v R Q 32 PacketPg,456 B.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local officlaPs Guide to RF o z m determine whether an EA is required. In the case of broadcast licensees,who me required to a obtain a construction permit from the FCC,this evaluation is required bh M the application for a Q construction permit is filed,or the facility is constructed. In addition,if a facility requires the c filing of an EA for any reason other then RF emissions,the RF evaluation must be performed N before the EA is filed.Factors o e 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 FCC4ssued 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 not categorically excluded if the licensee seeks to modify its facilities or renew its Ecense.These requirements are intended to enhance public safety by requiring periodic site compliance reviews. All facilities that were placed in service before October 15, 1997(when the current RF exposure o guidelines became effective)are expected to comply with the current guidelines no later than September 1,2000,or the date of a license renewal,whichever is earlier. If a facility cannot v 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 techrtical information showing the basis for its determination of compliance upon request. m N I1. How the FCC Verifies Compliance with and Enforces Its Rules. N A. Procedures Upon Initial Coastruedon,Modification,and Renewal. L 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 v 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 0AMB). As ❑ part of every relevant application,the MMB requires an applicant to submit an explanation of o what steps will be taken to Emit RF exposure and comply with FCC guidelines. The applicant 0 must certify that RF exposure procedures will be coordinated with all collocated entities(usually .0 other stations at a common transmitter site or hill or mountain peak),if the submitted explanation E does not adequately demonstrate a facility's compliance with the guidelines,the MMB will 0 U require additional supporting data before granting the application. c The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau(WTB)reviews personal wireless service applications (for cellular,PCS, SMR,etc.). For those services that operate under blanket area licenses, c. including cellular and PCS,the license application and renewal form require the applicant to 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 0 sites included within the area of the license. E For those services that continue to be licensed by site(e.g.,certain paging renewals),the W TE requires a similar certification on the application form for each site. To comply with the FCC's n riles,an applicant must determine its own compliance before completing this certification for a L Prior to October 15, 1997,the Commission applied a different set of substantive guidelines. w d 9 E L U Q 33 Packet Pg. 457 6.E.c N FCClLSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF d z m 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. a M O N B. Procedures For Responding To Complaints About Existing Facilities. o z The FCC frequently receives inquiries from members of the public as m whether a particular site E 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 a. 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. — ns c In some cases,the information provided by the inquiring party does not preclude the possibility .0 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 n establish compliance. If compliance is established in this way,FCC staff will inform the inquiring party of this determination. N 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 N 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 mature 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 0 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 WE limit.In addition, E licensees may be subject to sanctions for violating the FCC's rules and/or for misrepresentation, u m c The FCC is committed to responding fully,promptly,and accurately to all inquiries regarding c compliance with the RF exposure guidelines,and to taking swift and appropriate action m whenever the evidence suggests potential noncompliance. To perform this function effectively, e 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. E m III. Practical Guidance Regarding Compliance. 0) This section is intended to provide some general guidelines that can be used to identify sites that a should no raise serious questions about compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines.Sites that z don't fall into the categories described here may still meet the guidelines,but the determination u c E E 0 u M Q 34 Packet Pg. 458 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local official's Guide to RF z° M W of compliance will not be as straightforward. In such cases, a detailed review maybe required. The tables and graphs shown in Appendix B are intended only to assist in distinguishing sites that should not raise serious issues from sites that may require further inquiry. They are no 0 intended foruse in identifying sites that are out of compliance.As noted above,the factors that 9 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 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 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 a station(s). o 0 Weil 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 N 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 Oi frequency ranges as cellular and broadband PCS.t Much of the information hero is broadly L applicable to those services as well,and specific information is provided in Appendix B for ° On paging and namowband PCS operations over frequency bands between 901 and 940 MHz. a Finally,this section only addresses the general populationiuncontrolled exposure guidelines, m since compliance with these guidelines generally causes the most concern to state and local o governments.Compliance with occupational/controlled exposure limits should be examined g 0 independently, T E A. Categorically Excluded Facilities, 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 R making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any m exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines,determination that a facility is categorically 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 potential exposure using the methods discussed below and the tables and figures in Appendix B. v. M �s The major exception is fixed wireless services,which often operate at much higher frequencies.In addition,some n L paging and other licensees operate at lower$equcncies 't W m E I I L U M Q 35 Packet Pg. 459 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RIF z° m d If you'ma 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 concern. But remember,there may be c other factors(i.e.,power