[Tim McGivern]: Do roll call here for the ad hoc small cell committee, Paul Moki.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Mariano Connor.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia hunt.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: And me I'm present I will introduce those folks down the agenda, when we get to that. So I will now call to order this meeting of the ad hoc small cell committee to hold hearings for Verizon applications for nine proposed small cell infrastructure sites in the city of Medford. The first order of business is to approve the minutes from September 23rd, 2021. Those minutes were distributed to the committee and Hopefully had a chance to take a look at them. Do I hear a motion to approve those minutes? Marianne moved. And Paul second.
[Paul Mochi]: Yes, I'll second that.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. And can I get a roll call vote, Alicia Hunt?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Marianne.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. All right. The minutes are approved for September 23rd, 2021. Next order of business is the introduction. And the first part of that is the welcome. So just welcome everybody. Thank you for coming tonight. We are operating under the interim policy for small cell wireless installations here in Medford. So we operate under that policy. And that policy is a result of an FCC declaratory ruling and order. The committee is comprised of Paul Moki, building commissioner, Marianne O'Connor, director of public health, Alicia Hunt. I have my old notes here, Alicia. Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability. Did I get that right? And then myself, Tim McGibbon, City Engineer, and now currently the acting DPW Commissioner. We're here to consider the following locations Verizon has applied for under the City of Medford interim policy for small cell wireless installations. I'll just read off those locations quickly. Locations are a pole on Franklin Street, pole number 1455. Poll on South Street, 84 South Street, poll 1227. 15, Reardon Road, poll 2421. 60, Oakland Street, poll 204. 84, Paris Street, poll 2087. 167, Grant Avenue, poll 1876. 33, Grant Avenue, poll 4447. 103, Otis Street, poll 1333. 15 Daniel Street, pole number 2939. That's it. But that is also the order that we will take these. Right, as stated in the policy, the FCC declaratory ruling significantly limits the ability of cities and towns to regulate small cell wireless. The committee's purview is limited to the policy and is not able to consider concerns such as potential health impacts or whether or not the FCC standards do what they are supposed to do. With that said, if you are here because of health-related concerns, we recommend that you contact your state and federal legislatures as this law comes from the federal level of government. So we can't do much there. I know a lot of people, have health concerns. It's not in our purview. Just gonna make that clear right up front. I'd also like to state up front that the city does not choose locations. This is Verizon selects these locations based off of, you know, whatever work they do. And then they propose those locations for approval pursuant to the city policy. And then previous meetings, I'm talking to the committee here, previous meetings we've had Robin give an overview of the FCC declaratory ruling and what is not within our preview and why. I did not ask Robin if she would be available to make that statement today, but does the committee feel we should ask her to do that now? or anything like that. I feel pretty comfortable not doing that at this time, unless, you know, other committee members feel like we should.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, Tim, I think you explained that very well. And this is a several, we've had several meetings on this before. So I think the word is out there. I think you explained it pretty well. I personally don't see the need to include her at this point.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and there's also going to be questions and comments. So folks have specific questions that we need to get further information from Robin. I'm sure she's available for that. So I'm OK moving forward. Again, I'll wait for any other objections or advice. Good? OK, I'm seeing nods. So I will move forward. All right, so I'm going to summarize the agenda. After this introduction, Verizon is going to make a presentation. After the presentation, the committee members will be given an opportunity to ask questions. There will then be a public comment period for non-site-specific or general comments. First, I'm going to call on the voices in favor of the applications, and then I'll call on the voices in opposition. Everyone who speaks is going to receive approximately two minutes. Well, two minutes. And questions to Verizon should be directed to the chair, me. So the questions will go to the chair to Verizon to get answers or information. After this public comment period, we're gonna discuss each application location in the order that I read them. And then after the committee discusses, the public will be able to make site specific comments. Again, that'll be two minutes per speaker. There may be more discussion by the committee before moving on to a motion. Chair will open the floor for a motion by a committee member to vote on the applications one at a time on the locations when it's not. In the motion carries the chair will indicate them that the members may grant grant with conditions or deny each applications and the vote will be taken via roll call. Rules of the hearing overview of the process. Use the raise hand function if you'd like to comment during the public participation periods please direct comments and questions to the chair me. No profanity, no name calling or other rude or disruptive behavior. The chair reserves the right to unmute participants who become disruptive to the proceedings. Each speaker during participation will receive two minutes. And this meeting will go until 10 p.m. at the latest. So that's our cutoff. If we have not completed the agenda by 10 p.m., we'll look for a motion to continue the hearing to a date certain. So there's nine. tonight and before I think we finished in plenty of time with 18. So I'm not seeing that being an issue tonight. Next, I'd like to introduce the mapped locations. So to assist in this discussion, we've mapped all the proposed locations that's available on our website. And we will be using that map during our proceedings tonight as we have in other proceedings for these applications, these types of applications. So again, that map for all applications so far is on the city's website. So please go there if you're looking to see where all the antennas are so far. So this is the third round. There was 44, then there was 18, and then nine tonight. All right, with all that said, we'll now move on to the presentation by Verizon. I'd like to ask the applicants to introduce their team to the committee as well as the folks who are here tonight and present the nine applications that we'll be reviewing. And then after the presentation, we may ask questions before going into the public comment period. All right, so I will hand it over to Verizon for your presentation.