08-13-1996OITY OF RIOHFIELD
Pwmm oommssion
nGEnDR
August 13, 1996
7:00 p.m. -- Study Session
NEW BUjNEBUSINESS . ... ...... ........ ........ .... ................ .
ITEM #1 Traffic Calming - Tom Foley
ITEM #2 Telecommunications Towers and Antennas
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made
at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702."
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: August 2, 1996
TO: Richfield Planning Commission
FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: Traffic Calming
Definition: Traffic calming can be defined as a traffic management tool for residential
streets that is designed to achieve one of the following objectives:
reduce the volume of traffic on a street;
reduce the speed of traffic;
remove through traffic from a residential street; or,
improve safety for residents, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Traffic Calming in Richfield, Residential areas are considered safe when vehicular
traffic is low and the speed of vehicles is slow. There are a number of areas in Richfield
that experience through traffic leaking through residential areas. This pressure from
through traffic is caused by nearby commercial activity centers and the porous grid
system in Richfield that offers many alternate routes for trip making.
There are a number of traffic calming measures that can be used to control speed on
residential streets and improve the aesthetics of neighborhoods. Calming measures are
generally of two types:
measures that slow the speed of traffic; and,
measures that divert traffic to other routes.
When considering traffic calming methods, a word of caution is in order, "Sometimes
the cure is worse than the disease." Any attempt to divert traffic must address the
effect of shifting traffic to other routes. It is important that people realize that traffic will
not simply disappear.
The following article gives a good overview on traffic calming.
TRANSPORTATION
C alming' Traffic
For decades, traffic engineers have worked to make neighborhood streets more efficient. Now, to slow
down cars and restore neighborhood quality, they're working to make some streets less efficient.
BY DOUG LEMOV
eadowbrook Avenue,
which runs east -west
bethveen 12th and 16th
streets near downtown
Phoenix, is the site of one of
the city's most successful recent road -
improvement projects. A popular short-
cut for commuters, it had inadequate
curbing and WiiS too narrow to carry the
more than 1,500 vehicles that used it
daily.
Rather than .widening, striping and re-
paving the street, however, the city
brought Meadowbrook up to speed by
slowing it down. After discussing the
options with residents, Phoenix's Neigh-
borhood Traffic Management Program
inskdled a "diagonal diverter" at the cor-
ner of Meadowbrook
and 14th Place. The
diverter connects the
curbs on the southwest
and northeast corners of
the intersection with a
barrier that restricts pas-
sage from one side to
the other and results in
two reflecting 90 -degree
turns. Effectively, it
shuts down the street to
commuter traffic.
That may have annoyed commuters,
but the neighborhood is delighted.
Before the diverter was put in, recalls
Herb Kanter, president of the Meadow-
brook Neighborhood Association,
motorists roared down the unlined street
at twice the posted speed limit of 25
miles per hour. Parents were reluctant to
allow their children to walk to neighbor-
hood schools. Soon after it was instilled
last year, the diverter had decreased the
daily number of vehicles using Meadow-
brook by 63 percent on the east side of
the diverter and by 87 percent on the
west side.
The solution cost the city next to noth-
ing —some meetings with residents, a
temporary barrier, a few days of testing —
especially compared with the cost of
repaving or widening. And since the city
does not pay for permanent neighbor-
hood traffic Ltures, the price tag for the
structure that swill replace the temporary
barrier— $15,000 to $20,000, including
the cost of the permanent barrier's
desert-style landscaping —will be home
by Meadowbrook residents. Kanter says
the community is applying for a commu-
nity block grant to fund the project.
If traffic problems like Meadowbrook's
are old news, the solution reflects a new
brand of thinking, known generally as
Photograph and drawing ronnr r of Claning Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez. Rinehart
Traffic calming in theory and in
practice: a two -lane angled slow
point (a variation on the choker),
as designed and in use in a
Florida neighborhood.
I ............
traffic calming," that is gaining influence
among traffic engineers and urban plan-
ners. Increasingly, traffic problems are
being eased by making some roadways
less efficient, especially for commuter
traffic. In a sense, traffic calming reverses
decades of work toward maximizing the
speed and efficiency of urban and subur-
ban roadways.
While it may seem to some like a sys-
tematic program for messing up perfectly
good streets, urban planners increasingly
see traffic calming as a long -term way to
redirect traffic to more efficient thor-
oughfares and, in the bargain, restore a
bit of neighborhood quality to residential
areas that have become high -speed com-
muter speedways.
In a larger sense, interest in traffic
calming comes in the wake of the realiza-
tion that building one's way out of traffic
problems can be an unreachable goal.
For years, we genuinely believed that if
August 1996 GOVERNING 25
INTERSEC71ON SLOW POINT
we built adequate roadway space, it
would alleviate our congestion problems,"
says Cynthia Hoyle, a consultant for the
American Planning Association. "We built
roads 20 years ago with the promise that
they would keep traffic running smoothly
into the next century, but they were filled
to capacity within a few years."
With more roads encouraging more
traffic, says Hoyle, and studies showing
that higher speeds do not always mean
greater carrying capacity, planners
began to focus on building roads that
encouraged sustainable use and appro-
priate driver behavior. "Liveable traffic"
is the term used by Walter Kulash, a
principal at an Orlando, Florida, plan-
ning firm whose projects have calmed
streets in Florida, California and
Minnesota.
here are a lot of ways to create
liveable traffic," and not all of them
close off streets the way Meadow -
brook's diverter does. In fact, the close -it-
down approach is a contentious one
among traffic ealmers. Kulash suggests
that it's more efficient to keep most roads
open, with the caveat that "they can drive
the way we want in neighborhoods or
take the bigger roads. It's behavior we're
after."
Changing driver behavior "means
changing perceptions of space," says
David Sucher, a Seattle urban planning
expert. "People respond to design, even if
they're not aware of what they're doing."
Engineers who built residential streets
long, wide and smooth in the interest of
safety and then posted speed limits of 25
mph were sending mixed messages to
ivers. Even cautious drivers "read"
ch streets and think highway, says
iucher. "If a road is originally designed
for 45 miles per hour and marked for
30, people pick up on the contradic-
tion and they drive 45." Traffic
ealmers, by contrast, try to encourage
slow driving with an environmental
approach.
To create that environment, traffic
engineers have come up with a vari-
ety of tools. They include relatively
w devices, with such names as the
ioker" and the "curb - bulb "; variations
more familiar ideas, such as speed
Limps" (redesigned and subtler ver-
ns of the speed bumps that have rat -
Ued tail pipes in shopping - center parking
lots for decades); and even hanks of well -
placed trees.
Retrofitting existing roads to calm traf-
fic most often involves changing the dri-
ver's path from the straight, and fastest,
line between points. Methods of vehicle
control are divided into vertical and hori-
zontal categories. Vertical devices include
speed tables (raised crosswalks that cars
pass over comfortably at 25 mph but jar-
ringly at 35), speed humps (now designed
with a curvature gentle at slow speeds
but exponentially disruptive at higher
speeds), and a variety of naturalistic tech-
niques. A series of three or four hill
crests, ordinarily removed from a
roadbed during con-
struction, can be used to
slow traffic and soothe
drivers naturally, says
Kulash, breaking up
long sight lines that fos-
ter disengagement from
the roadway environ-
ment and diffuse sensa-
tions of speed. Simi-
larly, a change in
pavement texture, such
as bricking over a cross-
walk, can signal drivers to slow down in
anticipation of pedestrians.
Speed humps can be installed for as
little as $1,500 each and include little
maintenance cost other than periodic
repainting. In fact, says C. Edward Wal-
ter, chief of the traffic engineering divi-
sion in Howard County, Maryland, up to
30 percent of the cost associated with
installing speed humps cones from the
signs necessary to advise drivers of their
presence; once speed humps are on a
street and "signed," the additional cost of
more humps is lessened.
The affordability of speed humps,
however, can lead to their over -use. To
be effective in reducing speed, says Wal-
ter, speed humps must be spaced regu-
larly on a roadway surface, and this, ironi-
cally, can N pork to make drivers more
aggressive. "We don't like to see more
than one or two at a time," says Kulash.
They have a hostile, aggressive connota-
tion for drivers," and an angry driver is
more likely to be a problem drive-. For
that reason, says Kulash, manN, ealmers
would rather employ horizontal
approaches, which offer more design flex-
ibility and suhtlety.
A favorite horizontal technique for
Kulash is the "mid -block diverter," which
adds a landscaped obstacle in the middle
of a residential street, forcing cars to
divert around it and signaling them to
slow. °It deflects a driver's course, breaks
up the long street view and creates pro-
tected on -street parking and public green
space," he says. What's more, the mid -
block diverter can most often be installed
without widening streets or rebuilding
drainage systems.
Diverters can be used at intersections
as well as mid - block, steering cars into
designated turning patterns — picture
small versions of the traffic circle —and
creating enough of a detour to force dri-
vers passing through the intersection to
Slow down, in some cases just enough to
SINGLE -LANE SLOW POINT
allow municipalities to do away with net-
tlesome four -way stop signs. That can
make streets more efficient even while
lowering speeds, and it can help cut back
on the excessive use of stop signs as
speed - control devices, a practice traffic
engineers frown on because it fosters
general disrespect for traffic signals and
leads some drivers to speed up between
signs to make up for lost time. Cities such
as Seattle and Portland, Oregon, have
made such mini -traffic circles mainstays
of their residential traffic systems, result-
ing not only m successful traffic manage-
26 G 0 V E R N 1 N G August 1996 Drawings courtesy of ClattingJackson Xerrher Anglin Lopez Rinehatr
1
ment but in a system of attractively
scaped neighborhood markers.
A horizontal design that Sucher
is the curb bulb, which benefits
and protects pedestrians while
slowing cars. The curb bulb
enlarges pedestrian waiting areas
at corners, pushing the sidewalk
further into the street, often to
the far edge of parking lanes. Not
only does it narrow the amount of
street pedestrians have to cross, it
also slows driver speeds at cro
intersections by reducing turning
and preventing corner- cutting.
A version of die curb bulb can a
used mid - block, where it's known
pedestrian peninsula," and wht;l V 11
often works in concert with a "slow
point" or "choker," an area where the
road bed is narrowed (and often angled)
enough to force drivers to slow at pedes-
trian crossings. In some cases, a choker
will narrow the road bed enough to allow
only one car to pass at a time, forcing
oncoming cars to yield. While this may
seem like a recipe for head -on collisions,
calmers say the opposite is true. The sin-
gle -lane choker reduces accidents by
slowing drivers and forcing them to
acknowledge and interact with other
vehicles on the roadway. Such interac-
tions "demand eye contact from drivers,
and are personal and rarely hostile," says
Kulash. "It's the kind of thing that's gone
on from time immemorial on neighbor-
hood streets where there's parking and
only one car can get by."
Eyen traffic calmers agree that, for it
to work in the long run, making the
slow slower has to be balanced by
making the fast faster. "We want to make
local roads slower and major roads more
efficient," says Michael Frisbie, a traffic
engineer for the city of Phoenix who runs
the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program, "so we also look at commuter
bottlenecks, left -turn phases, light timing.
They go hand in hand."
The problem is that not everyone
agrees on where to draw the line between
collector road and residential street. In
Montgomery County, Maryland, for
example, a traffic calming program has
installed more than 500 speed ]humps
since July 1994, many of them on roads
once frequented by commuters. The
county will consider taking action if test-
ing shows there to be more than 600 cars
per day on a given street; otherwise, says
INTERSEMON DIVERIER
Scott Wainwright, the program's director,
it's just not justified for the money."
Phoenix uses 1,000 vehicles per day as
a criteria, and if Meadowbrook Avenue
were in Montgomery County, its western
half (tested at 574 vehicles per day)
would still be nearly eligible for addi-
tional calming —even after the diverter's
installation.
Some jurisdictions are more interested
in measuring speed of traffic than volume
of cars. Howard County relies heavily on
24 -hour mechanical speed counters: If 15
percent of the drivers are traveling at
more than 10 miles per hour over the
posted limit, the county will take action.
That is, if that's what the neighborhood
wants. "We go to the community and let
Even traffic
calmers agree that,
for it to work in
the long run,
making the slow
slower has to be
balanced by mak-
ing the fast faster.
ote for or against it," says Walter.
quire 60 percent approval of those
tually vote."
Montgomery County focuses
its community approval process
on specific problem areas. A
petition must be signed by two-
thirds of the houses on the
affected block (as opposed to
die whole neighborhood, which
Howard County's procedure
considers), and then endorsed
ocal civic association.
