Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 2007 <br />Mr. Moore spoke to the health issues and advised that they are regulated by the <br />Telecommunication Acts who gives them guidelines to operate by. This will be a very <br />low power transmitter, they operate out of any given antenna that they have on a tower at <br />approximately 100 to 200 watts. That equates to literally a couple of 100 watt light bulbs <br />and surprisingly the only concern and information given by the American Cancer Society <br />and the FCC are concerns from heat and thermal emissions. Based on the guidelines that <br />they are to follow, the only concern is in the very immediate proximity to the antenna, a <br />couple of feet, this would apply to tower climbers or people who are in a crane or bucket <br />truck working on the antenna. The mobile phones are a different issue, which he won't <br />address at all tonight. <br />Councilmember Puzzello questioned why the Council cannot take into consideration the <br />health issue on this bill. <br />Mr. Moore stated that the FCC regulates the guidelines regarding cell towers and they felt <br />the need to educate the public on the health issues of cell towers was vital. The FCC is <br />going to control and monitor the level of RF emissions and continue to do studies on it, <br />set the level, and as of now they follow those rules when the equipment is hung on the <br />tower and that is what they go by. The Telecommunications Act addressed these <br />concerns and felt that they have addressed those issues. <br />Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney, stated that the Federal Communications <br />Act again limits the authority for local governments and the Federal Authority pre-empts <br />local decisions "premise directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio <br />frequency emissions." She also in light of Mr. Niezgodski's comments pointed out the <br />advisory recommendations from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and addressed his concern <br />with regard to the effect of property values, based on the information that they had at <br />their public hearing, that they did not find that it would injure or adversely effect. If the <br />Council would deny this request, the FCC requires that a denial must be in writing <br />supported by "substantial evidence" in the written record. She further noted that in <br />Chapter 21 of the South Bend Municipal Code there are certain criteria that is outlined, <br />the sighting hierarchy, the service plan, whether there is a need for this service, whether <br />they have met the certification guidelines, which Mr. Falvey addressed at the Zoning and <br />Annexation Committee meeting, and also the security, which was also addressed at the <br />committee meeting. The criteria that the Council has established by code is the criteria <br />that the Council should be addressing, otherwise the Council does not want to get into a <br />situation that the denial would fall into the category of being arbitrary or capricious. So <br />as long as the Council feels that they have a written record to support the decision <br />whether it is yeah or nay, that it is a decision that should go forward. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer questioned why the Council is even hearing this issue. It seems <br />like it is just a documentation of information that one of the other departments could take <br />care of It seems to her like so often thorough legislation is so contradictory. They want <br />the Council to examine it, but not to do anything. She stated that if people have to live <br />next to a 195' cell tower and if their impact doesn't mean anything, she can't imagine <br />anything else that does. She stated that is why we have lawyers and why we go to court, <br />because she feels that communities have a responsibility to stand up for their neighbors. <br />She stated that she has every intention of standing up for her neighbors tonight. <br />Councilmember White stated that she is support of Councilmember Pfeifer and her <br />concerns. If indeed the Council has no authority then the question becomes why is the <br />Council even discussing this issue? Even though the neighborhood organizations that <br />were present here tonight are not directly responsible or have any authority in this <br />particular area, they do work in collaboration and this is an area that is very important to <br />the Council At Large. Councilmember White stated that she will not be supporting this <br />bill. <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that he believes in his line of work as a police officer, he <br />estimates at least 50% of the calls that are put through to the South Bend Police <br />Department are made with cell phones and are calls to report crimes in progress, violent <br />16 <br />