Monday, April 13, 2015

City of Albany Proposes Cell Antennas in Front of Homes & Schools



ALBANY CITY COUNCIL to VOTE ON   
CELL ANTENNAS IN FRONT OF 
HOMES & SCHOOLS

On Monday, April 20, 2015 the Albany City Council will consider new regulations allowing “distributed” cell antennas in residential neighborhoods (including in front of schools) where antennas have been banned since Albany’s wireless code adoption in 2005.         
 ** The Council hearing is Monday, 4/20/15 @ 7:30PM, City Hall, 1000 San Pablo Ave.**
Allowing antennas in residential areas was slipped in at the last minute after 10 months of hearings during which the Planning Commission assured the public that it would not change the cell antenna ban in neighborhoods or at schools.

By making this change, the city would:
-       give up its right under federal law, to say where antennas can & cannot go, opening the whole city to antennas
-       lose control over the number & strength of antennas that could be added to utility poles outside 2nd-story windows throughout the city

The proposed distributed antennas in neighborhoods:
·       are NOT low-power; they can emit hundreds of watts
·       are not needed here (they're for dense urban and other areas with tall obstacles to cell reception)
·       have not been requested in Albany by wireless providers

Albany’s cell coverage is good; every company has 2+ antenna sites. We don’t need more antennas.

If you oppose cell antennas in front of your home or your child’s school, let the City Council know.

Below is a SAMPLE LETTER you can send to the council. Feel free to customize this letter with your own concerns, but please remember that federal law prohibits cities from taking action on cell antennas based on health concerns. If the city receives comments that are based on health concerns, this could leave the council's action open to a legal challenge by wireless companies.

SAMPLE LETTER:

SUBJECT: Opposition to allowing cell antennas in residential neighborhoods

Send your letter to 
cityhall@albanyca.org 
with a cc to the city clerk: nalmaguer@albanyca.org


Dear Mayor Maass and Council members,
I am writing to ask you NOT to approve the proposed version of the Albany wireless ordinance that would allow "distributed" (DAS) or "microcell" antennas in residential districts and instead to approve a version of the ordinance that continues the prohibition on antennas in residential neighborhoods and schools.


There are many reasons not to approve antennas in residential neighborhoods, including:

1. DAS antennas are not needed in Albany. As the staff report points out, these antennas are designed for terrain with dense obstacles to cell coverage, not  Albany's flat, low-rise landscape.

2. If the Council opens up residential neighborhoods to cell antennas, it would give up the city's authority to regulate antenna placement under the federal Telecommunications Act. In addition, because of new federal law allowing essentially unlimited co-location of antennas, the city would also lose all control over the number and power of antennas that could be added to residential antenna site once a first set of antennas was installed.

3. The provision allowing cell antennas in residential districts was added at the last minute after nearly 2 years of Planning & Zoning Commission hearings during which DAS antennas were not discussed at all and, as the Commission minutes from the May 14, 2014 hearing state and the Commission and staff repeatedly assured the public, the Commission "did not support antennas in parks, schools or residential areas."

4. The wireless companies have not asked for DAS antennas in Albany. There has been only 1 application for a DAS antenna, which was withdrawn before the city considered it. Cell coverage is good in Albany now, with all carriers having multiple antenna sites. There is no need to "invite" unnecessary antennas into Albany.

5. DAS antennas are not low-power antennas; they emit hundreds of watts of power and would be installed on utility poles outside second-story windows where such an intensive commercial - industrial technology does not belong. 

6. DAS antennas are ugly, adding extra height to utility poles and bulky equipment boxes along with cables and wires.  These antennas on utility poles in front of homes would negatively affect property values.

Thank you for respecting the public's desire to honor Albany's General Plan and preserve our city's residential character by continuing to prohibit cell antennas in our neighborhoods.

Sincerely,

6 comments:

  1. Hi ARROW -

    You won't get an argument from me on the unsightliness of microcell or DAS antennae, however I think you're incorrect on power output of these devices.

    My understanding is that microcell power outputs are .01 - 2 watts, not "hundreds of watts" as you claim. The power output of these units is typically about that of a strong wifi router you'd find in most people's homes.

    I may be wrong on this, so I'd love to see your source on the power output of microcells.

    Another comment is important and it's something people forget. Your mobile phone has a radio in it that selects a power output based on the distance from the nearest tower. If the nearest tower is far away or is blocked, then your phone has a higher power output. And it is right next to your head. So having more low powered antennae around town reduces the exposure that counts, which is that emitted from your phone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your question, Dennis, which is a good one to clarify. If you look at engineering reports for proposed microcell/DAS antenna installations in other places, you'll see maximum power outputs on the order of about 350 watts for the combination of frequency bands in which the antennas operate (50-85 watts each for PCS, cellular, and 700MHz bands). Sometimes confusion arises because the output might be quoted as effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), which is referenced to a dipole and therefore seems smaller, rather than effective radiated power (ERP). Hope this helps make it more clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction - I reversed EIRP and ERP above. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) uses EIRP.

      ERP, which is often reported in engineering analyses, is referenced to a dipole and is the smaller number.

      Multiply ERP x 1.6 to get EIRP.

      Delete
  3. One other thought in response to the issue of the output of the phone depending on the distance from the nearest antenna: a key difference between the two types of exposures is that people chose when, whether, and how to use their phones whereas antenna sites operate 24/7 so those living near them don't have a choice about exposure. The antenna site exposure limits are controlled by the Federal Communications commission and not within the purview of the city, which cannot consider exposure other than whether it complies with FCC limits.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I did some searching on DAS installations and continue to see much lower power outputs. The numbers you're quoting still seem to be in the macrocell spectrum.

    I'd certainly appreciate a direct reference to a document for a similar installation. If the power output is as you believe, then I'll join you in opposing the installation of 350+watt systems within 50 feet of homes.

    Regarding your point about choice of exposure, I understand the concern. However the public has decided that the value of mobile phone use exceeds any risk associated with their use. It's a convenience and a safety issue. Another example along your line of thought: I am concerned about diesel particulate emissions from public transportation (buses), but am not calling for banning buses in residential areas. Bringing buses close to people's homes is key to an effective transportation network. Otherwise those without cars would have to walk to north Berkeley bart to get anywhere. See the similarities in our arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Dennis - Look for example at the Hammett & Edison engineering report that is included in this application for DAS antennas in Palo Alto: http://wireless4paloalto.att.com/Manage/Secure/Media/CampaignFiles/23/Palo_Alto_oDAS_Application_4.pdf

    The ERP is on p. 2 of the H&E report - 211W. Multiply by 1.6 to get the EIRP, which about 345W.

    ReplyDelete