level,height,blockages,etc.)that contribute to whether the site N complies with FCC guidelines. • 0 Where a site contains only one antenna army,the maximum exposure at any point in the E 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(E1tP).14 us. if pspgle are not able to come closer to an antenna than the unficable distance shown in Ampendix c H there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding tbg FCC gutdehnes The o tables and graphs apply to the following wireless antennas: (1)cellular omm-directional ant mr ae(Table B 1-1 and Figure B 1-i);(2)cellular sectorized antennas(Table 111-2 and Figure o B 1-2);(3)broadband PCs sectorized antennas(Table BI-3 and Figure B 1-3);"and(4)high- power(900 MHz-band)paging antennas(Table BI-4 and Figure B 1-4). Table BI-4 and Figure BI-4 can also be used for otnni-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 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 o; 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 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 m 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 tinder the FCC's rules and that all of these channels c are"on"simultaneously,an unlikely scenario.This is a very conservative assumption. In reality, 2 most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power and many sites use fewer then '? 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 rn reasons,the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative and £ c should over-predict actual exposure levels. c m a v L_ O O E N "ERP is the apparent a five amount of power leaving the transmit antenna. The ERP is determined by factors m including but not limited to aansminer output power,coaxial line loss between the transmitter and the antenna,end in the"gain"(focusing affect)of the antenm. In some cases,power may also be expressed in torts of EIRP(effective isotropically tsdiated power). Therefore,for convenience,the tables in Appendix B also include a column for M EIRP. ERP and EIRP era related by the mathematical expression: (1.64)X ERP®EIEP. a L 'r Because broadband PCs antennas are virtually always sectorized,no information is provided for omni-directional i j PCs antenrim. c v 12 s U A a 35 Packet Pg.460 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF 6 Z d a a ; ii'tlinf rr _ 0 Z a v • m Power decreases as the distance from the antenna Increases D m c 0 a c 0 Illustration S r m n personal wireless service antennas typically do not emit high levels of RF energy directed above 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 plane 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 any direction other than horizontal,including diagonal or straight down,these"worst case' o distances would be significantly less. o Where unidirectional antennas are used,exposure levels within or outside the horizontal plane in �+ 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 E emissions in undesired directions. rn c C. Multiple Facility Sites. 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 Emits,unless an EA is filed and approved. In such cases,however,calculations of predicted exposure levels and overall evaluation of the site may ° become much more complicated.For example,different transmitters at a site may operate o different numbers of channels,or the operating power per channel may vary from transmitter to g transmitter. Transmitters may also operate on different frequencies(for example,one antenna w may may belong to a PCS operator,while the other belongs to a cellular operator). A large :? number of variables such as these make the calculations more time consuming,and make it ur difficult to apply a simple rule-of-thumb test. See the following illustration. " a t X w c v 13 E t u Q 37 PacketPg:461 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RP d z m WO E `m a a Power decreases as the distance from the antenna Increases M m c O a 0 0 1Bustradon 6 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. (In the illustration above,this N would be the antenna that is mounted lower on the building) Then the values in the tables and graphs in Appendix B may be used as if this were the only antenna at the site,with radiated power equal to the sum of the actual radiatedpower of all antennas at the site. Actual RF s 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 antennas than the applicable distance shown in Appendix B using these assumptions there should be no cause for concem about m exposure exceeding.the FCC guidelines. Ibis is admittedly an extremely conservative procedure, o but it may be of assistance in making a"first cut"at eliminating sites from further consideration. _ 0 N a IV. Conclusion. E E We've highlighted many of the most common concerns and questions raised by the siting of v 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. !" o. As we have explained,when first evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's i 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. m If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded,you may want to evaluate M potential exposure using the methods discussed in Part 111 of this paper and the tables and Sgrues a in Appendix B. If the site in question does not exceed the values,then you generally need look z no further, Alternately,if the values don't pass muster,you may have a genuine concern. But w c m la E L U Q 38 Packet Pg. 462 6.E.c N FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to i2F o Z remember,there maybe other factors(i.e.,power level,height,blockages,etc.)that contribute to o. whether the site complies with FCC guidelines. G If you have questions about compliance,your initial point of exploration should be with the 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 FCC at one of the numbers listed below. Provision of the information identified in the checklist E m in Appendix A may assist the FCC in evaluating your inquiry. n. m w General Information:Compliance and information Bureau,(888)CALL-FCC m m c Concerns About RF Emissions Exposure at a Particular Site:Office of Engineering and °- Technology,RF Safety Program,phone(202)418.2464,FAX(202)418-1918,e-mail rfsafety4fcc.eov o U 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 N Licensing and Site Information Regarding Television Service(Including DTV):Mass Media Bureau,Video Services Division,(202)418-1600 a 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,OLT recently o 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/oct/rfsafety/ u rn c c c m a L_ O O E d N N M .2 z X W c m S E U U A a 89 Packet Pg.463 Date: March 21,2012 d MAR 2 7 2012 To: City of San Bernardino Planning Commission CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO c City Hall DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Q 300 North"D"Street DEPARTMENT San Bernardino,CA 