My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/23/1997 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1997
>
1997 Planning Commission
>
09/23/1997 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:38 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 9:35:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1997
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/23/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Molder's tecluucal notes, the power density standards are stricter for cellular fiequencies than for <br />PCS fiequencies because huinans aUsorbs radio waves inore at 860 megahertz. N1r. Lendex responded <br />that he could not speak to Ms. Cox's coimnents regarding tests done in a foreigu company, because he <br />did not kuow what fiequency range they were tallcing about. It could be 60 hertz, which is what the <br />power liues are at, and it there is conceiu about those for human beings. He stated that they are 25 <br />times below the standards set by the EPA, if a person stands next to a inicrowave oven, he would get <br />250, if he stood next to the tower he would get 10. Tle tlu-eshold for safety is about 290. There tower <br />is safer than a microwave oven. Mr. Maiwing asked what tlie effect would be if a person with a pace- <br />maker stood next to the tower. 1VIr. Lendex refei7ed to page 03/14, 3 or 4 lines down, wluch stated <br />"...the general populatiou may iuclude sensitive individuals such as cluldren, the elderly, or the iufum." <br />He considered the pacemalcer issue as infirm. He does not laiow what range she was talking about, but <br />this clearly states those things ui that range and these frequencies have been used and he believed that <br />this is scientific proof that this is the case. Ms. Del Valle stated that must operate in accordance with <br />the FCC standards which are included in tlie Telecoimnunications Act. Ms. Cox read a report by the <br />FCC that stated the FCC liceuses and approves equipment of facilities that generate RF and <br />microwave radiation, altliough the FCC would not knowingly authoi-ize a facility or device that would <br />resulted in health hazards, the FCC's primary jurisdictiou does not lie in the health and safety area, <br />therefore they are not eaperts ui tlus area. Agaiu she coinpared tlus with the cigarette industry of 30 <br />years ago when they assured people that everytlung was fine. She stated that effects are being seen <br />where things are happeniiig iu the general population when they are exposed to cellular phone <br />radiation. She does not believe it is up to the public to prove there is something wrong, the companies <br />should prove that there is notlung wrong. Mr. Lendex repeated that they are below the EPA standards <br />and lower than microwaves, FM radios, and he does not believe tlus is an issue. Chairman Tallon <br />asked what the effect would be if tlus tower were lowered it to the height of the one in Clague Park. <br />He stated that it would probably result in dropped calls aud they would need another two towers east <br />and west of tlus one. The Clague Park tower probably would not work since it was more to the north. <br />If there was a 125 foot towei- in North Oltnsted there would have to be oue about 1 mile east and 1 <br />mile west. He agreed that tlie tower at the aiiport was lower and is the closest one to North Olmsted, <br />and the system does not work in tlus area. He maintained that the Telecoi-ninwucations Act provided <br />that if the city gave a tower to one carrier they had to accoinmodate another so that one would not <br />have a conapetitive advantage over the other. Mr. Tallon disagreed, if they could not work on a 125 <br />foot pole, they should get a different systein. Mr. Dubellco read a portion of this act. He stated that <br />this is a relatively recent law, and there have been no cases to test it. He believed that it was up to the <br />city to make a determination based on what the developer tells thein; and it would be fair to say that it <br />would be all right if they dropped calls. It would be up to the city to provide coverage the same as any <br />other provider. Mr. Leudex stated that they could not put a pole one mile east or west of the <br />recreation center because that would impact the opposite direction. A pole on the recreation center <br />would cover the eutire area. Ms. Cameron Alston asked if it were the standard in the industry to have <br />100% coverage. Mr. Leudex explained where their poles were and stated that if they got only 90% <br />coverage, calls would drop, and the company would fail. Tlieir objective is 100% coverage in their <br />footprint. Mr. Lendex claiified that a 150 feet lugh pole, give or take 1 or 2 feet, would probably give <br />them 100% coverage, but he could not really guarautee that. Mr. Dufala only cared about what was in <br />his back yard, not what they cau cover. N1r. Herbster noted that if the commission approves anythiug <br />above 125 feet, they will have to approve it for anyone else who comes into North Olmsted. W. <br />Tallon stated it would either be that or more poles. Mr. Mauuing stated that the FAA standards limit a <br />pole to 160 feet, if the pole is lugher than that, it will have to Ue painted and have a beacon on top; he <br />thiuks that should be the limit, uot approving an additional 25 feet. Iu response to questions, Mr. <br />L.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.