Item 6 - PH/Cell Towers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 .... i From A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S GUIDE TO T .RANSMITTING ANTENNA RF EMISSION SAFE IY: RUL_FS, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE (FCC~ "Moreover, the limits (On RF exposure) 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 with the guidelines is potentially verY serious, and .the FCC has therefore implemented procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. At the same time, state and 'local governments may wish to · verify compliance with the FCC's exposure limits IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR OWN CITIZENS." The City seems to be verY accepting of the industry's affirmation of comPliance, but is the City Considering the cumulative effect of multiple antenna array? Is the City . aware that the FCC has inadequate capability to monitor or enforce compliance.~ Has the City considered its exposure to litigation from its own citJzens? Appendix A of'the above-referenced FCC publication, under Evaluation Required If~ states: "Personal Communications Services, building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP." The situation just described serids out serious signals that the City has been remiss in the area of compliance. See Attachment C, Berjac Bldg. .. 'EC 9.5750(6)(a) 2. "Documentation demonstrating compliance with non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) standards as set forth by the FCC..." The FCC's standards do not address NIER specifically. The relevant FCC standards are based upon Maximium Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radio frequency radiation at specific power densities. The Code's reference to NIER in this context suggests a flawed understanding of RF principles.' Code language should use proper terminology. EC 9.5750(6)(a) 8. "Signature of property owner(s) on the application form or a statement from the property owner(s) granting authorization to proceed with the development and land use processes." Current code lacks any provision that would require the' telecommunications tenant to make their landlord aware of his/her potential future liabilities, including costs for removal if it becomes defunct. Having reviewed a number of telecommunications leases, we have found it is fairly common practice for the wireless tenant to make his landlord potentially responsible for costs of future removal of the fadlity should it become defunct. We propose that the landlord should be informed of this potential liability at the time he or she signs the application or authorization t° proceed. ~EC 9.5750(6)(a) 9. With respect to ancillary fadlities, whether located on the ground or on a rooftop, site plans should address the need for adequate ventilation of the battery cabinet, and plans to prevent and/or contain leakase of hazardous chemicals. The rationalefor this is prevention of chemical hazards, fires and explosions. Regarding chemical hazards, sulfuric acid is present in a typical telecommunications array of 16 one hundred pound batteries in sufficient quantity IV-76