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tim Torowski from Robinson & Cole representing the applicant, Verizon Wireless. I first want to extend thanks to the committee members for hearing us this evening and your continued efforts in hearing these many applications over these past several months. Next slide. So I do want to begin by saying that for folks in the audience who may want additional information on Verizon's ongoing small cell application in the town of Medford, we have established a website that contains additional information for the benefit of folks who may be listening by phone and not in front of a screen. The website address is improveyourwireless, and that's all one word, improveyourwireless.com backslash Medford. We also have an email address for folks who want to ask questions of Verizon with regard to the small cell program in Medford. That email address, again, I'll read for the benefit of folks on the phone, is vzw.medford.small.cell.program at Verizon Wireless, all one word, .com. Next slide. And so now let me introduce the panel that will be presenting and answering questions on behalf of Verizon Wireless this evening. You've already met myself, Tim Turowski, as legal counsel for Verizon. Also with us this evening is Stan Yusevich, who is with Verizon Wireless Governmental Affairs. Jason Flanagan is a radio frequency engineer for Verizon. Sean Conway, who is an engineer for Verizon, and Dr. Eric Swanson, professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh. Next slide, please. Legal requirements for small cell deployments. I know the chair touched upon some of these issues briefly, so I'll go through these very quickly. As you know, Medford has adopted an interim small cell policy, which is controlling to the extent that it is not inconsistent with federal law. Some of the federal laws of relevance this evening. The first federal law imposes a 60-day time limit to approve or deny small cell applications. I believe in this case we've already passed that time frame. Verizon has agreed to extend that deadline to December 1st. Next, federal law controls to the extent to which state and local governments can regulate the design of small cells. Federal law also prohibits municipalities from placing a moratorium on small cell deployment or prohibiting service from particular areas. And lastly, federal law says that municipalities may not evaluate small cell applications based on health concerns. That's an issue that the chair has already touched upon. So at this point, let me turn the presentation over to, I believe, Sean Conway. Thank you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We're actually going to go to Stan at this point.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: My name is Stan Yusevich, State Government Affairs with Verizon, and I want to thank the Ad Hoc Committee for their time, their commitment, and their approach to these hearings. As you know, Verizon has been making a significant investment in infrastructure as we have in neighboring communities. In recent years, Verizon started bringing the next generation of wireless technology to the region's largest cities like Boston. And now we're expanding into new cities and towns. We've chosen Medford to provide better wireless coverage. This effort is to better serve your residents, school children, and businesses. The applications we've submitted are a continuation to provide these benefits to neighborhoods of Medford. Our plan, however, will provide improved wireless services for the entire city. Next slide, please. We've all witnessed the rapid growth in demand of wireless services. This demand for wireless technology has increased dramatically since COVID-19 and its outbreak. People are working from their homes and children are being educated remotely. As we see from tonight's hearing, technology is making it possible for important work of local government to continue. Slide. Wireless technology has quickly progressed since the first cell phones were introduced. Each generation of cell phone technology has expanded capabilities. The second generation technology enabled us to view emails from our phones. And the third generation brought us GPS enabling devices to our phones and helped us navigate. 4G technology enabled streaming of videos. Now we are migrating to the fifth generation of 5G technology. That will greatly enhance the speed and capability of our cell phones. Slide. The promise and benefit of 5G is bright. Collectively, we can imagine and create opportunities for greater energy efficiency in our buildings, traffic signaling coordination, communication reliability for our first responders, and increased access for remote learning. Slide. 5G The 5G economy will have a significant impact on America's cities and towns, large and small, over the next 10 years. We will see the benefits across the country, including over $43 billion in economic growth and the creation of 100,000 new jobs in Massachusetts alone. Slide. A May 2021 research study asked home buyers what they prioritize when it came to new homes and it's clear that home buyers prioritize 5G and high speed internet in an eight out of 10. And having 5G home internet makes a home far more valuable. Over the past year, realtors are also fielding more questions from homeowners about home buyers, I should say, about the access to broadband home internet and cellular service. Slide. You can see that the home buyers prioritize fast reliable home internet, and that good cellular service over one appliances nearby attractions in amenities commute time and good schools have been trumped. These are the reasons we are here, and these are the reasons why you have these applications before you. I respectfully ask for your support and approval of these applications. I thank you again for your time and appreciate your service to the community. Next, I'll turn it to Jason Flanagan, Verizon engineer.