92418 0 N From: John R Bums z° 440 West 17th Street E San Bernardino,CA 92405 i ' a 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 0 associated microwave communications equipment being installed at 1702 North Street, which will be 500 feet from our home. N 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 N microwave,or electromagnetic tower within this community will have a negative impact N on the good health of anyone who lives within 1,312.34 feet of this hazardous equipment. m Cell Phone Towers emit microwave radiation and or electromagnetic fields, which are m known to be harmful to human health. The closer a person lives to a Cell Phone Tower, 2 the higher the risk for potential disease,such as Cancer and other harmful health risks. c 0 Cancer studies in Germany an the U.S. for the past ten years indicate a high percentage of 2E Cancer in human beings who live within 1,312.34 feet of Cell Phone Towers. (Dangers of E Living Near Cell Phone Towers-By Michele Tometta,eHow 5123/11) v° rn 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. 0 0 Hopefully you will consider alternative remote areas, tall building tops, or areas already m established as communications sites. t It would also be in the best interest of the City of San Bernardino and its Residents if a 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 v — E m a 40 Packet Pg:4fi4 DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE TOWERS RAISED 6.E.0 3! ,.. Z - EAST COUNTY MAGAZINE s Q Published on East County Magazine(http://eastcounlymagazine.ora) N Home>DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE TOWERS RAISED o Z E DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE TOWERS RAISED 0 More November 2008 Articles Health News 0 Share/Save (1 0 r La Mesa Council holds hearing Nov. 5 on proposal to erect cell phone tower in Lake Murray area N 0 By Miriam Raftery N N When Mom asked me to look into possible health hazards posed by 1 y t \ cell phone ` panel antennas that a church in her neighborhood wants to put up, I expected o° �l to find reassuring facts to allay Mom's concerns. Instead, I found o l deeply disturbing data that makes me wonder why the public is not y ;. being informed ( f about health risks—and why our government seems intent on covering o \ L_.Ct up \ troubling truths. E Cell phone companies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration a assert that cell phone towers don't pose health risks to the public. Some studies o support this assertion, but other studies suggest just the opposite. o Harvard-trained Dr. Andrew Weil at the University of Arizona's medical E center recently observed, "In January 2008, the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, issued a report saying that we simply don't know enough about the potential health risks of long-term exposure to RF energy from cell phones a themselves, cell towers, television towers, and other components of our communications s system. The scientists who prepared the report emphasized, in particular, the LU 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 U http://eastcountymagazine.org/print/138 Page 1 of Q 41 Packet Pg. 465 DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL YHONETOWERS RAISED 6.E.c 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. a Q a A 2006 report issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) o offered some reassurance and found no scientific evidence that radiofrequency signals from cell towers cause adverse health effects. The report noted z 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 health in the more than 50 years that radio and TV broadcast stations have a been operating. m But an Australian study found that children living near TV and `o FM broadcast towers, which emit similar radiation to cell towers, developed leukemia at three times the rate of children living over seven miles away. `o U 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 from cell phone towers and other sources. z U A 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 0 feet) of a cell phone transmitter—and seven out of eight cancer victims y were women. Both studies focused only on people who had lived at the E same address for many years. o 0 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 L Astoundingly, the federal government does not allow rejection of a cell phone tower based on health risks, according 0 to a 2005 article. A 0 Google search found no evidence that this situation has changed. m Yet over 1.9 million cell phone towers and antennae have been approved nationwide without federal studies to assure safety of those living nearby. s X w How many cell phone towers and antennas are in your neighborhood? Find out at www.antennasearch.com. I E L U R http://eastcountymagazine.org/print/238 Page 2 of a 92 Packet Pg.466 DANGERS OF LIVING NEAR CELL PHONE TOWERS RAISED 6.E.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 for new towers within four miles of my home! z So how about Mom's neighborhood, where an Evangelical church insists a a new tower is needed? Mom gets perfectly fine cell phone reception, and so C 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 attention to this potential risk to public safety? r If you wish to share your views on the T-Mobile proposed cell phone tower at 5777 Lake Murray Blvd. (near Marengo Avenue), the La Mesa City Council will S hold a public meeting on Wednesday, November 5th at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers os at the La Mesa City Hall, 8130 Allison Ave., La Mesa. _ U N Source URL(retrleved on 03/21/2012- 13:15): http://eastcountymauazine oralcell phone towers 236 a 0 m 0 c 0 N N E E 0 U rn c c M a v s 0 0 E m m m M a r X w c v E t u n http'.//eavmuntymagazine.org/print/I38 Page 3 of Q 43 Packet Pg.467 Invlslble Radl.u.o Dangers Of Cell Towers 6.E.0 317 O MOM Z o Sul' lR016Yrti:pg su o Z E d a Search l y -- 7 m C Home I STORE I EMF METERS I EHS I FAQ I PRODUCTS I Contact Us I View Cart a c 0 U s........................s .. � r m Sign up for our FREE EMF • r ea heeler Invisible Radiation Dangers Of Cell Towers "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. N They are focused solely on the quality of cell phone service that they Name I receive each day. Cell phone towers emit an electromagnetic field that m Email . spreads low-level radiation throughout neighborhoods. While these fields �a �W ^ : are invisible to the naked eye, the damage caused from radiation from these R Phone . cell towers are not. o • 0 o Questions:("'° Electromagnetic fields have have reported health concerns because tumors .N called acoustic neuroma were discovered growing from inside the ear canal. E wbsnrlie Naw ; The Research Center for Wireless Technology has polled physicians, E o i scientists, and the World Heath Organization and all of these