8A Public Hearings - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1467 Mountain Meadow Drv., Oceanside CA 92056 3 Public Safety Tower, LLC states that the proposed new 80’ Tower is to “Improve communications capabilities for local police, fire, and emergency medical services (EMS).” (ATTACHMENT C - Attachment 6 – Five-Year Plan.) However, the City of San Leandro does not use FirstNet but uses East Bay Regional Communications System (EBRCS) for its emergency services communication system. I do not see any provisions on this site for enhancement of the EBRCS at all. I would highly recommend that the applicant clarify their statement regarding exactly how they propose to “improve communications capabilities” through the EBRCS system for the City. Additionally, documents state that this proposed site is a “Public Safety Tower.” However, the plans do not show that it meets the Public Safety Grade Site Hardening Requirements in APCO ANS 2.106.1-2019. This is the design and inspection guidelines established jointly by the Association of Public Safety Communication Officials and American National Standards Institute, which “represents public safety requirements regarding various characteristics to make mission critical communications network sites sufficiently robust to meet the service availability requirements of public safety.”1 The site needs to be redesigned under the guidelines and, if approved, the final inspection will need to be conducted as directed in the requirements. I see that Mr. Russo was not contacted by the applicant as a potential alternative site. (ATTACHMENT C - Attachment 7 – Alternative Sites Analysis.) There is no reason to believe that Mr. Russo’s property would not be able to provide the same degree of coverage as the proposed site. Mr. Russo states in his appeal that he was not notified of the Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENT E - Summary of Public Notice, shows Mr. Russo’s property on the map of noticed locations within 500’ but no proof of service or list of the addresses to which notice were sent is included that would allow verification that such letters were properly mailed. Review of Waterford EME Report The Planning Commission concluded that the Conditional Use Permit was appropriate because the Tower “will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City.” It seems that there potential that RF emissions from the site, if approved, would be “detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity” of the proposed site, in particular Mr. Russo’s property. First and foremost, the Waterford Report is a computer-generated report that is only as good as the information used to produce the report. This report was completed with Zero mechanical antenna down tilt as stated in the Antenna Inventory on pages 7-8. To understand what that means, go to page 13 of this report where there is a Horizontal prediction of the RF Signals as inputted to the program. Note the 80-foot straight line showing 0 Degree down tilt. This prediction is suspect because, in my experience, I have almost never seen an antenna install pointing only straight out at the horizon. 1 https://www.apcointl.org/~documents/standard/21061-2019-psg-site-hardening/?layout=default. Att B - Page 42 of 46