[MCM00001484_SPEAKER_17]: Sorry, I got double muted. Hi, my name is Jason Flanagan, and I'm the radio frequency engineer for the city of Medford. Here on the screen is an example of what coverage will look like from one of the 5G nodes we're proposing today. Our 4G frequencies are much lower than our 5G frequencies, so they don't travel as far as they used to. This is similar to hearing a car driving by with a loud stereo. First, you hear with the low bass frequencies, and then as you get closer, you hear the higher voice frequencies. Next we have Sean Conway with some sighting information.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Jason. And good evening, everyone. Thank you for having us here tonight. As Jason showed on the last slide, we have an area where we need to go out and now select a location to add our antennas to the network. So the real estate team goes out, uses the guidelines set forth by the utility companies to select a pole that will work to attach our equipment. Our current small cell in the city of Medford will look very similar to what we have on the slide here, where at the top of the pole, there are antennas and radios. Midway down, there's a fiber connection. A little bit below that, we have our power disconnect, which allows any workers to go out and turn the site off if they need to go and work on the utility pole. And then just below that, we have a power meter, which will do the readings for all of our, for the electricity we use there. Our standard designs are currently on utility poles, street lights, and traffic signals. Everything we're doing in Medford is currently on utility poles. And as to the size of the antennas, just to give you an idea, the antennas here, and for all nine of these applications, are at the top of the utility pole. And the size of the antenna is about the size of a small parking sign. As you can see, we have a city of Boston parking sign next to one of the antennas there on the right-hand side. I would also like to add that all nine of these applications have the antennas attached above 33 feet on the pole. And all of these locations meet the current ADA requirements. At this point, I'd like to pass it on to Dr. Eric Swanson to talk about RF.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and everyone in the public who's tuned in. My name's Eric Swanson. I've been asked by Verizon to talk to you about the health effects of this infrastructure. Just a few words about myself so you know where I'm coming from. I'm a professor of physics. I'm a fellow of the American Physical Society. I'm a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. I spend a good part of my life about five miles south of you. The main message I'd like to get here is that what I'm presenting is the consensus scientific view on the health effects of this infrastructure. So slide, please, Sean. So as you know, cell phones operate with electromagnetic waves. They're small radios, and the receivers are small radio receivers. Those electromagnetic waves form what's called the spectrum. And that's what this graph indicates here. The spectrum can be organized in a few different ways. One of them is the wavelength of the waves involved. Another one is the frequency of the waves. And those are just like wavelength and frequency that you'd associate with, say, ocean waves. It's just the same. Part of this is very familiar to us. So what's broken out there in the middle is the visible part of the spectrum that makes the rainbow. That is visible light is electromagnetic waves. As you go lower in frequency or longer in wavelengths, you get other familiar parts like infrared radiation or microwaves or radio waves. As you go higher in frequency, we also hit familiar things like ultraviolet sunlight, for instance, x-rays or gamma rays. So next slide. And what we're talking about tonight is around in this green blob here. That's where 5G sits in terms of the frequency or the wavelength. And I should just point out that that frequency is about a factor of 30,000 times below that of visible light. And that'll become relevant in just a minute. So next slide. some of this radiation the high frequency also high energy radiation is what's called ionizing and what that means is that that radiation has sufficient energy that it can strip electrons from atoms now sometimes that doesn't matter it doesn't matter if you boil an electron off of the pavement but if it happens to be an electron that's associated with a biomolecule in your skin cell that could cause damage. And you're familiar with this at an intuitive level. You know that sunlight has a lot of UVA and UVB in it. And if you spend too long outside, your skin will tan because it's reacting to the damage that's caused by the UVA and UVB. Next slide, please. Thanks. Now, below that is non-ionizing radiation. There's actually a threshold between ionizing and non-ionizing, lying just between UV and visible. Those waves don't have enough energy to ionize atoms. They can't strip electrons off of material, including molecules in our skin. And that means that they can't damage DNA. And that means that these waves can't do things like cause cancer, which is a common concern that people have. And a very important point here is it doesn't matter how intense that radiation is, and it doesn't matter how long you're exposed to it for. And next slide. And that is actually also known to everybody at an intuitive level. Because if you sit underneath artificial lights, artificial lights produce light in the visible part of the spectrum. They don't produce the damaging UV radiation. You know that you can sit underneath those lights. It doesn't matter how long you sit under them for. You don't get tan. You don't get tan sitting inside. Similarly, it doesn't matter how bright that light is. It doesn't make you tan. If you make an artificial light bright enough, it'll heat you up. But it won't make you tan. OK, so let's go on from there. So here are a few of the more things that we'd like to talk about. So I already mentioned 5G there. Just below that is microwave radiation. And slightly below that is 4G, what everyone's cell phones are operating on now. And below that is radio. Now, all of this stuff in green doesn't do nothing. As we've already mentioned, what it does do is it can heat materials. And in fact, the heating that's caused by this non-ionizing radiation is the only verified biological effect that this stuff has. So next slide, please. Now, because this non-ionizing radiation does cause heating, and heating can have an effect on humans, it's regulated by the FCC. These regulations are very strict. They're reviewed regularly. I'll mention that in a second. They are typically set at about 150th of the level of anything that causes something detectable in experiments out there. So a typical experiment on mice may find that at a certain level they sleep more or they eat less or something like that. The FCC will look at that and then set the level 50 times below that. I want to stress that these levels are very strict. My heating pad, shown in red there, I used this last time I gave this talk, but this time I didn't, I didn't need one. It violates FCC regulations by about a factor of 50, if the FCC were to choose to regulate heating pads, which they don't. Another example would be a laser pointer. I think I have one around here somewhere, but if I shine a laser pointer on my skin, I can't feel anything. That laser pointer actually violates. It's just above what the FCC would permit if the FCC chose to regulate laser pointers for heating. They actually do regulate them because they're visible light and they can hurt your eye. But we're not talking about damage to your eye. We're talking about heating. So the next slide, please. The FCC regularly updates its regulations, as opposed to some myths that are floating around out there. Interwebs, they regularly review literature. The agencies who they use to advise them also regularly review the literature. So this could be the IEEE or the FDA, etc. Just to set numbers here, typical 5G small cells, the ones that Sean were talking about, operate at about 250 times below the FCC limits. Remember, the FCC limits are so strict that you don't feel them even with a laser pointer on your skin. This is 250 times below that limit at reasonable operating distances. Let me be more specific, that's at about 20 feet from one of these. As Sean mentioned, all of these are 30 feet or more above ground level. Next slide. I think that was it for me, so I turn it back to Tim.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Thanks, Eric. So I think at this point, we will launch into the discussion of the sites.