professionals u ........................i 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- m frequency electromagnetic fields can lead to permanent damage to DNA, Testimonials I noted specifically in brain and sex cells. Low-frequency radiation is emitted 0 o from many electronics devices that are used in homes everyday, such as cell m Airtube Headsets phones, microwave ovens, bluetooth headsets and personal laptop 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. a z 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 m http://www.emPoews.org/Invlslble-Radlatfon-Dangers-OT-Cell-TOwers.hlml Page I of Q 44 Packet Pg.466 Invisible Radiation Dangers Of Cell Towers 3/ towers to be projected from their buildings, because many business owners Radiation Slog 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 c Speaking Engagements bioelectric activity. a Q Other results from studies completed in Germany at the Neurological M Hospital of the University of Freiburg show that the high frequencies ° emitted from cell phone towers lead to a significant increase in blood 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 a susceptible to brain damage because their skulls are still soft, and not much U will hinder these signals from getting in and causing damage. tMre rr�lal The invisible radiation dangers of cell towers are evident by the number of o a e Wo id• people that are diagnosed each day with symptoms of low-grade radiation Imoftm poisoning. The damage from this type of poisoning is shown in tests to be o M�„( "�"i t on a cellular level. These tests show exposure to radiation in areas where o �^]ipey� ,>--j""rr mobile phones are placed on the body, mainly the head and midriff regions 4"'awa iYit.�" of the body. All associated organs in these areas of the body showed °r TM evidence of electromagnetic radiation poisoning. The cell phone chip that is w found in cell phones, bluetooth headsets, and home appliances was found to c be the cause for this low-grade radiation exposure. People can protect themselves from this type of radiation exposure by s In 24 hours time you will learn using cell phone accessories that were designed to block the more about amps,cell phone electromagnetic field radiation. Airtube headsets will protect people from 2 radiation, cell towers and how to the harmful radiation emitted by a cell phone or personal digital assistant. d protect yourself than 98%of the 9 world. Get your digital ebook The artube headset can also reduce the cognitive impairment and cancer o now. risk associated with radiofrequency radiation exposure. Qlink pendants can m block larger amounts of harmful radiation that come from the invisible A 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 E and mobile phones. ) c c c m "Revolutionary New Technologies Protect You from the Harmful Effects of Cell Phone Radiation, o Computers, Bluetooth Headsets, Microwave Ovens, o Cordless Phones, and other Wireless Technologies-" Click on any of the pictures below 2 to learn more N M t y Qr�alla. ILI E /JV ? O E L f r U y ht tp:/JWVw-ronfnews.org/Invls Ible-Radfatlon-Dangers-Of-Cell-Towers.html Page 2 of Q 45 Packet Pg. 469 Radiation&Chlldren-PARENTS ACT-Parents Against Cell Towers 6.E.0 3/2 N O PARENTS ACT - Parents Against Cell Towers o. a Q awamaemasnnm,..nuw+�.'�.wnwnwnuamnar,scw.xammevwmw�suwwevaysuxwu,vnm ..+uaa,mvRafw•+.�w=jriweww.ura�ra.mwe»arwtmaacrosaamxn: t"t O N Home Expert on Radiation Warns of Dangers of Cell Towers Near Schools 6 Protect our Children "There is increasingly strong evidence the About Us r�, ,. e�n,., prolonged exposure to radl0frequenc7 a S1pp radiation, such as that from radio and can N Press Releases towers, increases the risk of leukemia, ant Nukincf Take Our Poll ,� = that prolonged use of a cell phone hale c C @l)Ydwe!( Radiation&Children t ° ;f,. Our against the head increases the risk of brair a - Harm cancer. It is foolish and dangerous to put e o Cell Towers on Schools 'M S I cell tower on a school where children wil Fact Sheet t nf3> f' be exposed cwnstan0y to radiofrequenct m radiation." Contact ParentSACT N �._......_._._...,.._____.------ David O. Carpenter, M.D ry Director, Institute for Health and the r6 N Environment University at Albany m (_ g View full retort by Dr.Carpenter and international team of scientists that wam of the risk to d human health due to increased exposure to electromagnetic radiation such as t et mitted by callo towers(click h L�, o m m Cancer Cluster Found In Canadian School Surrounded by Cell Towers E E We know cell towers emit enormous amounts of radiation,more than cell phones, yet school t j officials want to build them on and near Schools! Watch the news renort below and read on rn c cancer clusters near cell towers in Great Britain 'E C M a v E 0 0 E d M rn M s L W C E E r u m http:/iparenrsaa.weebly.mmiradlation--chlldren.html Page 1 of. Q 46 PacketPg.470 Radiation&Children-PARENTS ACT-Parents Against Cell Towers 31 ff"E"C.r TIMES Z d a Cancer Clusters at Phone Masts M Daniel Foggo Q From The Sunday Times - April 22,2007 0 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. a m Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer,brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure withil M 3 radius of 400 yards of mobile phone masts. m c 0 One of the studies, in Warwickshire,showed a cluster of 31 cancers around a single street.A quarter of v 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 n The 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 ant unusual",N 0 N Phone masts have provoked protests throughout Britain with thousands of people objecting each week ro to planning applications.There are about 47,000 masts In the UK. N s U Or 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 v potential link between the angle of the beam of radiation emitted from the masts'antennae and illnesses discovered in local populations. I] c 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 E suggest a rise E in cancers close to masts. In 2005 Sir William Stewart,chairman of the Health Protection Agency, said he t j found four such studies to be of concern but that the health risk remained unproven, rn c Source:http://w ..timesonline.co.uk/fol/news/uk/artic%168749I.eceA' c m a d L 0 Create a free website with 0 E d A y M a t w u c m E z U m http:/IparentSaa.wmbly.wm/radiation--childfen.htmi Page 2 of Q 47 E1 1�s�kt �T1a$ RF Safety and Had01 Stu l-GII Towers and Safety 6.E.0 3/g N Starch Z to U 4 a N SallYtold l/aallh thtdln-Cap TawM and Sdny/HOME O o RF SAFETY AND HEALTH STUDIES - CELL TOWERS AND SAFETY -- -- ° Foal The Celblar ROSe5t Lion Z Part 2.Radio Freer M n,EfOOly Exdeined « ..