Howard County, Phoenix polls
ieighborhoods, and although gen-
consensus is usually not hard for
nities, the procedure sometimes
Icvc 3 local anger to be localized to a few
vocal residents. Along Phoenix's Lakeside
Boulevard, for example, a survey was dis-
tributed to 760 households in response to
the complaints of about 30 residents
proposing restrictions to the heavily trav-
eled thoroughfare. The survey, Frisbie
says, revealed "huge opposition" to dras-
tic restrictions on Lakeside. Speed
humps and enhanced police enforcement
were employed instead.
he choices available to the residents
along Lakeside Boulevard illustrate
traffic calming's flexibility—fiscal
and otherwise. `There's a lot of bang for
the bucks," says Kulash. Since many
approaches to calming can be installed
cheaply, he adds, "you can proceed in
tiny increments, five thousand dollars at a
time."
That provides plenty of room for trial
and error. The Meadowbrook project, for
example, began with a temporary struc-
ture. If it had turned out to have been a
mistake, the city could have removed it
and cut its losses immediately. `The big
thing is, you can experiment," says
Sucher. 'Try one intersection and maybe
it'll work. It doesn't have to be a region -
wide policy. You can put one idea in and
see what happens."
One thing that happens, of course, is
that commuters lose some of their
favorite shortcuts. While that may ratchet
up their level of aggravation, it may even
offer something for them as well. Sucher
suggests that traffic calming provides
enough structure to automobile traffic to
allow it to continue to be a part of cities
without overrunning them. "A lot of new
urbanists are anti- car," he says, "but that
scares ordinary citizens. Traffic calming is
a compromise that people can accept." 13
August 1996 G O V E R N I N G 27
t
Attachment Two
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
ISSUES TO ADDRESS
Location
Communities need to provide reasonable accommodation for towers and antennas
Where are towers appropriate?
commercial and industrial districts
possibly residential districts in parks, schools, churches or institutional uses
Towers should comply with the setbacks that are required for principal buildings in
the underlying district
Towers should be setback an additional distance from residential uses -- a distance
equal to the height of the tower or some portion of the height is commonly used by
other communities
Approval Process
Want to encourage locating antennas on existing buildings or other structures
they're less obtrusive than towers); permitting them if they are under 10' would
provide an incentive to do so
New towers could be conditional uses to ensure that the proposed location is
appropriate
Abandonment
If a tower is abandoned, it should be removed at the owner's cost
Accessory Equipment /Buildings
The accessory equipment should be screened
The City's current regulations for accessory buildings (size, setback) can apply
Amateur Radio Towers /Satellite Dishes
The ordinance currently limits towers to 70' and they must be in the back yard
Satellite dishes have to be in the back yard or on top of a roof
Co-location
The ordinance should encourage co- location (e.g. evidence that the tower could
accommodate other one or two other users)
Aesthetics /Appearance
Require that they be painted a neutral color
Attachment Two
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
Require screening of accessory equipment
Maintenance is required under the City's nuisance ordinance
Encourage that antennas (e.g. in the bell tower of a church) and towers be
camouflaged, where appropriate
Monopole structure preferred to frame structure
FAA Requirements
The FAA conducts an obstruction analysis for anything within 6 nautical miles of
the airport and will look closely at telecommunication towers
The FAA will limit height in some cases and may require lighting or painting in
some cases
Height
The height needed to provide service depends on topography and conditions
75' to 100' is an average height for a tower
150' is the maximum being allowed in many communities
The FAA may limit height
Co- location requires extra height
Health Regulations
The federal government applies health standards and limits municipalities from
doing so
The City might require that towers and antennas comply with federal rules and if
federal rules become stricter, they would have to comply with the new rules (or we
would take action against them)
It's generally believed that towers and antennas are not harmful unless a person has
direct contact for an extended period of time.
Interference with Public Safety Communications, Radio and Television
Companies are prohibited by federal law from interfering with other radio and
television signals
The City's communications consultant recommends that language be included to
prohibit interference and that staff request a copy of the company's interference
analysis
Proof of Need /Area -wide Analysis
The City might require an analysis of why a tower is needed in a requested
location, especially to show why an existing building can't be used or why the
tower can't be located in another location
Attachment Two
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
Industry Input
Industry representatives were mailed a survey in July
They were mailed draft ordinance language for comment
They've been invited to the Planning Commission study session on August 13, 1996
Estimated Timetable for Ordinance Amendment
Planning Commission study session on August 13, 1996
Draft ordinance language revised in August
Planning Commission recommendation by the end of August
City Council first and second readings in August and September
Ordinance language effective in October
Current Providers in the Twin Cities' Market
U.S West New Vector
AT &T Wireless
Sprint Spectrum
American Portable Telecomm
OneComm
3
U
O
C
ca
3
t
coa
U
C
a7
C
P.
cc
4)
w
O cn
E=
y
w m
o
o c
O N
c
cv 0 U
cc
CO C w C
0 p E O h C E° a) p
N
CD p T O O C a) 4)
C
Q . a)
CL
OL
C T cu
E
C 2Z,Le
O
a
N
caD O
mC
pp
0) U
Q N
C
E C C
a) C C rC
C7 is Q) U N E
N E
C wcc
L
a
N
w
U
aci`
nEc° w C w 2 w
c T o o v vEL°>
c
x o c U vL
a i
O C
c
fC
c
d
ca in o=
Q 'C o c a EC c o p 0 0
Eo L L C
nom
U C_ L_ C 3 w
c°o
U L_
N a O cCLU E Cl cry ` scam -a`
w.° Co
3m
U
c
LO.
O
C w N
O p>
C C y D
a
C N
O
fLp w co h
N O a
0 0 3 0
a; i
c T c a)
p
ca
o c c cc
Ecc
ca
o c '3 >. co
oo vi
CL 2 ns co
c° c c
o a
yay.0 c Q o x Uyo =c N2Nc 0 0. L c
y c o U w o cmc E C° c QV)
c NL °: c
m
aq:
n
O N O NN cO U
T
c
T a) O
m ca
C y O C
E (n m eOC— c4
v o
E ca
w a>
L
y( N p a E
cc c c c w NV (D L»°r E"- c
C> N
O C
C
r 7
CD
C C
O
E O t6 co Q W E 2 pEpU y rn
L C
CL C
r
0> N 0 O t p O c0 E U
Cq
C
C M ca O E
C
a)
E O wO C YU L c L +' d 0 U E O y
p 0 O
0.-
o cn o
c
c m E
o
U cn
cc
aD c —°
ao anima;2v 3x aO c cE cL
v Co p 0 p C a)
a) D
Ti' a) N U c tU p L a7
O7p
p y m e c `OL
N O E N O coL c o
O C
1] E 3
a)
co ca
L N
L U
OC
w p c
7 0 aj p w
ti: 3 C a) L
N
N °.N_+ t
T
7 CC
C' L
co
L C
C
O
E L C
O M— (D C y E
C
E 0_
C
N w O
0
U NcD
a) t- y N
L_
O N C N 0
O NLfCa)
cc c0 y CU
cu
C
O
C +_-' a) f°
C C L N c O U rn O
L + T a) N 0 0 3
n C- a)
L
cn '-
E cc
p Vl N c0
5E0pO E
a
o Tcc ClQ) 2
L
L
O
3 a> L N t6 U 0
cc >>,
C OCcnoco
mwLL>
a)
c
E E E
x
aD a) N m c
cu ° a) aD ° c 3CDca
O m
C' w L LGNwCL
r
N:
O
a)
Q%
0 0 p
C O O L O_ U a) o 7
d cc w "' Q
0 w 'O O
U
C O 7 fn
O L cc a)
L
3 a)
a)
CC L
0 O O + 01 a) 0 3 0 o C
i YC
O
N . E L
O1 a) a)
h
L d a) ID NCOmC 'O
ui32Ua) a) , O
N U Ua) a) a) 3Cp
Y —
T pcEG. _T E O E E o 0 vac to N V L O
p
L
7= U .-. cu cc Ccrn ..... 4- C= L C T . O 3 3
cc o E E cu 7 d~ c Eo E asoUUcoN c o ca O
w
O
O
OL
N a
N
77, m c
cu
cc
C
O
p
C N O
O
zzQ
cc
Q Q Qc U
U
O
C
ca
3
t
coa
U
C
a7
C
P.
A:.
y p0 0 `Q
C O CC
O
O U 0 N C L
C o—
L .
L.. p,
Na
O
E C Nc yN c m L
a> (D U 3
N . ct
a a
C .0 > .... `O
o
c
v =- w
E
C 0 C v
N 0 N N C cu
d O > O
C m C NL p
N CQ N N CA
7 w C h '-
n m
C
E m a
v, w
i3 a
2
t5 0 aaai
2i
s o
2 inca
Q o a N %
E
N o
ccu a
om `c No
o
L 0 o 0 vL N N 3
CD 3 o 0
S1 a
c E N ` o
N
ca >, CDLo
ai 3N ct cuw cuwQ E Lw L y r
o, w CL 3 o rEo E
N N s_ O c C
c
O O
o
NON
o (1) y X L 0 NoOOQCCLp02 H
c xicn= U
0
75 c`2°>o
N
c
c
0 ° m 2`3ra0C)
O
E U
O m
m :-'
C
0 cn 0 m N O C
C C ca N
i j V 3N1O C
N
2 U
N`
C
4? 7 D
CM
C ft O
aNi
N
vim V) o
p C
c Nom? Co
r 'c
O
E o
N NxCDX °' —
O ONttC
C N W
C
O
r
N
N O N C D1
3
Q ._ C
E C
O N
O X N
O O CNC O O
L C O
C
co
t_ C C 7 N N N Cn 0 U L w 0
O O N
N '
0 L_ 'O
rL...
O E O
O
E
pO
U a> N 30 w N= L N E U 7 0 N m" C) C m O O O C pmc
i s tt
a 16 fO
O 0 L C0 L O 0
O
CD
O
cn O 0 CL
c
C
O
A
N ti
0 3 N L
C
o. C O
pcn >
N0cu ; N caco " D 3
0 f
c c
cc U u ooo -v C M
fn
c o QC
C C +
O
Q
L O.,
o
cC 3 'X OU V
c c — QCCCO
0—
CV ' CC
NmQN
0 0 a; O ca 0
c p C O C N C
p '
00 CL C
ca ca cC>a>
1
L
O O Y
C
O O N N O C
L C
th O O O
L C C
N C U
1 .0 1 (
C
io 7 d O 0 7 N c
C C U3m
O
N3C O
o a E o c
E N O O O Q; L
E»- c»= v_>
O L O N O
o
cr' aim
ca
E b C ai
c ENa =c
q ..
cIHCLr_
o 2 O o c U O
aDca €a N
ocycL
0 E E. c. CC Ems- E0 - =>
a>> cvCL Eo c>
m U ca
ago
j
0
a
0 0 o
U U a
coo 0 0
a a a ¢ ¢ NU a p (U
O O
ca co
a
U 3
cu >
m
ra>
o
a >
N
O
CLC
N_
a
c
Eto
U
O
O
a
0
3
r
2
mON
ca
C
P.
U
O
OC
p
t
L
ca
a) N
U
C
a7
C
72
0
b t5 0w
a
O
0 x
Co g f2 cc c
E m a`'i Zvi > rn n
C N
0,
L E C
YCNU cep N 7O 0n0
N ccC CL UO Y
a) j 'Dp— w
O
X
y
y N
U0
a) w? O N
cn
C Y O C O C4= CD
a)
c m o c a) 0 0 3
3 E N c
o E o-
NOn
o
t O 0 N"_
CD a) m
T
a)
N N % a).O
s Tn cc w p m QO a Tcu
0
O a; ate, 3 E
a) 3 0 o - O
Om' Q
C.. a)
Co
a7 fC
0
a)
cc Ooa
cN
cn
m Ncco
Q
O
IL
T
E
22
E
n E ca
EN Vi a) Lc
o
tr 5cv cue v a) cE
0c0
on
cc
c°; caQL
a)w C C( 0 0 O
O a)d E°c' E N O
O N U
O
y 0
o
0 w Vi '"' U
o. V 0 p y as a)
U 7 NN 7 0
N E O dQ N
c
O a)
o. L O fC
4) O .0 >
c 0 U Lto Z
c9 N y C
O
a)
N 0. w ,C M II O
CL
O L C a) T> i6 N0 O ca tC
L a) 7U O a) O
U
a) L
CD
E a)
ati E N o p j m a) vi N m e w o
a CL
Oa
N
CL
C oN V Ca
o
3 N ON
y0 E E —N
fOL.— N c U t U
vEncv
L
y
C
cm
N L
c tC
o c 3 X ` 3 m e °)
a)
L ° cm m e
Ea,
o c
s, o o
v)
w o
oo- w 3
Q
v0
a a) c cu cy a)
c0c
o a)L XO
3a3._.ONO-0
c
0
Ern 3Q
pm.. Eo>
U a) a a) NL
N N N N i CD
n
U •X NN
3 w E N 0 a)
cu
a) a) L
L C L '= in N U O O -p o C a) C a) .0 U:
o
N
o N
3 0
U
to 3
CD O
c
p N p
D
ac)
L 5 v)0)-
C C C
N O
ccvw
w W ° OL rt+
O
T
a 0 0 a) a) o
w
co c0 N p m
y
C cC
T
N E n
O
OU "
N O
O
E CC N N
p
E = a3 O
Y U ca
cv O "
Y m CC '0 O d C
O C C
O O j j U
T CL f2 3 a) w
O
a?
y N pJ.
cu C
O O
c N p
O E
C C
O N 0
Y i
N p
f2 O cn
of oinEo oo
mcaO 2)
c c-
E
Lna)aw0
3 U
0oo a°c) v a oo owo
CO
a) C E P '-r) 0
c N C C C> 0.. O O X
a)
c6 N
d O O L . E
Qdp
L
N E C 7Xa) a) O EC— p— O
C
p.