[Unidentified]: You guys all set with the presentation?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Now we're going to move on to the next item on the agenda. General non-site specific public comments. Uh, we're going to open the floor. We're going to open the floor to a general, so not related to a specific site, but you know, Jeff, if you have questions on the presentation, for example, um, Please direct your questions to me and please hold said specific comments as the location comes up on the agenda. And I'm now gonna call on voices who are generally in favor of the applications who would like to speak. So please raise your hand if you're in favor of the applications. Thank you. All right, it looks like we have at least one hand up.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Not any currently?
[Unidentified]: All right, we'll just wait a quick sec here. All right, still none?
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, now we'll move on to folks who are in opposition, general opposition, who would like to make a comment. Please raise your hand.
[Unidentified]: So I'm seeing one hand from Betty L. Okay, hello Betty L. Oh, sorry. I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[tUX_rthPMVU_SPEAKER_07]: Hi. Thank you for having this meeting. So I have family who are residents in Medford. And my concerns with this, it was a pretty well-rounded presentation by the folks from Verizon about concerns around 5G small cell units being installed in residential areas in and around Medford. But to the chairman's point at the beginning of the presentation, the city is not allowed to object to the installation of these sites based on health concerns, whether voiced by the public or voiced by city officials themselves. And the last piece of the Verizon presentation had to do with health concerns and how these are often updated. But regardless of the FCC's health standards, I think the issue here is that How are we supposed to trust that this is going to be more beneficial to us than harmful? There are concerns about radiation from these devices, from radio frequency emissions. but if we are not even able to object based on health and safety concerns because the FCC has overruled municipalities and kept them from being able to issue moratoriums against these small cell units, then it's almost like, what's the point of having these meetings, especially since, you know, Verizon claims that homeowners are overwhelmingly looking to buy properties that have good cell service and good Wi-Fi service, good telecommunications access, but then they're not allowing us to go through the cities. We are having to go through elected officials at the state and federal levels to object to make kind of broader scale objections to the small cell units being installed in residential areas. So I guess my main point is, you know, how are we supposed to trust this whole process when your hands as city officials are already being tied at the federal level by the FCC? Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Betty l, I can address one of your questions it sounds like there was two questions in there, one for Verizon, at least one Verizon and one for us and the question that I pulled out that is for the committee is, what's the point of the committee, having this hearing if we don't have any control. We do have a small amount of control as a city so we can condition these. So you'll see once we get into the site specifics, the sites that where we typically set a list of conditions on Verizon for the installation. So that in and of itself is worthy of having these hearings. It's and you know sometimes. example, if there are city-owned assets on a pole that may be impacted by the installation of their equipment on the pole, then we negotiate right here about what Verizon is going to do. Say there's a conflict with a sign, so what are we going to do about that sign? What's the condition going to be, and where are we going to put it, and how are we going to take care of that? Another previous example was that there was a pole that potentially was going to be in the way of a turning movement for a vehicle or the equipment that was going to be on it. The original equipment size, which was about the size of a mini fridge, now it's much smaller. There was a potential for that equipment to get in the way of sight lines and passing clearances for vehicles. So that was conditioned at the time and the equipment got much smaller and it ended up not being concerned. However, those are examples of where we do have control. Another example would be, you know, one of the polls that was proposed, Verizon made the claim that it was ADA accessible, the clearances were met. And we found something different. So we presented our information. We said, well, actually, it's not ADA accessible from our understanding of the code. So changes were made to the proposal to remedy that, whether the poll was removed from the proposal or if we conditioned it to remedy the situation. So that is the point here. And then another aspect of the point is that the FCC declaratory ruling, the law, the federal law says that we have to have some process in place, whether it's a policy like we have here, or some sort of ordinance, you know, that the city adopts, which we don't have. Hopefully that provides some explanation. And then I think the, the question for Verizon, along the same lines and Betty Lou. Betty L sorry. If you could just make sure that I have this question correct it sounds like you're asking Verizon. maybe clarification on like value of property and sort of how they're determining what the demand is in Medford. Do I have that correct? And we'll take you off.
[tUX_rthPMVU_SPEAKER_07]: I think the more important point is how do we trust this process given that this is Again, to your point at the beginning of this meeting, the FCC has ruled that you can't issue moratoria against small cell units and you can't stop the implementation of these units on health-based grounds. And so given all that and Verizon's attempt just now to kind of assuage our concerns about health and biological level effects of radiofrequency emissions. Given that the city's hands are tied and we would have to appeal to our senators, our representatives, our state level legislators, given that we are not able to object at the municipal level, how do we trust this process?