�I wen•+b•Hn Patti ItF Safety AM Watth Stokes Part d-Enerav OOidrllres fa RF Eatxoure a m RF SAFETY AND HEALTH STUDIES j Rrn,Ilust gat nphom mars" A freeuent concern is RP safety the threat of cancer caused hem exposure to RF Moment.Studies Me short tam expauxe C /romawamanatcrown Cetlla have shown little to nor evidence that IF energy con head to the doweAgment Of CA"At the levels toed in'WhitMr O soyod Ve,yeareedtoga ahead hammiseem,Even M substantially higher levels,only a few laboratory tests have reported a possible correlation between i6 with Jon nevbM Imwatan Monte and RF safety kvets in test animals,but these leas hem failed attempts at mchma ion.Some of these studies C additional SvaxfmaanEwlll m have shown•theler5 A Career cases in areas may call lowers.Critics Cpmter that these Cases are of many various Hn& O s°"ding lMpopenll of Career,end it Is highly tudill that they share a common Case.Further,with the shed number M Cell towers in use, V ((hector it wos A add des statistics suggest that Finding such clusters by chance is inevitahle. A m anyway,Rory tMnbagaln/w Many experts,including the American Cancer Salary,say that them is little theoretical reason to helieM that RF expswre your he(p. can Mad to Career.And similar nonibermal effects.The problem is that,AS cell planes are a relatively new technology, N not enough time has elapsed ha longterm shy ills.Several agaeiWlims have taken a cwlionory stance an OF safety until Robert hen ladies crown such studies Can ud perlonn ed.The lnlernatmeaL Association W Fire Fighter lwf)adopted a rem Wkn to oppose base CMtArLMra ArMEAmMIew - N Aloud"antennas being instMletl m any FlreM1pK,In 199A,tiling sewnal z[udles dlowby posJhle M1MaIU rskz M1Om Ill' C6 rFnpMoRf IFSruanwut .'Penile'for erdA many le am nudies sere themselves,at levels much higher Jun used in car @der transmissluns, or N - atlterwlsefalned on mobile and cord!¢sspMxs[hemselves,not cellWazoase staliaro. L U Following recent moves in various councilors m enact raamruadald,about OF safely against excessive Cell phone use by , .I.$.MMY have also started to call againt base sake,filling erected an tell of schools.Often.lhmr reasons arc TI f«used pis potential asks of Call phone use rather than thou comernme the Also stations.It Is hnpalant to maoniber d that many All IM cancer,over wealle phones themselves stem Irmo the fact that they beam RF energy to A targeted ill Portion of the heatl-As base dough radiate their energy outward,there Is ra Arad Iwlspot of exposure.Some atom ors 0 note that IaanAMn antennas(which eperete at much higher tariffs than Cliff twrcfs)have Amid to show any long term C O health risks,despite being Arnold for ove _well r fifty Years. b ,_ For the purpose d shot term exposure,the scientific Commtoi y(Aft a consem,that the RF energy onitted by base E ilMbns Is sale As long as it follows gmdoiin.set by regulatory mantel,such m We FCC.Fee it will be,spew lime before E Iorg term studies can be Conducted pis RF safety levels. O U There are ai ulaloy reeuiremenb that huildim owners with cell star ton,should be aware At and coteerned with.Our C related law firm,Ludt Taxer At[ornev,can help building owners considering leasing 1paea have alreaaykased space to 'C A wevot.s'Mries. C , a tladlm on fir r+ergv have heen y msgffnY lax deisdies. The resents Y nl many W the caller 'opals O mWered the gMdothes eventually « adopted by the FCC aM Other O ,instrumental 'ercl In "in. y 1 r..me s. Swdles relining m coil rL twea base s[aataw, Iwwcva, none beets hdrowenp Iagdy due « W the dipkWly, In accurately fn determining indl,el ' levels of t+f OF exp,oe. a .s Commonly cued questionnaire -x X ft=2007 sdfered from this very W Asks.. Participant luined 'yT� f' •• adunlarily,after being ism npl of the survey thimtgh Press, mdio 1dI, E and web sites.ftueshons included O hltp:(/wvmr.steellnlhealr.mmlolltamr101/rf-safery.html Page 1 of Q 48 Packet Pg.472 RF safety and Health Studies-Cell Towers and Safely 3121112 1:18 1:18 PM age. gender, qunplams, aid the y Ixrtkipant's mtimaled distance ry tram base sWOOm. Thos Irvine ,St 'I mare than BUD meters away were O mrsidered a..(.canto group. Z R Multiple sArol0.were upmted 47 d uP l0 200 meters away.irclWin9 6 Imuua,irritability and headaches. ' Q leading the authors to advise that ro 'bas!smttuns dmuH aim be died ch. than 300 nmin. to J kwpulaliora. Ira nner, many `S O Oburven noted naming thellhood 'I Z I of participation blas, as chase y E . responding to the survey ` N nn rwuncemenls wire food, , _ a already concerned about the @ Impact of have stations al RF salny.Fuller.tholluedwairwor, 7 attempted to 8nk distance from t ^` e"?�ry„ _ C thwen with smawe. &.do, O to the Journal of Expostxe Analysis and Ensfi.td Epidemlolow, "R would be fmpmapre, to conduct mthariologkal Investigations based an aoxhnity,to mobile phone Was statism shise this exposure metric Is a Bran G zmmgale far an firo ns.al's astral...I.redta waves' O U T.speciffialt,.bleu.Nis issue,ume ladies attempt to militate base ataden exMore in s tell en howan nt.Once such r 2006 ItudysubjeclM a total.1117 M1ealthysublects 133who identified lhenmelvesasnora tiro fa RF radiation,and 81 who OI were non-sendlim)to Base StulomRke exposure.The double blind sessions were held At I week intervals,and M1ed at r The same time of dayeazh smsbn. N The study found no clarrin on for RF safely between well being and perceived strength with the actual esppwre level.In C general.the Sammy.snh ects missiles mare health watAerm and ercelved hi N g 1 pot p higher Held strength in all conditions.al 10 vfm,the speed p2dam'I'm for one of six ranks slowed fof the sensitive"Asha'ls, while azcumcy was affected in is W N 'RDYate talk far VIe h.modul! gmao. IIOwMef, Will effects drunnow.ed alter mldlltle end point adJ.mWA L (srMMIIrg they were due merely to chance). @ Mal other commonly cited studies have fnused on mobile phones,themselves.Whore the results have been inconclusive and mined,their significance 10 Base scandal rhl.themselves Is limited,As mobile phones produce a much mare targeted y radiation,affecting a iisocific po,It.ail the body directly.and at chase range.Oespite these differem<s,sail studies ere jd ultra held tot as examples of research demonstrating possible health hazards from cell towers.Confusing the Issue further are crancenn minter,on tower Imes and the magrretk gelds they produce. Although some studies have sugai a Increased rates in childhood leukemia near power firms, the Eleclramagneric Fields (n EMF) they m note sunk in O y fundamentally,different set co ways nom RF energy a power Is mt. ,such as pee stations,as they don not pfaMCe urn Ionizing m radiation,nrd do awl continue to ably once the power Is cud. E E An exanpk of the frequent conflation of these different sources M radiation as revealed in the recently released O 0ialnittalWa Report,Issued the 81o1niluam waking G.V.A laudation of sawnt{sts,..,,he.and public health policy U profeasknals.It caabded that through en.In sampling bias.mldnl,,Wet3 