O
v) fl p W C p a7
2 m A m Q m Q
NC
O
a3
7
s9
L E c n
ca
J a)
N
ca
y p) C
Op a) C L
LL
C J J
U
O
OC
p
t
L
ca
a) N
U
C
a7
C
72
0
U:
E
oc
wo
cc
o rn o 2 m
c sn o c CDCIOm
M E CX
0ycc (D
E
3
C N N CD N
ro
N
C
a
N c
O
E
LD p) L
v
N . p
E
O
i+
0 ro
ro'
N p tq C C O C
ro O— V 7 p N7
O
C3
Cp O O
C
O
N
fir,
O' N 7 O cnroNC
cm
O
to
yO..
cE N'
N
0 " d y V O C
c n m N
NO
co 3 v E c m ro c o c L
1 0 ro O O C O
TL
O u O
j
L'
O D j N to N N ro^ cc O Tr
O N O C N C CL O O C C N
CCL
CL
C E C f0
N ,_
U
N U N d t 3 fn v-
C1 w
N N
ro
UVI O
Q.. ro
U- N
V_
L
O
N (
U to Z7
C7 Caro
N
V w O«
X a) ro L ._+ N LN
U
L
N
E
C 1n
OTC
0 ro a)
n v
O L
ro
cn
C
N wL
N C N
o o —. rn
N
w
O L E E
gyp—
U
roN
U
O
Ny
O'
U >+
C Q L
O. O EO L OL N O OU 2
j O C L V U
6
S, L cOj
cr ro
Ea`ni
p
E' ao
C N N
2 ON p
0
4: L U E ro
coro
C C ro ro N
ro
LOp
E yrn
D1 O , C c ro ro c0
orn
O C to
rn— Up
w
p Lp
O C
w
w;.
CU (DN N O
E
0
w
V v m .r O
0 rn
c" N . N Q) , N
3 "'
N N c_v
a c
ro
L
corn
v5 c
oO
ooaaci
mac'
L
0,
O N O
a`)
D CIO
C
t
O
roZ7
E L
A
C O
cn
ro 0
T'=
O. c >
L cV "- W C w N
L
cl cCIO
0
0 O
D
O E
cr
NL o}
0 h a)
N N E w
ro N c ro E ro i E
O U
0
E E 7 N" o cm
xXX ro 0 N
O p O O O QNO p•• c —
LV- Y
o U .0 U O 0, y w VJ YU cr O
N C
O
CL ..
0 0 ro o ro Cl w ro ro CIO ro c0 Y .)G O p Y n V N C j U E YU U
Y Y .` '
U U
C) y
C 'd
ro. E N
ro E c
Cl Y
M O C
C C 10N
Y O
C O O
Y L
C— 6
O
L Y. U U—
C co cC E
0 M
U .., ro ro O` O) ro Q) -a .-. hC_ .0 N U iri
tLn O
row
O N m
N ro O
3 N
ca c0 X
0 .0 O= N C
ro
O
p
o E O
o p to
N G ro
j — N > E c0 ro
E
7
E
0 y
O N N i
c
E N E >> — N O N
cu ...
N Ni3; C C c U) M C N Cro C v) cn r p to N c)
N N H
0 0
C
CDN
N
Esi: CIO a, L
LL 7
cr
tu: cn af
D
0
m
C
o N cc U
c 20
U)
UO
CD
C
ro
t
2
ro
v
e
ccc
0
U
O
O
C
cc
L
UL
cu
NU)
NL
Ci
cuC
L
0
01,1i' i'!4 C1 ;1Yl4ui,1'1.L,1Z~i.5 F S % c7 `/
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS'
FACILITIES ISSUES PAPER
DECEMBER 1995
San Diego
ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
619) 595 -5300
G A&& A-U 40 ".?hc 2.:
C.A . US)
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa
Lemon Grove, National Oty, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District,
San Diego County Water Authority, and TijuanaBaja CaJdomia/Me)aoo
Board of Directors
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a public agency formed voluntarily by
local governments to assure overall areawide planning and coordination for the San Diego region. .
Voting members include the incorporated Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon,
Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside,
Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the County of San Diego.
Advisory and Liaison members include Caltrans, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego
Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, and Tijuana /Baja California /Mexico.
CHAIRMAN: Hon. Mike Bixler
VICE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Elliot Parks
SECRETARY - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sulzer
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Hon. Ramona Finnila, Councilmember
A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Hon. Shirley Horton, Mayor
A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Mayor Pro Tom
CITY OF CORONADO
Hon. Mary Herron, Mayor
A) Hon. David Blumenthal, Councilmember
CITY OF DEL MAR
Hon. Elliot Parks, Deputy Mayor
IA) Hon. Mark Whitehead, Councilmember
CITY OF EL CAJON
Hon. Richard Ramos, Councilmember
A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Councilmember
CITY OF ENCINITAS
Hon. Chuck Du Vivier, Councilmember
A) Hon. Gail Hano, Councilmember
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Hon. Jerry Harmon, Councilmember
A) Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Councilmember
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
Hon. Mike Bixler, Mayor
A) Hon. Gail Benda, Councilmember
CITY OF LA MESA
Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor
A) Hon. Barry Jantz, Councilmember
IA) Hon. Jay LaSuer, Councilmember
CITY OF LEMON GROVE
Hon. Craig Lake, Mayor Pro Tom
A) Hon. Dwight Shelley, Councilmember
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Hon. Rosalie Zarate, Councilmember
A) George H. Waters, Mayor
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Hon. Dick -von, Mayor
A) Hon. Carol McCauley, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF POWAY
Hon. Don Higginson, Mayor
A) Hon. Bob Emery, Councilmember
A) Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Councilmember
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Christine Kehoe, Councilmember
A) Hon. Barbara Warden, Councilmember
A) Hon. Valerie Stallings, Councilmember
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Hon. Betty Evans, Councilmember
A) Hon. Darrell Gentry, Councilmember
CITY OF SANTEE
Hon. Jack Dale, Mayor
A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
Hon. Marion Dodson, Mayor
A) Hon. Teri Renteria, Councilmember
A) Hon. Joe Kellejian, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF VISTA
Hon. Gloria E. McClellan, Mayor
A) Hon. Ed Estes, Jr., Councilmember
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Pam Slater, Supervisor
A) Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor
A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor
STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Advisory Member)
James van Loben Sels, Director
A) Gary Gallegos, District 11 Director
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Liaison Member)
CAPT. Michael Johnson, CEC, USN
Commanding Officer Southwest Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
Advisory Member)
Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
Advisory Member)
Frank Chenelle
Marilynn Herdebeck
TLIUANA/BAJA CALIFORNIA /MEXICO
Advisory Member)
Hon. Jose Guadalupe Osuna Milian
Presidente Municipal de Tijuana
Revised December 20, 1995
December 21, 1995
San Diego1;J ASSOCIATIO OF
GOATI21NMENTS
Suite 800, First Interstate Plaza
401 B Street
San Diego. California 92101
619)595 -5300 Fax(619)595 -5305
TO: State and Local Elected Officials, CALCOG Directors, City Managers,
Planning Directors, Members of the Communications Facilities
Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical Committee,
and Other Interested Parties
FROM: Ken Sulzer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper
Member agency staff requested the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG's)
assistance in responding to a number of issues related to the siting of facilities (especially
antennae) for cellular phones, mobile radios, and personal communications services. A
Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical
Committee was formed, comprised of staff members from local jurisdictions and
representatives of the wireless communications industry. It recommended that information
regarding health and safety issues, visual impacts, technology, and regulatory issues
associated with wireless communications facilities be provided to local jurisdictions in the
attached Issues Paper.
At its December 15, 1995 meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors voted to approve the
Wireless Communications Facilities Issues Paper for use by the cities and County, the
wireless communications industry, and other interested parties. The copy of the final report,
which provides information about key issues related to wireless communications facilities
and guidelines for the siting of these facilities, is enclosed for your use.
If you have any questions about the information contained in the Issues Paper, please
contact Kim Kawada (619) 595 -5394 or Carolina Gregor (619) 595 -5315 of my staff for
assistance.
KES/KK/ah
Enclosure
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove,
National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVISORY /LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, and Tijuana/Baja California.
ABSTRACT
TITLE: Wireless Communications Facilities Issues
Paper
AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments
DATE: December 1995
SOURCE OF COPIES: San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, Ca 92101
619) 595 -5300
NUMBER OF PAGES: 127
ABSTRACT: This paper examines issues that local
governments and the wireless communi-
cations industry currently face; provides an
overview of the technical issues associated
with wireless communications systems;
reviews the regulatory framework of the
wireless communications industry; and
discusses health and safety issues. The
paper also recommends guidelines to local
governments in the San Diego region for use
in developing their own local land use
regulations for wireless communications
facilities.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Wireless Communications Facilities Issues.Paper was prepared with the cooperation and assistance
of the Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth Management Technical
Committee.
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
San Diego Association of Governments
CHAIR:. Bob Leiter, Director of Planning, City of Chula Vista
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
City of Carlsbad
City of Chula Vista
City of El Cajon
City of Poway
City of San Diego
County of San Diego
State of California Public Utilities Commission
AirTouch Cellular
Cox Communications
D. Garvey Corporation
Diablo Communications of Southern
California, Inc.
GTE Mobilnet
Fluor Daniel Telecom
JM Consulting
Nextel Communications
Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Dennis Turner, Principal Planner
Martin Miller, Associate Planner
James Griffin, Planning Director
Steve Streeter, Principal Planner
Shelly Kilbourne, Associate Planner
Karen Lynch Ashcraft, Senior Planner
Howard Stapleton, Telecommunications Policy Mgr.
Mike Sloop, Planner
Alannah Kinser, Outreach Officer
Kevin McGee, Government Relations Mgr.
Rob Lingle, Program Manager
Sheri Stinchcomb, Director of Network Planning
Julie Hamilton, Project Manager
Ted Marioncelli, Project Manager
Dale Hair, Site Development Manager
Larry Doherty, Manager, Site Acquisition
Dan Mieszala, Regional Systems Engineer
Virginia Partridge, Dir. of Site Development & Zoning
Ted Shaw, Land Use Planner
Barbara Saito, Project Manager
Maryann. Miller, Planning Consultant
Darrell Daughtery, Planning Consultant
The following staff of the San Diego Association of Governments contributed to the preparation of this
report:
Kenneth E. Sulzer, Executive Director
Stuart Shaffer, Deputy Executive Director
Michael McLaughlin, Director of Land Use and Public Facilities Planning
Robert Parrott, Director of Research and Information Systems
Susan Baldwin, Senior Regional Planner
Kim Kawada, Associate Regional Planner for TDM
Carolina Gregor, Land Use Planning Intern
Anne Haggerty, Word Processing Specialist
Laura Mays, Graphics Specialist -
Mark Polinsky, Office Services Specialist
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY .................................................................. ...............................
I. GUIDELINES FOR PERMITTING PROCESS ....................... ...............................
Local Government Issues ........................................................... ...............................
VisualImpacts ................................................................... ......................:........
Healthand Safety Issues ................................................... ...............................
Wireless Communications Industry Issues........... ....................... ...............................
Local Permitting Process .................................................. ...............................
TechnicalFeasibility ........................................................ ...............................
How to Balance the Needs of Local Governments and Industry
Providers - Guidelines ............................................ ...............................