[Tim McGivern]: that's a question so I'm gonna let rise and I answer that but from our end that we this committee is part of that process. And you can trust that we are following the policy that that is in place and we're looking at the things that we can look at commission the things that we can't condition so hopefully have some trust there. But I I share your concerns, you know the federal law coming down like this in time in his hands isn't isn't that. the most transparent way to do things and the most trusting pathway. So I will ask Verizon to see if they can address that question. I know it's probably tricky to address because trust is within the individual. So anyway, I think there's some things that they can address there. So thank you, Betty. Appreciate it.
[Dave Rodrigues]: Hi, Mr. Chairman. Again, Tim Twardowski from Robinson and Cole. And I think you're directly on point in terms of trust is up to the individual. You know, what I can say in response is that much like this board is subject to its own standards and procedural requirements, Verizon is subject to federal regulations as well as the local regulations in terms of the small cell policy that are before us this evening. You know, our argument this evening obviously is that we, in terms of the applications before you, all of these sites and the Small cells that are proposed this evening are in full compliance with all federal regulations as well as with the with the local small cell policy. In terms of the process, you know, can, can you trust the process. I think the mere fact that we're all here this evening that this committee has been formed and been holding public hearings on all of these applications over the course of the past several months. You know, speaks to the process itself and not only the efficiency, but the The amount of time and effort that the committee members have put into reviewing and commenting and ultimately hopefully approving all of these applications. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Mister just the. All right, and then the next item on the agenda, reading any, well, it's the same agenda item, sorry. Anna, we have emails that we would like to summarize and get into the record. I think ones that are similar, we could batch them together, but would you mind summarizing some of that input in those comments?
[Unidentified]: Sure, yes. So as of six o'clock p.m., there were 12 comments that had been sent to the city's 5G comments inbox. Five of those comments asked clarifying questions about the meeting and the application process, and they were answered via email. And four comments voiced general opposition to any 5G equipment proposals in Medford, and those were from Kevin Medeiros, 3 Horn Ave., Melanie Tringali, 116 Forest Street, Leonard Hanley, Street Unknown, and Betty Lowe, Street Unknown.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Anna. We appreciate that. So those are put into the record. Now we're going to move into the next item, which are the application and locations. So we're going to, if we can get the map up for the first one, which is Franklin Street. And while, well, thank you Anna. between you and Alicia. Okay, all right. So as long as one of you guys is doing that, I'll go on and read the rest of these. We'll take discussions and questions from the committee on each location, and then we'll open up public participation, two-minute limit for each one. And please indicate your name and address for the record if you're going to speak, and then we'll have further discussion before a motion. So the first location is Franklin Street, and it is pole 1455. While Alicia is pulling up the location, I'll read off my review results. So just so folks understand how I review these. Basically, I went through each application to make sure that the information required is submitted and things like their insurance certificate is up to date. The special calculations are in there and certified. things like that, going down the list. And then basically what I do is confirm some of the measurements and take a look in the field at ones that need to be confirmed. So Franklin Street, this particular poll, the measurement that gets brought up a lot is the base to the top. So I just pulled that information out for all the locations. So it's the first number I'll read. Then I go over what assets are located on the poll, city-owned assets. Like for example, this one, you can see there's a do not enter sign on this one. and some other signs on the other side. And then, you know, and then basically does the base of the pole look good? Is the ADA clearance okay? And then another discussion item that we've had at past meetings is the proximity to dwellings and parks and things like that. So I also take those measurements and Verizon was kind enough in this application and actually the last one as well to include that information in their application. So that was really, So thank you for doing that, you guys. And basically, that was a confirmatory process or a verification process. So we'll do this one first. This is the Franklin Street poll, poll number 1455. And it's application number 34 in Verizon's reference. The pole, the top of the pole above sidewalk level is 39 and a half feet, there are three signs on this pole, according to the graphics, the two of them are in conflict, one of them is just a small placard. One is a do not enter and one is a permit sign with a small placard add on. And the equipment is shown at that sign height so I'm going to suggest that we take the permit parking sign and place it on a pole actually because I don't think it's even if the equipment was to be placed above the signage. It's still very cluttered in there and we want drivers to be able to see the signs clearly so this is one that I'm going to suggest we pull the permit parking signs off and we have have a condition to put them on a pole and get them out of the way, because that's where some of the equipment wants to go. The base of the pole, as you can see in this picture, is a concrete base with an expansion joint. That is no longer currently there. I confirmed that in the field. And without that being there, it actually doesn't meet the 36-inch clearance. So I'm also going to suggest that a condition be that that concrete be replaced and that concrete be replaced according to ADA. requirements and standards. Because right now, just so Verizon knows, without that little patch of concrete there, you only have 26 inches of clearance for a sidewalk, okay? And the closest dwelling is 38 feet, and it's an attic third story for the height of the building. So that is My results for the Franklin Street poll, and I have the list of our standard conditions from last time listed here, and I can read them now, or I can read them later. Does the committee want me to read them now?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'd prefer to be reminded of them now.