ml of date,and funding has that uwnv of C the Andin were llawed,while simdta nswity pointing to Mher studies that bad drawn possible tons to non-thermal 'E health fida. C @ The repair nmkes little delineation between ENF and RF energy,stdngmg Weather sections dealing with a"OF the other a wirhoul making clear reference to the differences,and suggesting f.dings concerning we are relevam to the other. L Several whounatlans(Including W.rape,,ak,al the remunl M wolf.,eovemmmnts)respmded to the repot and :etermined that It Whiner Introduced raw evidence,mr supported in ctahns with dmnnntrable sdenu.These respanes are mmpiled in a View Burnt by the Mpb0e IMnulacmrer's Forum.The Newount amo noted that since the peport was O I Messed in late load,It has cal led to the renew of any of the eAablisludl safety guldetbms used by variant nations. E the cmreM consensus of the uimltBn cummunay,If that that term nudin have lath little.eldest.to kggesl possible It an",,to hnma.hi ffnm rNWler base Stances.HOwnN,(M dow,such a5 C3Are,ttgd{RCant far,Iam Stafe,101 y fen veers or nvxe)must be performed before any defionw,moduslom can ed drawn about OF salary.Be lhu as it may,it fn is wonsiont Ira understand the differences between vadas sources of radiation,and the findbsgs concerning them.Ricks r assaclated with nubile phones to nos norm...at,emend to Base Staff..and risks from the FFF al Dover lines are .:oeWlcd entirely. L L W part 1-the Celhdar Baseilatlon Pant 2-Fadio.Fren 1pncv rinervy Emleioed G 'art)-RF Safety and Health Studies E Parts Enerw(w,id InefmnF loan L V hllp:llwww.steellnthealr..Mlcelltower101/rf-safety.html Page Z Of 3 Q 49 Packet Pg.473 6.E.c What are the Gangers o/Living Near Cell Phone Towers, 3121/1; N_ O Z no 0 CL a M 0 N What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers? z z by www six_ yy�_ £ `m a Over 190 million cell phones are in use in the United States, with users often scrambling to w another room, building or street to get better reception. As consumers, it is frustrating when your cell phone reception gets dropped ° 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 country - depend on for clear reception and a wide coverage area -- safe? -the very ones that we 0 0 This may have been a moot Issue In the past when the towers were sparse and limited to obscure cornfields and hilltops. But the number of these cell "sites," as they're called, has increased tenfold since 1994. Among the more 0 than 175,000 cell sites In the United States are antennas on ! N schools, churches, firehouses, cemeteries and national parks. N There's even a cell tower near Old Falthful in Yellowstone. I I L "Don't Put That Tower Here" tg "Our companies are always running into this conundrum, I which Is, 'We want cell phone service, but don't put that tower here.' When you're dealing with communications .°- through the air, you have to have antennas and towers," said ! Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Assoclation, E the Industry's trade group, £ 0 Aesthetics aside, the primary reason most people don't want ! U cell sites near their homes and communities is because S c they're afraid of the potential health effects. Health, not aesthetics, Is c _n Already, more than 500 cases have sprung up across the the primary reason why a ppose cell country in which people have tried to stop cell phone sites residents o from being constructed, according to Washington attorney Ed phone owns.towers in their 3 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 m allow rejection of a tower based on health risks. � Cell Phone Towers: Risky )ky or Not? n If you ask the government, from cell o studies have shown conclusive evidence that radio- a frequency emissions, a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), towers are s harmful. w According to the Food and Drug Administration: c m •-.p://www.slnwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/what are the dangers ot_livin _ ¢ g near cell_phane towers.htm page 1 of 3 50 packet Pg.474 ' What are the Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers? 3 G 11 LGIII10 auu UIV UCI IOVIVl oGW1UCU VY1tI 1111 nvc UGyo, vv nCn LIIC Wvv "Go VI VVyuL back near the antenna, the symptoms returned. 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 $80D to $2,000 a month. This can mean all the difference for an a under-funded school district or church. M 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, z0 came out against the use of firehouses for cell antennas "until a study with the highest £ scientific merit" can prove they are safe. d a r 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." c Recommended Reading 0 Noise Pollution: How Bad is it. How Bad Could It Get. What are the Effects? n Bottled Water: Which City's Tao Water System is Making a Flood of Cash off of You? m _..... ...........---------—.....------- `. N Sources o N Food and Drue Administration: Cell Phone Facts N r Health Effects Associated With Mobile Base Stations in Communities n 2 Are Cell Phone Towers Makina You Sick? •a 0 Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center o c Wired News: Cell Phone Tower Debate Grows 00 0 Mn Extraordinary Behaviors in Cows in Proximity to Transmission Towers E E 0 U rn c c c m a m L_ O O 14 comments Add a comment E v 5hae Dumas•Macon.Georgia 1 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 M know if there Is even a connection but It definitely has sparked my curiosity. Reply•Like•November 3,2011 at 7;58pm n L W u - - 143 TWO" 2 0 Email to a Friend ®Print This j w E t U N http://wwwslawlse.com/newsletters/05/09/18/what are the dangen MJIWnprpN,yhonttowm.Mm Page 3 of Q 51 D � � � 6.E.c 2012 D March 24,2012 By— — zo To: a0 City of San Bernardino Planning Commission a 300 North"D" Street San Bernardino,CA. 92418 ° N O From: z Daisy Kirkmon E 430 W. 17'h Street a San Bernardino,CA. 92405 y Re: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03,Ward#2 2 v 0 0 v This letter states the following reasons why I am against the construction of a 65 foot tall, camouflaged mono-palm tower and associated microwave communications equipment being installed at 1702 N."D"Street and 420 W. 17'h Street. N 1. I have grave concerns because of my closeness to this structure. I live at 430 W. 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 person for the harmful effects of a tower that will emit microwave/radiation or pose any other dangers to ones health. 3. Several days a week,my great grand children spend long periods of time with me. o They play in my back yard. This would put a 6 year old and an eleven year old in a tremendously dangerous position. I feel that this is very unfair to them. .