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
U. TECHNICAL OVERVIEW ....................................................... ............................... 9
Background................................................................................. ............................... 9
Technology................................................................................. ............................... 9
Antennas............................................................................ ............................... 11
LatticeTowers ................................................................... ............................... 13
Monopoles......................................................................... ............................... 14
Building - Attached Facilities ............................................. ............................... 15
How Cellular Mobile Telephone Technology Works ................ ............................... 15
Typesof Cell Sites ............................................................ ............................... 16
Analog and Digital Technologies ..................................... ............................... 17
How Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio Technology (ESMR) Works ................ 18
How Personal Communications Services (PCS) Works :.......... ..........................I.... 18
Concluding Notes on Technological Aspects of Wireless
Communications Technology ................. ............ ............................... 19
III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................. ............................... 21
FederalLevel ............................................................................... ............................... 21
Federal Communications Commission ............................ ............................... 21
Federal Aviation Administration ...................................... ............................... 22
StateLevel ................................................................................. ............................... 23
California Public Utilities Commission ........................... ............................... 23
LocalLevel . . ............................................................................ ............................... 24
Local Permitting Process .................................................. ............................... '25
Permitted Zones and Locations ........................................ ............................... 25
StandardProvisions .......................................................... ............................... 26
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued)
IV. HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES ........................................... ............................... 30
Electromagnetic Energy Used in Wireless Communications Systems ...............:.... 30
Radiofrequency Radiation .......................................................... ............................... 30
Ionizing and Non - ionizing Radiation .................. ...............................
Whythe Concern? :.........................................................:........... ............................... 33
ANSI, NCRP, and IRPA Radiation Protection Guidelines ....... ............................... 34
RadiationLevels ......................................................................... ............................... 35
Ongoing and Future- Research .................................................... ............................... 36
RFR Related to Wireless Communications ..................... ............................... 37
RFR and EMF Information Sources ................................. ............................... 38
ABBREVIA'T'IONS OF TERMS ......................................................... ............................... 39
GLOSSARY................................................................................. ............................... 41
REFERENCES................................................................................. ............................... 45
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Wireless Communications Survey Conducted
by SANDAG in April 1995 ............................... ............................... 51
Appendix 2: Examples of Local Ordinances .......................... ............................... 57
Appendix 3: Federal Communications Commission Licensing .......................... 125
Requirements
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Examples-of Providers in San Diego Region ................... ............................... 9
Table 2 Wireless Communications Systems Comparison Chart .. ............................... 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I Electromagnetic Spectrum ................................................ ............................... 10
Figure 2 Cell Site Systems .............................................................. ............................... 11
Figure3 Antennas .............. ............................... ........................... ............................... 12
Figure 4 Lattice Towers ................................................................... ............................... 13
Figure5 Monopole .......................................................................... ............................... 14
Figure6 Flower Tower .................................................................... ............................... 14
Figure 7 Building- Attached Facilities ............................................. ............................... 15
Figure 8 Cell Configurations ........................................................... ............................... 16
Figure 9 Transmission Signals ....................................................... ............................... 17
Figure 10 Location of Radiofrequency Radiation on Electromagnetic Spectrum .......... 32
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recently, the public's interest in wireless communications systems has soared. The idea that a
person can be reached at any given time at any place is appealing not only to large businesses, but
also to small businesses and individuals. In 1992, there were approximately 10 million cellular
telephone users across the United States, and by the end of 1994, that figure had grown to over 24
million. As impressive as this growth figure is, it does ' not include users of paging systems,
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), or Personal Communications Services (PCS).
Because the demand for these alternative wireless communications also is expected to increase, the
potential for the industry's growth is logarithmic and has prompted providers to increase their
number of transmission sites in order to gain coverage and calling capacity, and thus market share.
This increase has required great coordination between providers and planning departments in
addressing two main issues: the visual impacts of the antenna structures used in the transmission of
communications, and health concerns.
In March 1995, members of SANDAG's Regional Growth Management Technical Committee
requested SANDAG's assistance in responding to a number of issues related to the siting of
facilities (especially antennae) for cellular phones, mobile radios, and personal communications
services. In response, a Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth
Management Technical Committee was formed. The Subcommittee is comprised of staff members
from local jurisdictions and representatives of the wireless communications industry. It
recommended that an Issues Paper be prepared to provide information regarding health and safety
issues, visual impacts, technology, and regulatory issues associated with wireless communications
to local jurisdictions. The Issues Paper also includes recommended guidelines for siting these
facilities.
Section I of this report examines issues that local governments and the wireless communications
industry currently face and provides insight into the guidelines for the permitting process; Section II
provides an overview of the technical issues associated with wireless communications systems;
Section III reviews the regulatory framework of the wireless communications industry; and Section
IV addresses health and safety concerns. The appendices include the results of a wireless
communications survey conducted by SANDAG in April of 1995, examples of local jurisdiction
ordinances, and federal licensing information.
Of primary interest to local elected officials are the guidelines the subcommittee prepared for local
planning departments and decision -makers to use in developing their own local land use
regulations. The guidelines included in the paper and listed below are intended to minimize the
visual impacts of wireless communications facilities, address community concerns about potential
health and safety issues, and facilitate the local permitting process. These guidelines are
recommended to local governments in the San Diego region as they make decisions about wireless
communications facilities:
1. Establish clear, reasonable development standards and/or mitigation measures to minimize
the visual impacts of wireless communications facilities;
2. Provide applicable development standards and/or mitigation measures to proponents of
wireless communications projects in the pre - design phase prior to project submittal;
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;
4. Use the information contained in this paper (or more current information as it becomes
available) to educate the public, as well as decision- making bodies, about health and safety
issues associated with wireless communications facilities;
5. Streamline the local permitting process by differentiating between minor and major projects,
and by enabling a two -level processing of discretionary permit applications; and
6. Review local zoning ordinances to determine the most appropriate zoning districts for the
different types of wireless communications facilities.
Although there are numerous forms of wireless communications, this report will focus specifically
on commercial mobile radio service providers, as opposed to private or military providers.
Included in this group are the providers of cellular communications, Enhanced Specialized Mobile
Radio (ESMR), and Personal Communications Services (PCS) that either currently or in the near
future, will provide services such as two -way mobile voice communication, paging, voicemail,
dispatching, conference calling, facsimile, video telecommunications, E -mail, and data delivery via
Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD).
FA
I. GUIDELINES FOR PERMITTING PROMS
Local Government Issues
In April 1995, SANDAG conducted a telephone survey of the 19 local governments within the San
Diego region to gather information about local regulations governing the processing of applications
for wireless communications facilities (Appendix 1). This survey revealed that local governments
in the San Diego region face two primary issues regarding wireless communications facilities: (1)
visual impacts; and (2) health and safety issues. Together, these two issues represent the greatest
sources of local community concern regarding wireless communications facilities. Addressing
these issues is critical to any local government, which is charged with ensuring the public health,
safety, and welfare of its constituents.
Visual Impacts
The fast -paced growth of wireless communications technology in recent years has presented local
governments with the challenge of where to locate wireless communications facilities in their
communities. Unlike ground -wired telecommunications, such as the land -based telephone system,
wireless communications technologies, by their operational nature, require numerous antennas to be
mounted at various heights throughout the landscape. To site them at the specific height required
by a particular system, these antennas are sometimes mounted on towers, monopoles, tall buildings,
or other structures on tops of hillsides. One of the greatest concerns faced by local jurisdictions is
the visual impacts of wireless communications facilities.
Health and Safety Issues
In addition to visual impacts, possible health risks related to Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and
Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) are another major source of local community concern with
wireless communications facilities. (Health issues related to EMFs and RFR are discussed in detail
in Section IV.) To date, scientific research on the effects of wireless communications facilities on
human health has been inconclusive. Locating communications antennas and towers in or near
residential communities often becomes a subject of local controversy, often due to personal health
and safety concerns voiced by local residents. When reviewing and considering permits for
wireless communications facilities, planners and decision - makers alike must be able to respond to
local citizen concerns about health risks associated with them.
Wireless Communications Industry Issues
The wireless communications industry is government mandated, consumer - driven, and typically
involves intense economic competition among individual providers seeking to capture or enlarge
their portions of the consumer market. This competition is fueled by the public's tremendous
demand in recent years for widespread wireless communications services, as well as by the license
requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To meet consumer demand,
providers have rushed to establish and/or expand their systems as quickly and efficiently as
possible, which has resulted in more antennas and towers across the visual landscape. In addition,
K
the FCC also has required providers to establish their service networks as fast as possible, requiring
the licensee, as a condition of the license, to provide service to a particular geographical area or to a
minimum number of people within a limited period of time.
Local Permitting Process
Most local jurisdictions require some type of discretionary permit in order to establish a wireless
communications facility. Providers must fulfill certain requirements, such as compliance with local
zoning regulations and public noticing, before they are allowed to erect a facility in a particular
community. Because of the competitive nature of the industry, expediting the permitting process is
important to providers. In general, providers seek the easiest and fastest way to gain local approval,
and should work with planners and decision - makers to address local issues and avoid rendering a
site technically infeasible or cost prohibitive.
Another way in which some members of the wireless communications industry have approached
the local permitting process is by attempting to have local control over wireless communications
facilities preempted on the federal level, thereby avoiding the local process altogether. For
example, in December 1994, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) filed a
petition with the FCC asking for federal preemption of local zoning powers over cellular
transmission facilities. The petition is currently under consideration by the FCC.
Technical Feasibility
Wireless communications providers consider various technical site selection criteria when siting
new facilities. A general area is identified by a system's engineer based on engineering constraints
and the desired area of service. Specific sites within that general area are then evaluated using the
selection criteria, which may include: surrounding topography and its relation to line of sight
transmission for optimum efficiency in service; availability of road access, availability of electric
power; availability of land based telephone lines and/or microwave link capability; leasibility of the
site; radiofrequency interference; mechanical and electrical compatibility; structural capacity of the
supporting structure; and maximizing coverage of the desired area with the least number of sites.
How to Balance the Needs of Local Governments and Industry Providers
There is a clear need to balance local governmental issues with those of the industry providers. The
following section attempts to balance the needs of both parties in three primary areas: (1) visual
impacts; (2) health and safety issues; and (3) the local permitting process. Based on discussions
and information exchanged between local governments and the wireless communication industry as
part of the Communications Facilities Subcommittee, the following guidelines are recommended to
local governments in the San Diego region.
1. Establish clear, reasonable development standards and/or mitigation measures to minimize
the visual impacts of wireless communications facilities.
4
The most common objection to wireless communications facilities is their visual impact.
Oftentimes, local residents, many of whom use wireless communications services, do not want to
see towers and antennas proliferating in their own communities and have expressed fears that their
property values might be affected. To address the visual aspect of wireless communications
facilities; specific development standards and/or mitigation measures should be developed by local
government agencies. These standards should be clearly defined and should be designed taking
into consideration the technical requirements of the wireless communications technology (e.g., the
technical requirement to locate antennas at a certain height and in a particular service area, or to
maintain adequate separation between individua' antennas).
Suggested development standards and mitigation measures may include:
Screening antennas and towers from view from public rights -of -way or scenic vistas, either via
landscaping, fencing, or other architectural screening;
Encouraging creative design measures to camouflage facilities by integrating them with
existing buildings and among other existing uses;
Where other technically feasible sites are available, minimizing the effect of the location of
facilities in visually- sensitive areas, such as residential communities and open space zones;
Encouraging providers to co-locate their facilities on a single site, where technically feasible
and visually desirable; and
Locating antennas and equipment on other existing community facility sites, such as on water
tanks or utility poles.
Specific site development standards and mitigation measures are not included in this paper. Rather,
it is suggested that local governmental agencies develop their own particular standards which would
best address their local communities' sensitivities. to the visual element. Copies of various
ordinances from other jurisdictions, which provide samples of specific site development standards
for wireless communications facilities, are included in Appendix 2.
2. Provide applicable development standards and/or mitigation measures to proponents of
wireless communications projects in the pre - design phase prior to project submittal.
Local development standards and/or mitigation measures should be provided to proponents of
wireless communications projects in written format prior to project submittal, in order to acquaint
them with what designs and locations of facilities are acceptable by the particular local community.
This would enable wireless communications providers to consider their own technical service
requirements, as well as local objectives to minimize visual impacts, when deciding between site
alternatives.
The design of wireless communications facilities has evolved over time, and it is feasible in some,
but not. all, instances to design and/or locate facilities so that they are visually unobtrusive. The
5
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 local objectives of minimizing
visual impacts with providers' goals to constrict 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
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 Electrical 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 condition of licensure, the FCC requires all cellular, ESMR, and PCS providers 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 ANSMEEE 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
should verify compliance with the established ANSUIEEE standards. This may be accomplished by
0
requiring the project proponent to submit a preliminary report, prepared by an engineer, which
quantifies the project's radiofrequency exposures and compares them to the adopted standards.