[Tim McGivern]: I'll do them now. All right, so number one, prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the applicant shall provide to the city engineer updated insurance certificates as required by paragraph two I of the policy. I left this in here, I'm gonna suggest we leave it in there just because insurance certificates always expire and I'm always, in general, I'm always chasing down updated insurance certificates. So it's just a catch all to encase the, By the time they get around to installing it, the certificate has expired. So we just need an up-to-date, make sure that our certificate's up-to-date. Number two, the applicant shall pay for the costs of preparation or make ready work related to moving or relocating any city-owned streetlights or other infrastructure related to the installation of any small cell or related equipment. Number three, installation of any small cell or related equipment on double poles is strictly prohibited. If a new or replacement pole is installed in the future to accommodate that equipment, the applicant will remove or cause the removal of the old pole prior to installing any small cell or related equipment on the new replacement pole. Number four, prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment on the pole, the applicant shall document and submit to the city engineer field measurements that demonstrate the horizontal and vertical clearances of any small cell or related equipment and of existing pole or replacement poles, if any, are in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable Massachusetts regulations. So they did actually submit a tally that we asked for this one. So we may be able to strike this one. So keep that in mind. We can go back to it. Number five, the new small cell related equipment shall not create any noise detectable to the human ear at the pole location on the ground and at the nearest residence. Number six prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the ground surface at the base of the pole must be in or restored to good condition. This includes plate repairing concrete sidewalk to city standards. The applicant shall complete installation of the small, oh, sorry, number seven. The applicant shall complete installation of the small cell and related equipment within one year of the date hereof, failing which this approval shall expire and a new application and approval will be necessary before any small cell or related equipment may be installed on the pole or used at this location. Upon request of the applicant, the committee may approve one extension of that time period not to exceed six months. Number eight. a minimum of 30 days prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment on the pole, the applicant shall provide written notice of the intended installation to abutters within 100 feet of the intended installation. The notice shall include information about the work to be done, the type of equipment to be installed, and a description of the applicable standards that the equipment complies with, and contact information to reach the applicant in the event there is a problem or an issue with the functioning of the equipment. Number nine, The applicant shall comply with the policy and any additional applicable state, local and federal requirements, including, but not limited to obtaining an electrical permit. Number 10, a minimum of 30 days prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the applicant shall provide to the city engineer a schedule indicating the anticipated dates of installation start and finish. So the only one, sorry, I was gonna say the only one is number four about the, we ask for a measurement, field measurements for horizontal and vertical clearances for the small cell related equipment. I'm inclined to leave this one here just because I found a couple of errors in their work and field measurements I think are good to do at the time of installation to confirm that everything is in place ADA wise. With that said, discussions and questions from the committee.
[Robin Stein]: Tim, this is Robin from KP Lab. Before you jump to the committee, can I just confirm you don't need a couple of the conditions that were in the original 42 that I think may have already been addressed, but I just wanted to confirm you don't need them?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, thank you, Robin. Yeah, on the last hearing, we did strike a couple because the reason didn't exist anymore. They provided updated documents, things like that.
[Robin Stein]: So just to confirm for this one, you already have the certification by a registered professional engineer consistent with paragraph two of the policy?
[Robin Stein]: And then you had, you need to redo frequency affidavits. Do you now have those for this?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Robin Stein]: And the last one was, and I'm not sure if this, Stop me if you already have this one. We had prior to installation, the applicant must provide a signed affidavit certifying it on the team equipment in good repair according to SEC standards. Remove any equipment that is no longer in good repair or not in use within 30 days of being no longer in good repair or not in use and will in fact keep the equipment in good repair according to SEC standards.
[Tim McGivern]: Correct, yeah, we received that statement as well.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, just double checking to make sure we didn't accidentally drop something. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: I appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you very much for double checking. It's good to make sure we don't forget anything. I think that squares away. I think we can go right into discussion now from the committee, and then when that's finished, we'll do public participation. Any questions or discussions from the committee on this one.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So Tim did you say that this can be brought into compliance with 88.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, yeah, you see that little teeny tiny square of concrete at the very bottom of the ball. Right now that does not exist so it looks like the poll was probably replaced and then they just didn't replace that little panel without that panel. that measurement from the corner of that little panel to the grass is only about 26 inches. But from the pole all the way to the grass is more than 36 inches, so that would meet it. So without the concrete there, it doesn't meet it. With the concrete, it does. So I'm recommending a condition that that concrete is put back and is put back in ADA compliance prior to the antenna being put up.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you for measuring that because when we look at it, it does not look possibly wide enough for a wheelchair, but I trust your measurements.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, it doesn't go by the wheelchair, it just goes by 36 inches.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's what I mean, 36 inches. It doesn't look it from here, but I trust your measurements.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, I measured it today. I forget what the exact measurement was. It was like 42 inches or something like that. So anyway.
[Alicia Hunt]: And then the other requirement that you're proposing condition is that they move the permit parking on both sides sign and put it on a separate pole in that vicinity as location to be specific location to be approved by one of our traffic engineers.
[Tim McGivern]: That's what I would suggest. So I believe that indicates parking by permit only for that block there, for that stretch. And there's probably another sign for the other side. So it probably just needs to go on that block. But yes, a location marked and coordinated with traffic engineering.
[Paul Mochi]: Those are the only two signs on this poll that do not enter on the back and this one that we're seeing facing us is no, I believe there's no further signs of any height and that is correct.
