08-21-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • wireless communications industry has employed a variety of creative design measures to produce . "stealth" facilities (facilities that are not noticeable to the casual observer). Examples of these facilities are located throughout the San Diego region, and include panel antennas mounted on and painted to match existing buildings, communications equipment housed in an architecturally integrated tower element in a shopping center, roof-top antennas screened with walls, and freestanding pole antennas screened by landscaping. For sites which are potentially visually obtrusive, project proponents should submit a good faith analysis of alternative sites to demonstrate why other sites are not technically feasible. Efforts should be made by the wireless communications industry to minimize visual impacts to the extent feasible. For example, providers may consider replacing larger, more visually obtrusive facilities such as monopoles with smaller facilities as technology becomes available. Both cost and time are critical issues to providers. In reviewing permits for wireless communications facilities, agencies should strive to balance their Iocal objectives of minimizing visual impacts with providers' goals to construct facilities in a cost-effective and timely manner. 3. Incorporate the American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standards into the local review and approval process for wireless communications facilities. One major source of local community opposition to wireless communications facilities is the fp perceived health risks associated with electromagnetic field (EMF) levels and radiofrequency radiation (RFR). As previously noted, current studies about long-term EMF and RFR effects are inconclusive. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of EIectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have established standards for safe human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. These standards are considered consensus standards, which are agreed to by committees composed of academic, industry, and governmental representatives. As a_conditinn_f-licensure, P '-• _- -- - _ , - 4 , .-•d PCS-pr-oviders to comply with the ANSI standards. Non-compliance may result in revocation of an FCC license. Federal exposure standards for EMF and RFR levels are being developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which currently uses the ANSI exposure standards as guidelines. Absent federal standards, the ANSI/IEEE exposure standards are currently the most appropriate health and safety guidelines for wireless communications facilities, and should be incorporated into local review and approval requirements. (Current ANSI standards are discussed in Section IV of this paper.) However, the recently-passed Federal Telecommunications Reform Bill HR 1555 requires the government to establish a federal radiofrequency emissions standard within 180 days of the bill's enactment. When considering permits for wireless communications projects, local governmental agencies S should verify compliance with the established ANSUIEEE standards. This may be accomplished by 6