Local agencies also may consider requiring the applicant to submit, following project installation, a
subsequent field report, which would provide the project's cumulative field measurements of radio -
frequency power densities, quantify total radiofrequency exposures, and compare those exposures
with the accepted standards. The provision of such a report would verify compliance and reassure
concerned individuals that installations are operating within the accepted operational safety
standards.
4. Use the information contained in this paper (or more current information as it becomes
available) to educate the public, as well as decision - making bodies, about health and safety
issues associated with wireless communications facilities.
Local governmental agencies should educate local citizens about health and safety issues associated
with wireless communications facilities to allay the public's fears about - potential health effects
related to EMFs and RFR. Education also should be provided to local decision - making bodies so
that they can make informed decisions when reviewing local permits for these facilities. Agencies
may want to use the information in this report to develop a staff report or handout which explains
the applicability of ANSUIEEE safety standards, demonstrates that typical wireless communications
facilities comply with the accepted ANSIIIEEE operational safety standards, and compares EMF
and RFR emissions associated with wireless communications facilities to ordinary household
appliances onto other types of technologies.
S. Streamline the local permitting process by differentiating between minor and major projects,
and by enabling a two -level processing of discretionary permit applications.
Expediting the local permitting process is an important issue for both governmental agencies and
wireless communications providers. With the impending advent of the PCS industry, and the
replacement of analog with digital technology in the cellular industry (explained in Section U), local
governments must be prepared to deal with a potentially significant number of future discretionary
permit applications for wireless communications facilities. Processing these future applications
efficiently will be a challenge for local agencies. As previously noted, the interest of the providers
in the local permitting .process is driven by the competitive economic nature of the wireless
communications industry.
To facilitate the permitting process, local regulatory agencies should enable minor projects to be
processed administratively, and major projects to be processed by public hearing. To be considered
a minor project (and subject to administrative approval), a facility would have minimal visual
impacts and be designed or located to be compatible with adjacent uses. One example of a minor
project would be a facility in which antennas are mounted to an existing structure on the roof or
building face, which is screened, constructed, or colored to match the existing structure to which it
is attached. Another way in which to distinguish a minor project would be to limit the number,
height and size of antennas, or the size and location of the accessory equipment building.
7
Facilities that are potentially visually obtrusive or potentially incompatible. with adjacent land uses
would be considered major projects and would be subject to the public hearing process. An
example of a major project would be a freestanding facility (such as a lattice tower or monopole
which supports antennas), located where the potential for screening is low.
The administrative process for discretionary permits is generally shorter, simpler, and less costly
than the public hearing process. Therefore, wireless communications providers, for which time and
cost are vital concerns, would opt in most cases for an administrative permit process. The net effect
of a two-level permit process would be to encourage the construction of wireless communications
facilities that have minimized visual effects and that are more in keeping with the character of the
surrounding community.
6 Review local zoning ordinances to determine the most appropriate zoning districts for the
different types ofwireless communications facilities:
Most local zoning ordinances were adopted prior to the recent expansion of the wireless
communications industry. In general, the existing regulations governing communications land uses
were intended to focus on more traditional communications technologies such as television and
radio broadcast, and typically do not differentiate between various types of facilities. However,
wireless communications technology differs from the more traditional technologies because it
typically employs shorter facilities at lower power to cover a limited geographic service area: (In
comparison, traditional broadcast facilities transmit signals from tall towers at higher power levels
in order to reach as many people in as large a geographic area as possible.)
In recognition of the functional differences of the wireless communications industry, local
jurisdictions should re- evaluate their local zoning ordinances and determine which zoning districts
are suitable for wireless communications land uses. As with all other land use categories, local
agencies should categorize wireless communications facilities based on their planning and land use
impacts. Local jurisdictions, for example, may consider permitting wireless communications
facilities in commercial and industrial zones (either by right or subject to administrative approval),
and restricting those facilities in single - family residential zones. It will be up to individual
jurisdictions to determine the most appropriate zoning districts for wireless communications uses.
If there is an interest among local jurisdictions' in the San Diego region, SANDAG can assist in
coordinating a joint effort to develop model zoning regulations for wireless communications
facilities. Samples of local zoning ordinances are included in Appendix 2.
8
U. TECHNICAL OVERVIEW
Background
This section provides a technical overview of the cellular, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
ESMR), and personal communications services (PCS) technologies. The following table lists
examples of current providers licensed -by the Federal Communications Commission in the San
Diego region.
Table 1
EXAMPLES OF PROVIDERS IN SAN DIEGO REGION
Cellular AifTouch and GTE Mobilnet
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Nextel Communications
Personal Communications Systems (PCS) Pacific Bell Mobile Services
and Cox Communications
It should be emphasized that although the three technologies discussed in this section currently
function in slightly different manners, they will offer similar services in the future. In fact, all of
these technologies are based on systems composed of interconnecting cell sites. With this common
cell site base, it is predicted that as these technologies evolve, they will become more and more
similar. For example, a transition to smaller cell sites and the use of more antennas per square mile
are expected. For a comparison of the services that each of these technologies offers, as well as a
listing of carriers in the San Diego region, please see Table 2.
Technology
Wireless communications are transmitted through the air via radio waves of various frequencies.
Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is one of several types of electromagnetic radiation. As illustrated
in Figure 1, cellular and ESMR operate at frequencies between 800 and 900 MHz, and PCS
operates at both 900 MHz as well as between 1,850 and 2,200 MHz.
0
ELECTRIC
POWER
10'
Figure 1
ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM
Frequency /Hz
CELLULAR PHONES & ENHANCED SPECIALIZED MOBILE RADIO (ESMR)
VISIBLE ULTRA
RADIO 8 TV MICROWAVE INFRARED LIGHT VIOLET X-RAYS
1v 10' 10' 0' 10" 10" 10" 10"
GAMMA
RAYS
10" 10"
COMMUNICATION SERVICES (PCS)
The three technologies described in this report function similarly in that their systems can be
compared to the honeycomb pattern of a bee hive. Like the honeycomb pattern, these wireless
communications systems are composed of interconnecting "cell sites," or geographical areas, that
blanket a region. In this sense, all three technologies are "cellular technologies," although mobile
cellular phones are frequently referred to as "the" cellular technology because they pioneered the
concept.
Figure Z shows the relationship of cell sites within and between urbanized areas. As illustrated, cell
sites tend to be smaller and more numerous in the central parts of cities, and larger and less
abundant in peripheral areas and along highways. This is because more people, and accordingly
more customers, live in urbanized areas. As more people begin to demand wireless
communications services, wireless systems will require additional capacity to handle calls. This
additional calling capacity can be acquired in one of various ways: providers can increase the
number of their cell sites, use digital versus analog technology (explained in more detail below), or
combine these two methods. Generally speaking, providers will choose the third option and do
both -- increase the number of their cell sites and use digital technology. As they increase the
number of their cell sites, they must reduce the area of each site in order to avoid overlapping
coverage. As a result, a pattern emerges in which the more populated central segments of cities
contain smaller and more numerous cell sites, while the less populated edges of cities, as well as
rural areas and highways, have fewer, but larger cell sites.
10
OxGELTELE
DETAIL
Figure 2
CELL SITE SYSTEMS
CELL SITES WITHIN CITIES
47g.n CITIES
HIGHWAY
CELL
Each cell site within the system contains both transmitting and receiving antennas. Calls placed
from a wireless phone or device are sent to a central computer switching system. The central
switch completes the call by connecting it either to a conventional telephone through a land -based
line, or to another mobile phone through the nearest antenna. As the mobile caller enters one cell
and exits another, the call is transferred between the cells.
Antennas
There are three general types of transmitting and receiving antennas used in the wireless
communications technology. These include whip antennas, panel antennas, and dish antennas.
While whip and panel antennas are used to transmit and receive radio waves carrying conversation
signals, dish antennas provide the link between the central computer switching system and the
various whip and panel antennas used throughout the mobile conversation.
11
WHIP ANTENNA
2 -6 INCHES
1 -18 FEET
Figure 3
ANTENNAS
PANEL ANTENNA
6-12 INCHES
4 -5 FEET
16 -8 INCHES
4 -6 FEET
DISH ANTENNA
1.5 3 FEET
Whip antennas (also known as stick, omnidirectional, or pipe antennas) emit signals in a 360 degree
horizontal plane and a compressed vertical plane. Shaped cylindrically, whip antennas have
diameters between two and six inches, and measure between one and eighteen feet in height.
Panel antennas (also known as sector antennas) have vertical and horizontal planes that aim signals
in specific directions. Panel antennas generally measure four to five feet in height, s::: to twelve
inches in width, and six to eight inches in depth.
As stated previously, dish antennas (also known as microwave dishes) have a different function
than whip and panel antennas. Instead of emitting radio waves that carry the call between a
wireless phone and its intended receiver, dish antennas emit microwaves that provide the critical
link between the central computer switching system and the appropriate transmitting or receiving
antennas. In essence, dish antennas send microwave signals that allow the central switch to transfer
the call between the various antennas closest to the mobile user. Dish antennas generally measure
four to six feet in diameter and one - and -a -half to three feet in depth.
Antenna structures are typically accompanied by equipment buildings 'or boxes. Cellular and
ESMR equipment buildings are generally less than 500 square feet in diameter (12 feet by 24 feet).
PCS equipment facilities, called base stations, are self- contained weather -proof cabinets about the
size of a vending machine. _
12
The three types of antennas described above function on a line of sight transmission. Antennas
need to be placed at specific heights in relation to one another in order to transmit and receive
signals. As a result, height is a determining factor in the design and siting of wireless
communications facilities. Typically, there are three types of antenna support- structures used to
place antennas at desired heights: lattice towers, monopoles, and building - attached facilities.
Lattice Towers
Ranging from 60 to 200 feet in height, lattice towers generally accommodate a variety of users,
including cellular, ESMR, PCS and paging companies, as well as public safety communications
providers. Illustrated in Figure 4, these towers generally have three or four support steel "legs" and
hold a variety of antennas. They can be found in areas where great height is needed, where multiple
microwave antennas are required, or where the weather demands a structurally -sound design.
It should be noted that lattice towers carry an inherent tradeoff: although they can accommodate
many users (and provide co-location opportunities), they often pose serious visual impacts.
Equipment and antennas concentrated on one large structure tend to draw more attention than the
dispersal of less visible but more numerous facilities, such as smaller monopoles or building -
attached facilities.
Figure 4
LATTICE TOWERS
WHIP ANTENNAS
ANEL ANTENNAS
ISH ANTENNAS
EQUIPMENT
BUILDING
Lattice towers are the least common type of antenna support structures; AirTouch and GTE
Mobilnet have a combined total of seven in the San Diego region.
13
Monopoles
All three technologies use monopoles (Figure 5), although their heights and designs vary. Ranging
in height from 25 to 125 feet, monopoles consist of a single pole, approximately three feet in
diameter at the base, narrowing to roughly 1.5 feet at the top, and may support any combination of
whip, panel, or dish antennas.
Figure 5
MONOPOLE
WHIP ANTENNAS
PANEL ANTENNAS
ISH ANTENNA
QUIPMENT
WILDING
Monopoles are generally used in rural areas, near freeways, or in areas where buildings are not of
sufficient height to meet line of sight transmission requirements. In the cellular mobile phone
system, monopoles are used much more commonly than lattice towers. AirTouch and GTE
Mobilnet have constructed approximately 65 monopoles in the San Diego area. Nextel, an ESMR
provider, also uses monopoles, and has built four in the region.
Monopoles in PCS systems are expected to be shorter than those of the cellular telephone and
ESMR systems. Some PCS providers are proposing an integration of monopoles into existing light
poles. Illustrated in Figure 6, this type of facility may be referred to as the "flower tower."
Figure 6 ANTENNAS
FLOWER TOWER T_
I\
11:A EQUIPMENT
BUILDING
14
r:
Building - Attached Facilities
Building- attached facilities exist in all three technologies in two general forms: (1) roof - mounted,
in which antennas are placed on the roofs of buildings, or (2) building - mounted, in which antennas
are mounted to the sides of buildings. (Although not as common, facilities also can be mounted on
other structures such as water tanks, billboards, church steeples, or other creative locations.)
Figure 7 1 000BUILDING - ATTACHED FACILITIES
ROOF - MOUNTED
ANTENNAS-
BUILDING-MOUNTED
ANTENNAS
H°
0
DID o
Lm O
O
D D
Although the visibility of building- attached facilities varies, roof - mounted antennas are generally
hidden from view because they are located in the middle of the roof or in boxed structures
resembling air conditioning units. Likewise, building - mounted antennas are also unnoticeable if
they are painted to match the color and texture of the building. Antennas that are architecturally,
integrated into a building are often referred to using the term "stealth."