[Tim McGivern]: That is correct.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, so I make a motion to approve this location with the conditions that actually, let's hold let's hold the open up public comment so if we haven't.
[Tim McGivern]: And do we have anybody for this location that would like to speak.
[Unidentified]: No, I don't see any raised hands and there's nothing in the chat, no emails on this one.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so Alicia, you are free to move if you'd like.
[Alicia Hunt]: I make a motion to approve this location with the conditions as cited by Tim, that the concrete is replaced in a way that is ADA compliant. and that the parking, resident parking signs are located on a separate pole location to be coordinated with our traffic engineering department.
[Tim McGivern]: Right. And before, I can hear a second, but I just want to check with Verizon. This is a similar type condition you've seen on some other locations. Are there any objections to these proposed conditions?
[Unidentified]: We don't have any objections.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Okay, thank you. Thanks. Do I hear a second?
[Tim McGivern]: Go ahead, Robin.
[Robin Stein]: Sorry, can I just clarify for folks, and we've done this in the past, that the 10 conditions that you read as the board makes motion to refer to as the standard conditions, and then you may add additional conditions for each item, just so the record's clear.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, absolutely. And I'll just reiterate that, Robin. So the 10 conditions that I read, we're going to call those the standard conditions moving forward for tonight. And then when the decisions are issued, they will just be conditions on the permit and then any other conditions that are added in addition to the standard conditions. So we can While the committee is making motions, the motions can include standard conditions, plus any other special conditions that are moved. For example, Alicia moved for the conditions that I suggested, which is to put the signs on a post coordinated with traffic, and then making sure that the concrete is placed at the base prior to installation and it meets ADA requirements. So, Alicia, do I have your motion correct there? I'm just waiting for a second.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm hoping I have your motion correct, but yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so just waiting for a second.
[Unidentified]: I'll second that.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and we'll do a roll call vote. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Alicia? Yes. Paul? Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I am also a yes. So that is approved with conditions, the standard conditions, the standard 10 conditions we read, and then the two special conditions as described. All right, let's move on to the next location. Just one second, some more notes. Next location is 84 South Street, poll number 1227. The poll is actually on Turo, and it is application number 57 in Verizon's reference. This pole is, or the top of the pole, the top of the pole is 39.8 feet above the ground. There is one sign on it. It's a slow children's sign. And there's one city light also on this pole. There appear to be potentially some unused service lines or just a lot of service lines that either are extra or just not tidy, not cleaned up. So that's something to consider here. No visible issues with ADA clearances. And then the measurement to the closest dwelling, it's a three-story dwelling, it's 24 feet. And my suggestion for this one is to upgrade the slow children's sign to the caution children's sign. And that meets current standards. And then seeing if Verizon can work with the pole owner and the other leases to clean up what appears to be some excess wires or just some untidiness of general service wires on the pole. So you can't see that good from this direction, but if you were to visit the pole, and look at it maybe a little bit closer, you'll notice that there's just a lot of stuff hanging off that pole. And I'm curious if there's a way to neaten it up a little bit. All right, so that's where that stands. Do we have any, maybe just to streamline things, we'll just say other, we'll just do public comment first and then we'll go into discussion and motions and such. So any public participation on this one, Anna?
[Unidentified]: No, there's no public comment.
[Tim McGivern]: None on this one. Okay, discussion from the committee.
[Paul Mochi]: Do we have any input on Verizon like to comment on some of those wires on that poll that you did you just mentioned?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we can we can have them comment. I mean, I can comment a little bit too. It's most likely some of them might be Verizon. Some of them are going to be other providers. And it's most likely a joint joint own poll so that they may have limited capacity to do anything about it. But I would like to float it to see if they can at least get information and maybe help the city. Pursue cleaning, cleaning it up a little bit if if that's all they can do, but I would like to actually hear from rising on that as well sure to.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: I will tell you that we will. Send. our technicians out to take a look at drop wires that might be ours and take care of those. And if there are others that are involved, Comcast or whomever, we may, we will forward a request to them, but we can't mandate anything from those carriers, but we can address the stuff that's ours.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so the way I'd like to word this committee, thank you, Sam, is Verizon to review existing service lines and remove anything that doesn't need to be there or is redundant or needs to be tidied up or anything like that. So I think That will take care of Verizon, and then we can say, also make the request, as Stan has said that they will agree to do, to notify any other service providers if there's service lines that need to be addressed by other providers. And we understand that Verizon doesn't have control over those. So if that sounds good to the committee, so go ahead.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Can the city have control over any of that? I mean, it may be just the picture again, but even that long wire going across the street looks pretty low, as if a truck going by would knock it out. I mean, does the city have control over these, if it's not Verizon, the other providers?
[Tim McGivern]: If it's impacting our right-of-way, so like that wire could be one.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So if not, not, not just for aesthetics, I guess, then obviously whatever.