° 4. The owner of the proposed property does not live on or anywhere near the site. He H 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. o L) rn 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, indeed,my hope that you will rule against the structure and I thank-you in advance. w t 0 0 Sincerely, E ll m Daisy Kirkmon n Long time resident " of 430 W. 17'h Street a x w u' c m E z U A a 52 f' efte Pe°t!6 EXHIBIT 4 ¢ John C°um,Chair N Lar,H hq,Vice-Chair L. iB JDu n CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO z Laze Du And,e m.,&a COMM(INITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT m E•M�� Amelia a Lopez O GeorgeBawa 300 North "D"Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 a Dan C.Jimenez Phone:(909)384-505715071 • Faz:(909)384-5080 Q Bob Brown,Alt w, 0 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 R (SUBDIVISION No. 11-02)&DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2 NO. 11-04 `o v DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 12-01 0 U GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-02, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19369 m (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 V N M O N d J C_ -O d 0 O 6 O- C 1 O .y N E { E 0 { U � rn { O C R a 1 ' v .2 x w c (�J m V L u R Q Page 1 of 5 03/28/2012 �Pg:477 EXHIBIT 4 r Chair Coate called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 6 Z Vice-Chair Heasley led the flag salute. o CL Present: Commissioners Coate, Duff, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, Mulvihill and Rawls. $ Excused: Absent: Brown. Staff present: M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director; 4 Henry Empeiio, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney; Tony Stewart, City Planner; Aron Liang; Senior Planner and Daren Maynard,Planning Aide. z° E ADMINISTRATION OF OATH d a Aron Liang administered the oath. CONSENT AGENDA: 0 M. Margo Wheeler, Community Development Director, recommended the meeting minutes of February 22,2012 for approval. v Chair Coate made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of February 22, 2012. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Coate, Duff, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen c and Mulvihill.Nays:None. Abstain: Rawls. Absent: Brown. a PUBLIC COMMENTS-ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA 4 No comments. N PUBLIC HEARINGS o N 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 E associated equipment stored within an existing commercial building, located at 1702 w N. "D" Street and 420 W. 17th Street in the Commercial Office (CO) and Residential 'o Suburban (RS) land use districts. a n Q Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15303 — New o Construction of Small Structures W Owner: Zecharia&Malca Hovav E E Applicant: John G. Beke, MetroPCS 0 APNs: 0145-091-01,25 Ward: 2 m 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 z 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.478 EXHIBIT 4 _N O John Motley,380 W. 17'h Street,provided a prepared document to the Planning z Commission, discussing objections of neighborhood residents and explained his o disagreement with the Findings of Fact listed in the Staff Report. o a_ M Commissioner Lopez inquired about whether the property owner has been contacted about N property maintenance of the existing facility. o Z _ John Motley explained to the Planning Commission that the neighborhood has not been able E to get ahold of the property owner regarding maintenance issues and have not had a chance to a" meet with the applicant. m Commissioner Jimenez inquired about how many residents were represented in the o neighborhood. a c O John Matley explained that 2 or 3 of the residents have submitted letters of opposition and 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 M aware of property maintenance issues on the subject property. H o. Debbi Matley,380 W. 17th Street,introduced herself as the local neighborhood association D 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 w project. Mr. Hovav also stated an objection to Condition of Approval#16. 'c Commissioner Mulvihill, asked Mr. Hovav if he's ever met with local residents regarding � their concerns. 0 a a a Zecharia Hovav stated that he had never been contacted by residents regarding concerns and $ that he would support having a working relationship with local neighbors. Mr. Hovav y provided information on previous and future improvements to the properties. E 0 Commissioner Lopez inquired with the property owner on whether the property was occupied or vacant. E S Zecharia Hovav stated that the property had current tenants operating business but that the a buildings were not fully occupied at the current time. v a Chair Conte inquired on the percentage of occupancy the structures have currently. x w Zecharia Hovav clarified that approximately 55 to 60 percent of the units were occupied. v E \FYI W a Page 3 of 5 03/28/2012 `Packet Pg.479 EXHIBIT 4 N Daisy Kirkmon,430 W. 17'" 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 o great grandchildren. a a M Commissioner Mulvihill asked Ms. Wheeler about the density of the palm fronds N camouflaging the monopole. o Z M. Margo Wheeler stated that Condition of Approval#13 addressed this matter. E d a Commissioner Jimenez inquired about what the positive economic impact the proposed w project will have on the City. m 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 c refuted the claim that the facility will negatively affect the service provided by other carriers. m Commissioner Rawls asked staff for comments or concerns regarding the modification of Conditional of Approval#16. 0 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. Commissioner Rawls asked staff if any other alternatives were agreed upon with the applicant. 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. ° a a a 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 'y 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 located in residential areas. c m Tony Stewart indicated that similar wireless facilities near residential areas did exist. ii e Henry Empeifo advised the Planning Commission on federal laws that prevent the denial of a wireless telecommunication facilities solely on health effects. x w Vice-Chair Heasley made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03. m E a Page 4 of 5 03/28/2012 Packet Pg.480 .. . .. ..... . . .... i EXHIBIT 4 3 N ' © .Commissioner Jimenez seconded the motion i G Z The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Conte, Heasley, Jimenez, Lopez, Machen, o Mulvihill and Rawls.Nays: Durr.Abstain: None. Absent: Brown. o a_ M M. Margo Wheeler explained that the action was final in absence of an appeal submitted within N the next 15 days. 0 Z Minutes Adopted by Commissioners: Conte,Durr,Heasley,Lopez,Machen and Mulvihill Date Approved: April 25, 2012 ` Minutes Prepared by: m N A C Melissa Thurman ° Executive Assistant a c 0 U r rn M 0 N a L) U N Mr W N M O N d C_ d O 6 6 a 0 y N E E 0 U m c c m a a a L W C ° L A a Page 5 of 5 03/28/2012 Packet Pg.481 B.E.e l EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Community Development Department,Planning Division 300 North"D"Street, 3`d Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 San Beroar ino Phone(909)384-5057 a Fax(909) 384-5080 Web address: www.sbeity.org N APPLICATION FOR APPEAL N APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE(check one) z0 m m • Community Development Director a • Development/Environmental Review Committee a ® Planning Commission o N Case number(s): Conditional Use Permit No. 12-03 0 Z Project address: 1702 N. °D" Street and 420 W. i7th street E `m a Appellant's name: MetroPCS California, LLC c/o Jeffrey Clarke a Appellant's address: 350 commerce, suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 G 0 Appellant's phone: 714-730-3242 v c Appellant's e-mail address: jclarke®metropcs.corn 0 Contact person's name: MetroPCS California, LLC c/o John Bake 0r' Contact person's address: 2280 Market Street, Suite 320 Riverside, CA 92501 0 Contact person's phone: 909-896-0945 u Contact person's e-mail address: jbeke®metropca.com ° a Q m m a Q N d 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. c m Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common E 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. a OFFICE USE ONLY 'Date appeal filed: OU ID 19 - - - ,.�. . (Received by: l u;aa gq Packet Pg.482 REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR AN APPEAL Specific action being appealed and the date of that action: March 20th 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 mradiation^ from cell towers 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 emmiaeione. N O Z Specific grounds forthe appeal: We belive that the PC let the emotional issues, of radio frequency emissions and y a the testimony of an emotional resident saying she will have to move because of her fear of "radiation*, cloud O. 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 r• G the facts surrounding the case all point to the site being well designed and appropriate. The Z "palm" is amongst many taller live palms, is in a commercial zone, meets all setback. and code requirements. a m m Action sought: Overturn the March 20th PC denial of COP 12-03 and the deletion of condition 16, a requirement — m to place the coaxial cable inside the wall of the existing building. The public has insignificant visibility to the O interior courtyard where the cable tray is proposed. Further, the cable tray is proposed to be colored and textured c O to match the existing building. U Co Co n C O Additional information: MetrmPCS has over one million customers in the greater Los Angeles area. In the n _u City of San Bernardino, we have 25-,683 customers, there are 22 authorized retailers of metroPCS a o. products and services which employ 47 persons. MetroPCS needs this Bite to continue to Q provide our m a cell service including 4G LTa services. existing and future customers with world class affordable a The Federal communications Commission(FCC) prohibits a decision making body from considering health concerns Q N in the decision making process. we believe the PC did rely on the emotional testimony regarding "zadlat ion" fears a L of the three persons 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, cc that meets the development standards of both the zone and the city's wireless facilities ordinance, t u m is in a commercial zone, is 10' under the height limit and has the equipment located inside C the existing building. Signature of appellant: Date:6/` 2 11/04 65 PacketPg.483 ) 15 z 2 \ § \ 7M k p .2 9 / CL z / / { $ ! co nE § - \{ \ — � 0 { $ _ » k � a . � 7 \ 66 y -, - . ? © � �»®�: » � � �» ■ « \ < m @ 0 2 = f . § 67 �_R_ 6.E.e 0 N C , 0 t Z 0 a wgp O r O Z y U a a t t X W C E z 67 n U � � n O 4 ♦� t1 'lY fiR PacketPg:486 CJ C& low 9 � '•.sn L\ rvSl 1 Z M }S A n i Q � a 4 � C Z r m � ® t C 41 W P( W �U LIQ z n > n n a a 's x � a W x c� 69 PacketPg.487 } F 4 n .. L LLlA �� •a R i ti r. a gS e ■ a i 'o p 6 p 1 ♦ " W b 8 P9. q _ a IL Ll LU �iryR $x e W' Ic . . �� / ; - b - Ln ) � � ; . � w , % : E ^ 71 �mR _ E � � �\ ■E 2 \���� � \ \« ! � - : & / \ » \ } k . \ d \ � ,\ \ w 0. « ( r - � � \ � - Ln \ \� 0 \ » § § % A \ < :. _ 72 «Packet Pg._ ((MU'oNI Wft MZVON A=Od KO lvuompuo :Low (clod 5-11)Lk u81sa0 anllawailtl/o uoOalnwlS'oloVd-9iIVIVx39uawyaeNtl a� N W J m u W ❑ a ° � o ° a � a li i E m t L W t ry m W QLL Q W m a Z F Z Z W l9 W Z W m I� V o Ls� YI Q o z Q 0 N J = m v V v \(a_w MU,__, r _+�_,__r ■\ !� �\ 2E a� � \ } g ) O , § a \ � | LL ` « L ! y F ! ) « � \ coQ w • - . � , � § Q ts > ts > � J f § � � } V V �4 Q, .� k z V m (IZo Zt'oN I..ddtl)CO-Z -N 11w1ad asp leuoinpmp:16L4) (SSaJdADOUOW)Z#U6190a angeWMIV)O U01POWIS-0104d-L 1!414x3:ryaw4OeUtl m n i caw y A u � E ) HE am a a� N N W m °a a N o Z Z p f ❑ p e. m m Q i Z K i W 0 K Q W Z4 ry� W � X Z W °z y r W N ° O ' > Y^I Q o z aoN V U _ . ((Zo ZI'oN leAdV)ED-U-N H--d asp luuoglpuop Zp u611a1 a`Wulallllo uolWW-1101-ld-L 1!914x3 lu..Wo 4v a V�°3 E w xq ``a r� C 0 e e i 3 Ln s N W m a EL N ❑ ❑ Z z F z a w m z Q j W � Z w 4 z R W N °❑ U ❑ � Q ❑ z Q ❑ N T ❑ I V .0 t� t V rt l ; ((MZL'oN Ia ft WU-N NNNad H NImgNWOp:LOW OWI-n)6N Bsa°angewapltll uo lelnw 15 olo4d-BI!4!4x3:IUaw4oeAtl n i m cow co a] s e B i A c E 5F F 9 N 0 N J � � z I w a Y m � Q � Z 4 F W " o Z w w z 0 1wL ° J YI Q F R ° Z Q O N T O J I II i x ) V PlU-A oN la.ddV)MZI oN 11w1ad as°leeo!1!Pyo°:(6(41 (llaaw°)£#u615a°anllewwltl to uo IelnwB'oloyd'B L9!Vx3:IUawyae9y m m E N C °v i ca E � Nt� amt a rW N �w W Z ° £ � 0 Z 4 I m 33 Q L Z FL E 't LW Do/yam Z w S N � a In Q p ° Q ❑ o J I V V : 1 6.E.i m c (� z a9pm d§pc yR S ��p§ i It O A S O Z m lilt, At c c �g� tlai9 tSA � g4 ( � Aigt m t/) S� Z z In - j z 00 Q c D .§ppiR FaE @E§§t $ t I i R��i c.) m p 4st p s rb ss�,yy9PPpB gg a z p O, 1 Ip r *11 rn j...., :`j it s A x pg� ps � i w M t P � s a a Ail gF � ,o All & y�W gib $4 i9 r .. Alt § u - 15 $a� 3ayi z m m a a Q M � O 17 O � Z ✓ai A I � C O s c A � r s x -o- tax r[r W C d L U A p Q 9g[Alll Luzs PacketPg:.498 . C)®O®®®®® g®®bg y®i0®0�� 0p0 g0 a�y� y0�g a000g00g0 g00g ®0 c i @�;F,q }d �d ��d fpv i�d 1 dRepd�d'd � � � IlAlll Ra'pd d�d d� lA iI 3 a d[It d S � t 0 Is z m a n M ll O p( r L_ a A ® _ F c r t } __ xY STRReT N �' x W a EDZ z a D = - v - Packet Pg, 499 �^ � ®r��®®®®®d®®e®0000©oo e 000a000000'o �✓ ;d#° � ° i ° ; �°#° J i li 9 01111i if a a 1 a s ®y®py©yfi�g®ge9©©gamg®oy®y®a®^� ® ® Z � a • t' a 1Ea �N q �s P e Z P m E _J _ o • 1 � a V EEE V v.n' Pn' f-T Y Y n• I t.Y r r .•. n• Y g I s9Eian till 0i 99 93r 5 �Z � y� ��•p� § # Ettftitf. E Z Rig 'Fig N5� r ' E 4 E $ i i Q d N � 5 , � JIM LL]]oil '8 UP 'Packet Pg. 500 6.E.i .r gg �1 R IF , 1 O gg 99gg � � v c E m �w' a ail gJ114y 1 a W e , c� e A N $ 9 eS W ui I N 811 60