It is important to note that although building- attached facilities are becoming common, they can be
used only when buildings meet the height required for antennas to function within the surrounding
system. Where buildings do not meet height requirements, providers tend to use monopoles.
How Cellular Mobile Telephone Technology Works
As described previously, cellular systems are composed of interconnected neighboring "cell sites."
These cell sites operate low power facilities (facilities that function on low amounts of electric
energy).
The cellular telephone industry is limited to 45 MHz of spectrum bandwidth, which without
frequency -reuse, would limit each cellular carrier to 396 frequencies or voice channels. In order to
increase calling capacity, these low power facilities "reuse" frequencies on the electromagnetic
spectrum. The manner in which providers organize, or "configure," their cells is an important
factor in increasing frequency reuse and establishing an area's calling capacity.
15
Figure 8 illustrates two types of cell configurations: the omni cell configuration, used in rural areas,
and the sector cell configuration, used in urban areas.
Figure 8
CELL CONFIGURATIONS
OMNI CELL CONFIGURATION SECTOR CELL CONFIGURATION
The omni cell configuration uses omni or whip antennas, antennas that emit signals in 360 degrees.
Whip antennas do not lend themselves to frequency reuse as well as sector antennas. As a result,
omni cell configurations are generally used in rural areas since these areas are sparsely populated
and consequently do not need extra calling capacity. Urban areas, on the other hand, have denser
populations and require additional calling capacity to accommodate the system's greater number of
users. The sector cell configuration provides this extra calling capacity by utilizing sector or panel
antennas that divide the omni cell into three segments. The three segments use different
frequencies, allowing greater reuse of the channels. Because they have the capacity to handle large
volumes of calls, sectored sites are used particularly in areas near high vehicular activity such as
freeways and major intersections.
Although a cell site's radius depends upon its surrounding topography and its capacity to handle
calls, cell sites in rural areas generally have a radius between five and eight miles, and cell sites in
urban areas typically have a radius between two and five miles.
Types of Cell Sites
There are three basic types of cell sites:
Covera a sites serve to expand coverage in large areas or in areas with difficult terrains and
to enhance coverage for portable systems. These sites allow users to make and maintain calls
as they travel between cells.
2. Qpacily sites serve to increase a site's capacity to handle calls when surrounding sites have
reached their practical channel limits.
16
3. Transition sites are needed for frequency reuse. Antennas mounted on tall support structures
sometimes create a problem in frequency reuse because they "see" everything and overlap
into the next cell site's coverage area. In order to control frequency reuse problems, these tall
structures must be removed . and replaced by transition sites. Transition sites allow the
cellular company to increase the capacity of calls and maintain coverage simultaneously.
Analog and Digital Technologies
Traditionally, cellular phones have utilized analog transmission signals. In the analog technology,
voice messages are electronically replicated and amplified as they are carried from the transmitting
antenna to the receiving antenna. A problem with this technology is that the amplification
procedure tends to pick up "noise," sometimes making the message difficult to hear.
In order to diminish this noise and to provide greater calling capacity per channel, the cellular
industry is beginning to use digital transmission signals. In the digital technology, voice messages
are converted into digits (zeroes and ones) that represent sound intensities at specific points in time.
Because natural pauses in the conversation are eliminated, more calling capacity becomes available
from the same amount of spectrum, thus reducing the need for new sites. An added benefit is that
the background noise that is generally heard in the analog system becomes inaudible. As illustrated
in Figure 9, the graphic difference between the two technologies is that analog signals are
transmitted as continuous waves while digital technology converts the analog signal to binary,
digits.
ANALOG SIGNAL
Figure 9
TRANSMISSION SIGNALS
DIGITAL SIGNAL
0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
There are currently two forms of digital technology: time division multiple access (TDMA) and
code division multiple access (CDMA). Both of these forms of digital technology attempt to
provide multiple access over one frequency, or channel. While TDMA is expected to increase
calling capacity three to ten times over analog technology, CDMA is expected to increase calling
capacity by ten to twenty times.
Whereas cellular telephone carriers are in the process of converting to the digital technology,
ESMR is already using it and PCS will come on line with it.
17
How Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Technology Works
According to Government Affairs Notes - A Comparison of ESMR and Cellular, an ESMR system
is "the coordinated operation of several contiguous SMR [Specialized Mobile Radio] systems
operated with digital — rather than analog — technology and a configuration of numerous low -
power sites which employ significant frequency re-use throughout the ESMR. system."
First licensed in the 1970s, SMR towers were not allowed to reuse channels. Operating at 1000
watts of power and at high elevation sites, towers covered a 20 mile radius. ESMR systems,
however, are pennitted to reuse channels. Nextel's ESMR system reuses channels by building
transmitters at low elevation sites (generally shorter than 200 feet) and limiting the transmitters'
power output to 100 watts of effective radiated power (ERP). By doing so, sites cover radii
between two and eight miles.
Operating on a system composed of cell sites, the ESMR technology functions similarly to the
cellular technology. Like the cellular system, ESMR uses cell sites with radii between two and
eight miles; operates by way of a main switching office that completes calls by transmitting them to
a local telephone company; uses omni and sector cell configurations; employs whip and panel
antennas on monopoles and buildings; reuses frequencies; and utilizes coverage and capacity sites.
The main difference between ESMR and cellular systems is ESMR's use of digital technology,
which allows it to make its sites more efficient than typical cellular sites. Because channels can
accommodate six times as many callers, each site has increased capacity, which in turn, reduces the
number of sites required to operate the system.
How Personal Communications Services (PCS) Technology Works
PCS also will function as a pattern of cell sites using digital technology. Incoming wireline calls
will be transmitted by local telephone company wires to a central control point. Similarly,
incoming wireless calls will be routed through a PCS wireless switch to a local telephone system.
Calls will be. completed through microcells (antennas located on top of light poles or telephone
poles), and macrocells (antennas mounted on the sides or tops of buildings). Microcells are
expected to cover radii of 80 to 1200 feet and macrocells will cover approximately 1.2 miles (two
kilometers). As the caller approaches the edge of the cell's boundary, the communication will be
handed over from the original cell to the next.
PCS providers are aiming to offer an alternative to the fixed telephone in a user's home by
providing wireless coverage both within and outside of the home. Providers are in the process of
developing a system referred to as "follow -me calling" or "the universal phone number," in which
calls will be routed to people instead of to places regardless of location.
PCS systems will utilize digital technology, and as a result, their cell sites will have higher calling
capacities than analog cellular cell sites. However, due to the technology's higher frequencies on
the electromagnetic spectrum (1,850 to 2,200 MHz versus 800 to 900 MHz), PCS cell sites will
have smaller radii than cellular cell sites. As a result, some PCS providers estimate that they will
need two to three times as many transmission sites as cellular systems.
18
PCS is similar to cellular and ESMR in that it will operate on a "cell site" system, will use a central
control point, will use sector cell configurations, will employ whip and panel antennas on
monopoles and buildings, will reuse frequencies, and will use coverage and capacity sites. It will
be different in that it will use digital technology, will require more sites, and its sites will have
smaller radii.
Paging
Although paging is not addressed as an individual technology in this report, it is included in this
discussion because it serves over 40 million users across the United States. Paging antennae are
typically placed at lower elevations and at greater densities than antennas of other wireless
communications systems. It is expected that paging companies will need forty to fifty transmitters
containing one omnidirectional antenna each) for each five to seven mile radius in order to provide
service to its current and future customers. This is similar to the geographic dispersion
requirements of the PCS technology.
Paging companies do not typically construct their own facilities. Instead, most rent space at
existing communications facilities sometimes known as multi-user sites. Multi-user sites that are
located on building tops are an ideal location for paging facilities because paging companies have a
great need for low -elevation sites. Due to the increasing demand for pagers, cities should expect
conditional use permit applications for paging systems to increase. For technical characteristics of
paging, please see the PCS column in Table 2.
Concluding Notes on Technological Aspects of Wireless Communications Technology
The largest similarity between the three forms of wireless communications discussed in this section
is that they all function on a network of interconnecting cell sites. As these technologies evolve in
response to increasing consumer demand for wireless communications services, providers will
develop cell sites with smaller geographic radii, place antennas at lower heights, and install more
antennas per square mile than in the past. Their common goal is to integrate facilities into existing
community structures by building rooftop or building- mounted facilities, by designing fiberglass
shrouds and creative screening, and by encouraging architecturally integrated and visually sensitive
designs.
The largest difference between these technologies, on the other hand, is in their form of signal
transmission. Cellular is currently the only system using the analog technology, but is in the
process of incorporating, if not converting to, the digital technology.
The following table summarizes the technological and regulatory aspects of the three systems.
Portions of the table that have not been described in this section of the report can be found in
succeeding sections and in Appendix 3, which addresses licensing requirements by the Federal
Communications Commission.
19
TABLE 2
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS COMPARISON CHART
Note: The number of permits likely to be processed in 1996 in the San Diego region is unpredictable for each of the technologies for
various reasons. The numbers listed are estimates only. Market demand and the continuing development of the technology will
affect the final numbers. Additionally, unexpected events (such as earthquakes and other natural disasters) could also inereap-
demand for wireless communications, and lead to the need for additional capacity sites. The numbers supplied in the chart also r
subject to change if leases cannot be obtained or permits are not granted. The figures are flexible and should not be taken as "facts.
20
Technology: Cellular ESMR PCs
Service: 2 -way mobile voice communication 2 -way mobile voice 2 -way mobile voice communication
Paging communication 2 -way paging/short message service
Voicemail Paging Facsimile
E -Mail Dispatching E -Mail
CDPD (Cellular Digital Packet Data) Data Transmission Video telecommunications
Conference calling Data transmission
Facsimile Voice mail
Data transmission Conference calling
Carriers in San Diego GTE Mobilnet (formerly U.S. Nextel Broadband:
region: West) Pacific Bell Mobile Services
AirTouch Cox Communications
Narrowband:
Various Possibilities
Number of carriers Two Unrestricted - 2 broadband
allowed by FCC in 6 national narrowband
San Diego region: 6 regional narrowband
In future, several Metropolitan
Trading Areas (MTAs) and Basic
Trading Areas (BTAs) ISeeAppendix3fordetails)
Spectrum: UHF 800 - 900 MHz (45 MHz band UHF 800 MHz (buying UHF 900 MHz,
divided into 832 channels with 416 private licenses at various Microwave 1850 - 2200 MHz I
channels per provider) frequencies to assemble
network)
Signal: Analog, converting to digital Digital Digital
Cell structures: Combination of lattice towers, mono- Combination of lattice Combination of monopoles, building -
poles, and building- attached facilities towers, monopoles, and attached facilities, and fiber -based
building - attached facilities microcells I
What drives new siting Fill gaps in existing system Fill gaps in existing system Fulfill requirements by FCC to
needs: Improve call quality Expand coverage areas serve 37.5% of market within 5
Increase calling capacity Increase calling capacity years of receiving license and 75%
of market within 10 years of
receiving license
Number of permits AirTouch: approx. 35 Nextel: between 25 and 35 Pacific Bell Mobile Services:
likely to be processed GTE Mobilnet: between 20 and 40 between 35 and 45
in 1996 in San Diego Cox Communications: To be
region:* determined
Status: Existing, mature; still infilling and Existing, continuing to New, service beginning 1 - 3 years in
expanding. consolidate private licenses future.
into networks.
Note: The number of permits likely to be processed in 1996 in the San Diego region is unpredictable for each of the technologies for
various reasons. The numbers listed are estimates only. Market demand and the continuing development of the technology will
affect the final numbers. Additionally, unexpected events (such as earthquakes and other natural disasters) could also inereap-
demand for wireless communications, and lead to the need for additional capacity sites. The numbers supplied in the chart also r
subject to change if leases cannot be obtained or permits are not granted. The figures are flexible and should not be taken as "facts.
20
M. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section will discuss the regulatory framework for wireless communications facilities at the
federal, state, and local levels.
Federal Level
Federal Communications Commission
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal regulatory agency
which is responsible directly to Congress. Established by the Communications Act of 1934, it is
charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire,
satellite, and cable. Its jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.
possessions. The general objectives of federal. telecommunications regulations are to provide
efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is considered a public resource; to develop a
domestic telecommunications infrastructure able to provide service on the national level, as well as
compete on a global level; and especially in recent years, to provide a highly competitive economic
market which spurs technological advances in the telecommunications industry.
The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) handles all FCC domestic wireless
telecommunications programs and policies, except those involving satellite communications.
Wireless communications services include cellular telephone, paging, personal communications
services, public safety, and other commercial and private radio services. The WTB regulates
wireless telecommunications providers and licenses. The Bureau also serves as the Commission's
principal policy and administrative resource with regard to federal auctions for the private use of the
public air waves.
The WTB regulates the three primary wireless communications services which are the subject of
this issues paper: cellular, ESMR, and PCS. Portions of the frequency spectrum are allocated to
specific uses (such as TV broadcast band, cellular, etc.), and specific frequencies within that part of
the spectrum are assigned to licensed operators. These procedures are intended to prevent
interference or conflicts among various operators or services at a given location attempting to use
the same portion of the frequency spectrum.
Licenses
One of the functions of the FCC is to issue licenses to wireless communications carriers. The FCC
issues licenses for certain frequency bands of the electromagnetic spectrum and effectively limits
the number of wireless communications providers in a specific geographic service area. Appendix
3 contains detailed information on the issuance of licenses for the three technologies covered in this
report.
21
Performance Standards
In addition to regulating licenses, the FCC establishes performance standards for cellular and PCS
providers. The FCC requires cellular and PCS licensees to provide, within a specified period of
time, a coverage ratio of a minimum quality for either a composite geographic service area or a
percentage of an area's population.
The FCC establishes operational requirements for ESMR operators. Individual SMR operators are
prevented by the FCC from owning another SMR system within 40 miles of its existing system
unless that existing system is "fully loaded." A fully loaded system is defined as one which
provides service to 70 mobile users per channel. Therefore, in order to accumulate other SMR
licenses, an ESMR carrier must demonstrate that a certain number of users are using the existing
system on a regular basis.
In 1994, Congress and the FCC determined that all carriers that provide comparable services should
be regulated in the same manner. To achieve this regulatory parity, beginning in August 1996,
cellular, ESMR, and PCS providers will all be regulated by the FCC in the same manner as
common carriers.
Safety Standards
As previously discussed, ANSIIIEEE establishes operational safety standards for human exposure
to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. These ANSIIIEEE standards are considered "consensus
standards," agreed upon by committees comprised of university, industry and government
representatives. The FCC currently requires cellular, ESMR and PCS providers to comply with the
ANSIIIEEE standards for radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a condition of licensure.
Federal Aviation Administration
Under authority granted by the Federal Aviation Act, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
has jurisdiction over the following communication facilities: (1) towers that exceed 200 feet in
height; (2) towers that are located within 20,000 feet of a major commercial or military airport; and
3) towers that are located within 10,000 feet of a general aviation airport. The FAA reviews the
location and height of such towers and may require them to be painted and/or illuminated to prevent
possible interference with nearby airport operations. The FAA also reviews possible interference
issues with aircraft- to-ground communications that may be caused by transmission facilities located
in or near airport flight paths. Under the requirements of the FAA, wireless communications
providers are responsible for filing a notice with the FAA if their facilities are subject to FAA
review.
22
State Level
California Public Utilities Commission
In 1911, California voters passed a constitutional amendment establishing the Railroad
Commission. In 1946, the Railroad Commission was renamed the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC). The CPUC has broad powers to regulate safetyvstandards of service, and
rates paid to privately -owned companies that provide public utilities in California. The CPUC,
whose members are appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, has a quasi - legislative
and quasi-judicial authority in that it establishes and enforces administrative regulations, and, like a
court of law, may take testimony, subpoena witnesses and records and issue decisions and orders.
Of the three types of wireless communications services discussed in this paper, the CPUC presently
regulates only cellular providers, which are considered public utilities. The CPUC regulates the
terms and conditions of cellular service in the state. However, federal' legislation preempts the
authority of the CPUC to regulate cellular rates and market entry.
As previously noted, ESMR licensees operate private systems, over which the CPUC has no
jurisdiction pursuant to federal legislation. At this.time, the CPUC also has no regulatory authority
over PCS providers. However, the CPUC may pursue acquiring the authority to regulate the terms
and conditions of both ESMR and PCS services (as it currently regulates the cellular industry),
given that both ESMR and PCS providers' will be considered common carriers in the federal
regulatory framework.
General Order 159
The primary state regulation governing cellular providers is General Order 159 (G.O. 159), which
was approved by the CPUC in 1990. The purpose of G.O. 159 is to ensure that: (1) the potential
environmental impacts of all cellular sites are reviewed and considered in a manner consistent with
the California Environmental; Quality Act (CEQA); (2) affected local citizens, organizations, and
jurisdictions are given reasonable notice and opportunities for input into the review process; (3) the
public health and welfare; and zoning concerns of local jurisdictions are addressed; (4) cellular
service providers are not, unnecessarily delayed by site review; and (5) cellular service providers
provide high quality, reliable and widespread cellular service to California residents.
The main requirement imposed by the CPUC on cellular carriers is that they comply with all local
rules and regulations. Under G.O. 159, cellular communications facilities may not be constructed
until a carrier'demonstrates that it has complied with all local regulations and obtained the
necessary permits, and has filed with the CPUC either an advice letter or an application for
preemptive ' authority to construct. The CPUC also actively enforces rules to assure compliance
with local requirements and has the authority to override local decisions. The CPUC essentially
serves•.'as an agency of last resort, to which providers may appeal local determinations when all
other local avenues for appeal are exhausted. Although the CPUC has the ability to override local
decisions, it has used this preemptive authority in only one case in California, where a cellular
r
j'
23
provider was repeatedly denied numerous good faith attempts to obtain a local permi Ao construct a
facility in a needed service area. j
Among other matters, G.O. 159 also establishes the CPUC as the lead agencyfor CEQA review for
new cellular systems, and local agencies as CEQA lead agencies for mfill/ cell sites and switching
facilities for existing cellular systems. ,
In 1991, the Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC) rfquested changes in G.O. 159 to
streamline the permitting process. In December 1994, a form rulemaking was initiated by the
CPUC to consider revisions to G.O. 159 and its rules Bove
t
g environmental review and the
siting of cellular communications facilities.. During 1995, the CPUC held a series of workshops,
including one in San Diego at which revisions to G.O 159 were discussed. The Safety and
Enforcement Division of the CPUC (S&E Division) re eased a revised version of G.O. 159, entitled
G.O. 159Ajor public review and comment.. In. October -1995, the S &E Division and the CCAC
reached an agreement about G.O. 159A and filed a notice of settlement conferences. Two
conferences to discuss the draft settlement agreement were held to allow interested parties to
comment on the proposed settlement. f
In its current draft form, G.O. 159A would require cellular service providers: (1) to obtain all
requisite local land use approvals for construction of new sites or modifications of existing sites; (2)
to file a "notification letter" to the CPUC within 15 days after receiving local approval, which states
that they have obtained all necessary local permits for construction of new sites or modifications of
existing sites (a copy, of the "notification letter would be mailed to the local agency or governing
school district); and (3) to file/with the CPUC a tariff list of all existing sites on a quarterly basis
commencing January 30 of each year.
Under G.O. 159A, cellular service providers would not need to notify the CPUC of minor
maintenance or repaif work to existing facilities; however, they would still need to comply with all
local permitting requirements. Formal complaints concerning providers' compliance with G.O.
159A would be %filed with the CPUC. In addition, the CPUC would continue to maintain
preemptive authority.
As of the/ "publication date of this document, a revised G.O. 159A had not been adopted by the
CPUC. ' "Further information about the status of G.O. 159A may be obtained by calling the S &E
Division of the CPUC at (415) 703 -1836.
Local Level
Most local governmental agencies regulate wireless communications facilities via land use
regulations contained in respective zoning ordinances and general plans, and are responsible for
reviewing and processing applications for discretionary and ministerial permits for these facilities.
Local governments also have the broad authority to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of
their citizens.
24
Local Permitting Process
Local jurisdictions regulate wireless communications facilities through the permitting process.
Most agencies require a discretionary permit, such as a conditional use permit, in order to construct
a facility. Whether a permit is processed administratively or requires a public hearing varies among
local agencies. Several jurisdictions in the San Diego area, such as the City of San Diego and
County of San Diego, have established a two-level review process for wireless communications
facilities. This two-level process enables administrative processing of "minor" projects, and a
public hearing process for "major" projects. In general, administrative processing entails lower
permit fees and shorter processing times, while the public hearing process, involves higher permit
costs and a longer permit turnaround time.
For those jurisdictions with a two-level review process, whether a project is considered "major" or
minor" typically depends on both its type and location. For example, in the City of San Diego,
building- mounted antennas and associated equipment rooms are processed by administrative review.
in all zones, except residential. Most building- mounted antenna proposals on residential uses or
within residential zones require a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission.
Towers and monopoles also require the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning
Commission.
Many jurisdictions require all wireless communications facilities to be processed via public hearing
to the Planning Commission, City Council, or other decision - making body, because current land
use regulations do not specifically enable a two-level review process.
In reviewing a permit for a wireless communications facility, local planners must consider the issue
of land use compatibility. To address this issue of compatibility, wireless communications facilities
are subject to local zoning requirements, which are described below.
Permitted Zones and Locations
Local zoning ordinances designate specific zones where wireless communications facilities are
either permitted or prohibited. Jurisdictions typically encourage wireless communication facilities
to be located in commercial and industrial areas. Most jurisdictions permit wireless
communications facilities in all zones through a conditional use permit process. When located in
residential and/or open space zones, most jurisdictions typically require a conditional use permit
approved by the Planning Commission or City Council.
Some cities prohibit wireless communications facilities in certain zoning areas. For example, the
County of San Diego prohibits antenna facilities in special purpose "Ecological Resource Area"
zones, and the City of San Diego prohibits locating communication antennas on properties
designated as historic sites. The City of San Diego also has a policy of "prudent avoidance," which
stipulates that wireless communications facilities, due to perceived concerns about health impacts,
should not be located in areas where people would be exposed to them for prolonged periods of
time.
25
Standard Provisions
In addition to designated permitted zones and location, local jurisdictions also establish
development standards with which wireless communications facilities must comply. In general,
these development standards are specific to a particular zoning district. Local agencies also levy
additional requirements not specifically set forth in their zoning ordinances via the discretionary
permit process. Specific conditions of approval are usually included when individual conditional
use permits are approved.
Setbacks. Screening and Landscaping
Primary local objectives are to eliminate or minimize the visual effects of wireless communications
facilities, and to make such facilities compatible with surrounding uses. To accomplish these
objectives,. most local agencies require that minimum setbacks, adequate screening, and
landscaping are provided for these facilities. Examples of local zoning ordinances containing
specific development standards are provided in Appendix 2.
Height
Most local zoning ordinances contain specific height limits for each zoning district. Wireless
communications facilities such as towers or monopoles are typically allowed to exceed that height
limit, subject to discretionary permit approval.
Co-location
Some communities require applicants to co-locate or share the use of their facilities with other
wireless communications providers. In this paper, co-location is defined as locating wireless
communications equipment for more than one provider on a single site. There are several factors
that determine feasibility of co-location. These include technical factors such as:
1. A tower or building's structural capacity: An existing tower or building may not be able to
support weight or wind loads from additional antennas without structural redesign (which
may have additional visual impacts). In addition, co-location is problematic when
designing the structural capacity of new towers. A provider is able to design a tower which
supports the weight and wind loads of its own antennae and equipment, but cannot predict
how much more structural capacity is needed to accommodate antennae and equipment
from other users;
2. Rad.iofrequency interference: Co-location may create signal interference between antennas.
Approximately 20 feet of horizontal and vertical separation is typically needed between
different antennas. On a tower,. the need for separation may have a cumulative effect of
adding multiple platforms which may make the tower more visually obtrusive;
3. Mechanical or electrical incompatibilities: Like structural capacity, mechanical or electrical
incompatibilities may make it difficult for different providers to share existing or new sites;
26
4. Technological differences among providers: Wireless communications technology is
evolving and may have different configurations in the near future. In designing an original
site, it may not be feasible to plan for future co-location. Questions which would need to be
addressed include: How may antennas will be needed per site or per structure for each
different provider? How high should a structure be designed to accommodate multiple
antennas?
Regulatory factors which affect co-location include the FCC's geographic service area requirements
and any other limitations on tower sharing. Liability also is a factor: _Which provider is liable for
personal injuries or antenna damage for a shared site?
In addition, co-location may not be visually desirable in certain situations. For example, locating
numerous antenna structures on a single site may result in the creation of a visually prominent
antenna farm." A single site. may be more visually unobtrusive to the casual observer. Alternatives
to co-location would be to provide effective screening of more dispersed antenna sites.
Although there are many challenges to co-location, several cities require providers to co-locate
facilities, where technically feasible and visually desirable. The City of Chula Vista requires
permittees to cooperate with other communications providers -in co- locating antennas within the
City. Chula Vista requires that permittees demonstrate a good faith effort to share facilities and
accommodate other users. The City does not require permittees to co-locate facilities, if, such co-
locations would contribute to a substantial technical or quality of service impairment; however,
competitive conflict or financial burden are not considered adequate reasons by Chula Vista against
co-location.
Similarly, in Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to encourage co-location, tower applicants are
required to send certified mail announcements to all other users in the same area, declaring their
sharing capabilities and/or siting needs. Except in cases where mechanical, structural, or
regulatory factors prevent them from sharing, applicants cannot be denied or deny space on a tower.
The direct legal implications of co-location are currently not addressed in federal or state statutes.
However, because wireless communications facilities typically require discretionary permits, it is
within local government authority in granting these permits, to set reasonable project requirements,
which may include provisions for co-location.
Accessory Equipment Storage
Wireless communications facilities typically include small, un- manned equipment storage buildings
or boxes that house transmitting and other equipment. Exterior equipment storage buildings are
typically required to be architecturally compatible and consistent with surrounding buildings and
structures, and also may be limited to a specific maximum size in certain jurisdictions.
27
Most loc;! l governments have standard public notification requirements containe'in their zoning.
regulation As part of the discretionary review process, public notice is required to be provided to
all prof y \ners located within a given radius of the project site (a 300 foo radius is typical). In
addition, most Jurisdictions require the posting of a public notice at designated public. sites (such as
City Hall or libraries), publishing a public notice in a paper of general circulation, and/or posting a
notice on the prcject,site. Public notice is usually required only for those projects which require a
public hearing, and isiiot required for projects subject to administrative review. The intent of public
notification is to give local citizens, organizations, and other j " sdictions reasonable notice and
opportunities for input into the permit review process.
For sites located adjacent to coastal regions, additional noficing requirements may be imposed by
the state's California Coastal. Act provisions. For jurisdictions without the approved Local Coastal
Plans (LCPs), coastal development permits (another type of discretionary permit) are required to be
forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for approval, which requires that public notice is
provided to renters, as well as property owners,-within a specified radius of the project site.
Time Limitation
Some jurisdictions have determined it appropriate to plabe time limitations on discretionary permits
for.wireless communications facilities.'I'ime limits are type ly an issue because of concerns about
the facilities' perceived effects on health (given inconclusiv \iealth studies), and because of the
unknown impact of future technology on the wireless communications industry. For example, the
City of Chula Vista includes conditions that require subsequent
d '
cretionary review, and which
enable the City to modify or add conditions of approval, or to revoke permit. One condition, that
relates to EMF health concerns, requires the submittal of a report whic rovides quantified EMF
field measurements and compares those measurements to current ANSI s dards. If the project
does not meet ANSI standards, the discretionary permit may be modified or oked. Chula Vista
also includes another condition that reserves the right of the City to add, odify, or delete
conditions after the approval of a permit in order to "advance a legitimate Bove ental interest
related to health, safety or welfare." Prior to exercising that right, the City would uired to
notify the perniittee in advance and would not be allowed to impose "a substantial a nse or
deprive the pei - iittee of a substantial revenue source."
r
i
28
01
ABBREVIATIONS OF TERMS
A/m Amperes per meter
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BTA Basic Trading Area
CCAC Cellular Carriers Association of California
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access
CDPD Cellular Digital Packet Data
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal. Regulations
CGSA Cellular Geographical Service Area
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CTIA Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
DEP Development and Environmental Planning
DHS Department of Health Sciences
DRA Division of Ratepayer Advocates
DSD Development Services Department
EAS Environmental Analysis Section
EIR Environmental Impacts Report
ELF Extremely Low Frequency
EMF Electromagnetic Field
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESMR Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GHz Gigahertz
G.O.159 (A) General Order 159 (A)
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
kHz Kilohertz
L.CP Local Coastal Plan
MHz Megahertz
MSO Main Switching Office
MTA Metropolitan Trading Area
mW /cm2 Milliwatt per square centimeter
PCs Personal Communications Services
RFR Radio Frequency Radiation
RSA Rural Statistical Area
SMR Specialized Mobile Radio
SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
TDMA Time Division Multiple Access
V/m Volts per meter
WTB Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
39
GLOSSARY
Analog Technology (see Digital Technology)
Analog technology replicates and amplifies voice messages as they are carried from the
transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna. Traditionally, cellular phone systems have used
analog transmission signals.
Antenna
A device used in communications which transmits or receives radio signals.
Band
A clearly defined range of radiofrequencies dedicated to a particular purpose.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
Governmental agency which regulates the terms and conditions of public utilities in the State of
California. Of the three wireless communications services discussed in the Issues Paper, the
CPUC presently regulates only cellular service providers.
Channel
A segment of a frequency band. Also referred to simply as "frequency."
Co- location
Locating wireless communications equipment from more than one provider on a single site.
Common Carrier
A public radio service in which a single licensee provides one -way or two -way service to
multiple users.
Communications Facility
A land use facility supporting antennas and microwave dishes that sends and/or receives
radiofrequency signals. Communications facilities include structures or towers, and accessory
buildings.
Digital Technology
Digital technology converts voice and data messages into digits that represent sound intensities
at specific points of time and data content. ESMR and PCS service providers employ digital
technology, and cellular providers are rapidly converting to digital as well.
Dish Antenna
A dish -like antenna used to link communications sites together by wireless transmission of voice
or data. Also called microwave antenna or microwave dish antenna.
41
Effective Radiated Power (ERP)
The power supplied to an antenna multiplied by the relative gain of the antenna in a given
direction.
Electromagnetic Field (EMF)
The local electric and magnetic fields thar envelop the surrounding space. The most ubiquitous
source of EMFs is from the movement and consumption of electric power, such as with
transmission lines, household appliances and lighting.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
The federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating wireless communications providers.
The FCC has primary regulatory control over communications providers through its powers to
control interstate commerce and to provide a comprehensive national system in accordance with
the Federal Communications Act.
Frequency
The number of cycles made by electromagnetic radiation in one second, usually expressed in
units of hertz (Hz).
Hertz
A unit for expressing frequency which is the number of times a wave -like radio signal changes
from maximum positive to maximum negative charge per second. 1 Hz = 1 cycle per second.
1 kilohertz (kHz) = 1,000 Hz; 1 megahertz (MHz) = 1,000 kHz or 1,000,000 Hz; 1 gigahertz
GHz) = 1,000 MHz or 1 million kHz or 1 billion Hz.
Interference
Disturbances to reception caused by radiofrequency waves or other electric fields.
Microwave
Electromagnetic radiation frequencies from 3 GHz to 300 GHz; highly directional when used for
radiofrequency transmissions. Uses relatively low transmitter power levels when compared to
other forms of transmission.
Monopole
A structure composed of a single spire used to support communications equipment.
Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation
Electromagnetic waves of low frequency, long wavelength, and low photon energy unable to
cause ionization (i.e., to remove an electron from an atom).
Panel Antenna
An antenna or array of antennas designed to concentrate a radio signal in a particular area. Panel
antennae are typically flat, rectangular devices approximately six square feet in size. Also called
directional antennae.
42
Power Density
The magnitude of the electromagnetic energy flux density at a point in space, in power per unit of
area (measured in milliwatts per square centimeter or mW /cm2).
Radio
A generic term referring to communication of impulses, sounds, and pictures through space by
means of electromagnetic waves.
Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR)
Electromagnetic radiation in the portion of the spectrum from 3 kHz (kilohertz) to 300 GHz
gigahertz).
Stealth Facility
Any communications facility which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment.
Examples of stealth facilities may include architecturally screened roof- mounted antennas,
building- mounted antennas painted to match the existing structure, antennas integrated into
architectural elements, and antenna structures designed to look like light poles. Also called
concealed antennas.
Wavelength
The distance between points of corresponding phases of a periodic wave of two constant cycles.
Wavelength = wave velocity /frequency.
Whip Antenna
An antenna that transmits signals in 360 degrees. Whip antennae are typically cylindrical in
shape and are less than 6 inches in diameter and measure up to 18 feet in height. Also called
omnidirectional, stick, or pipe antennas.
43
REFERENCES
Written Sources
Barrett, William. "Guide to Electromagnetic Radiation." The Ridgefield Press. February 25, 1994.
Bates, Bud. "Wireless Networked Communications." McGraw Hill Inc., 1994.
California Public Utilities Commission, Environmental and Energy Advisory Branch. "Report on the
Informational Workshop on Electro Magnetic Fields (EMFs) and Cellular Transceiver Facilities
1.91 -01 -012)." Commission Advisory and Compliance Division, December 1993.
California Public Utilities Commission. Decision 95- 11 -017. "Order instituting investigation on the
Commission's own motion to develop policies. and procedures for addressing the potential health
effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities (191-01-012)." CPUC, San Francisco,
November 1995.
Cauley, Leslie. "The Urge to Merge." The Wall Street Journal, pages R16 -R19, March 20, 1995.
City of Chula Vista. "Standard Conditions for Wireless Communications Facilities." Planning
Department letter, June 15, 1994.
City of San Diego, Development Services Department. "Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fieldstone
Summit (DEP No. 94- 0467)." Development and Environmental Planning Division, 1995.
City of San Diego, Environmental Analysis Section (EAS) of the Development and Environmental
Planning (DEP) section of the Development Services Department (DSD). "Significance Criteria for
Human Health/Public Safety." March 1995.
City of San Diego. "Communication Antenna Regulations. "City of San Diego Zoning Code Amend-
ment, Division 18, May 1995 draft.
County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. "Cellular Telephone Antennas Use Type
Classifications." Policy Number CP -14, October 7, 1992.
Department of Energy (DOE). "Questions and Answers about EMFs." DOE RAPID Program, January
1995.
Federal Communications Commission. "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Guidelines for Evaluating
the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation." FCC 93 -142.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology (OET). "Questions and
Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Radiation." OET
Bulletin No. 56, Third Edition, January 1989.
45
Federal Communications Commission, Office of Science and Technology (OST). "Evaluating
Compliance with FCC - Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation."
OST Bulletin No. 65, October 1985.
Gregory, Michelle. "Local Planning Issues in Siting Cellular Towers." American Planning
Association, Zoning News, June 1995.
Hatfield, James B., P.E. "Cellular Towers Exposure Levels and Public Health." EMF Health Report,
Volume 3, Number 2, March/April 1995.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. "IEEE Standard for safety Levels with Respect to
Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3kHZ to 300 GHz." IEEE 095.1-
1991 (Revisions of ANSI C95.1- 1982). ISBN 1- 55937- 179 -X. Library of Congress Number 92-
8054, 1992.
Jefferson County. Colorado. "Low Power Mobile Radio Service Telecommunications Land Use Plan
Addendum." Jefferson County Planning Commission, October 19, 1994.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and U.S. Department of Energy. "Questions and
Answers about EMF - Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power."
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, January 1995. ((202) 512- 1800).
United States General Accounting Office, Resources, Community, and Economic Development
Division. "Report to the Chairman: Status of Research on the Safety of Cellular Telephones."
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance Committee on Energy and Commerce, House
of Representatives, November 4, 1994.
US WEST New Vector Group, Bellevue, Washington, AT &T, pamphlet. (Not dated.)
Yost, Michael G., Ph.D. "Nonionizing Radiation Questions and Answers." San Francisco Press, Inc.,
1988.
Individuals
In addition to the information provided by the Subcommittee, the following individuals contributed
significantly to the preparation of this paper:
Darrell Daugherty, Planning Consultant, Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Michele Diamonon, California Public Utilities Commission
Larry Doherty, Manager -Site Acquisition, GTE Mobilnet
Jay Higgins, Project Manager, Reliant Ventures
Alannah Kinser, Outreach Officer, California Public Utilities Commission
Rob Lingle, Program Manager, Cox Communications
Irene Longin, Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Kevin McGee, Government Relations Manager, AirTouch Cellular
Dan Mieszala, Regional Systems Engineer, GTE Mobilnet
Martin Miller, Associate Planner, City of Chula Vista
46
Maryanne Miller, Planning Consultant, Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Mary O'Toole, Director of Site Acquisition and Development, Cox PCS
Virginia Partridge, Fluor Daniel Telecom
Barbara Saito, Project Manager, Nextel Communications
Ted Shaw, Land Use Planner, JM Consulting
Richard B. Stephens, Director of Planning Services, The Keith Companies
Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, City of Carlsbad
Other Members of SANDAG's Communications Facilities Subcommittee of the Regional Growth
Management Technical Committee
47