[Tim McGivern]: Right. Like something like that, that's too low that could impact the right of way or anything that impacts one of our assets, uh, signs or trees, um, things like that. So, uh, but we can, you know, we can include confirming that wires are meeting vertical clearance that emanate from that pool.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. I'm Tim over on this, I just wanted to mention that there is now a few comments in the chat. I think they're more generally about the meeting, but Barbara. Barbara McGonigal says I'm finding this meeting very discouraging. We were notified that we are within 300 feet and we had questions about those issues. It doesn't seem to be an issue, but he said it well. And then she responded to her.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, so I just read them just so I could understand a little bit better. Yeah, we empathize with you. We understand that, you know, folks want to discuss issues that we don't have purview over. We have spent a significant amount of time in previous meetings discussing this with Verizon and with residents. if there are specific questions about, you know, FCC standards or what Verizon is doing or plans to do, Verizon has addressed those questions at past hearings. So, you know, they can come up and they can be addressed. So anyway, we are on the site-specific portion of the agenda, so we are going to move forward. So as of now, Waiting for a motion, I'm making the suggestion that we update the slow children sign to current standards with a caution children sign. And that we have, we asked Verizon to look at their service line, remove anything redundant or not in use, and generally tidy up their wires and to notify the other poll users and service providers to do the same. And also to have Verizon confirm that the wires emanating from this poll meet vertical clearances, since one of them does look rather low. So I'm waiting for, first Verizon, do you have any objections to those suggestions?
[Paul Mochi]: no objections.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. Uh so now I'm just waiting for a motion.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve this. I'm sorry. Do you want to do you have something Alicia? Nope. I'll make a motion to approve this location with the standard conditions with also the condition to upgrade the so Children signed to caution Children in all of the conditions that the chairman just mentioned for Verizon to look into
[Unidentified]: All right, do we hear a second? Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, and let me finish my notes here, and then we'll do roll call.
[Unidentified]: All right. Roll call, Marianne? Yes. Alicia? Yes. Paul? Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I am also a yes to that motion. So 84 South Street, poll number 1227 is approved with conditions. All right, the next one on the agenda is 15 Reardon Road, poll number 2421. Okay, first thing I should note is that Reardon Road is a private way. The pole, the top of the pole is 33.8 feet above the base. There is one, probably a city light, I think. That's a city light. Is that right, Alicia? Yeah, okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, that's a city light.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and then no visible ADA clearance issues. And obviously that would be questioned even if it's within our purview, private way. And then no dwellings in the immediate vicinity. Folks are familiar with Reardon Road. It doesn't have residences around it. It's just basically surrounded by businesses. So that one. So I'll open it up to any public comment. Anna, do we have anybody who would like to speak on 15 Reardon Road? Sorry, I missed that. It kind of was garbly.
[Unidentified]: One moment. My computer is... Okay. I'm not seeing any raised hands. Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: I will let me know if one pops up and we will move to discussion and motions.
[Unidentified]: Is that pole leaning?
[Tim McGivern]: It doesn't look plumb.
[Alicia Hunt]: On the proposal, it looks to me like they've replaced that pole with a new pole because the pole that's in our paperwork looks newer than that one. It looks like, if you look in the paperwork, it looks straight up and down, the photo that they have of it.
[Paul Mochi]: It looks like a new one, Alicia. Verizon, comment, and if that's been placed.
[Alicia Hunt]: The image on the screen is July 2019. the date on the Google photo that we are looking at on the screen.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I would agree with you, Alicia. It looks like the photos in the application are newer. This is not what I looked at in the field. But yeah, Sean, if you can, it looks like you guys put in a new poll already, right? If you can confirm that.
[Alicia Hunt]: So given, yeah, the one in the application package, that photo looks much better. I'm inclined to approve this one. Is there any?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I am as well.
[Tim McGivern]: There's a lot of polls that aren't.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve this one with our standard conditions.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Do a roll call vote. Paul. Yes. Alicia.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Marianne. Yes. And I am also a yes. Okay, 15 Reardon Road is approved with standard conditions. Next, 60 Oakland Street, pole 204. This one, 39 feet above ground level. There's one permit parking sign that can likely remain, and there's one city light on the pole. There's a potential private garden at the base. Even though it's a private property encroaching on public property, I don't want to mess with the residence's garden there at the bottom of the pole. So as long as the pole owner doesn't mind, I would like that to be replaced if needed or if it's disturbed. No reason to get in that residence garden there or destroy their garden for this. I saw no visible ADA clearance issues and 27 feet to the nearest dwelling. So that actually, this is one I did look at in the field to see if that really was a little garden. It is. It's someone's little garden that they put around the pole, it looks like. And it's a little better shape actually today than it shows in this picture. So that's this one. Open up to public comment. Do we have any public comment on this one?
[Unidentified]: I'm not seeing any hand raises right now, but we do have a couple of email comments on this one. So the first is from Annette Bloom at 10 Oak Bluff Street, who voices strong opposition to 5G within 300 feet of her house. And the next one is from Barbara McGonigal at 49 Oakland Street, who again, voices strong opposition to 5G in Bedford near residential neighborhoods and playgrounds, specifically in their neighborhood as many children live nearby.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you, Anna. All right, with that said, discussion and motions. So discussion.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, if there's no discussions, I don't have any questions on this one, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion to approve this site with our standing conditions. All right, do we hear a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: And the condition that Verizon make an effort to not damage the pretty garden at the base of the pole.
[Paul Mochi]: Yes, thank you, Alicia, that's right.
[Tim McGivern]: So Paul, that's a revised motion, standard conditions, plus take appropriate measures to not disturb the private garden.
[Paul Mochi]: Yes, that's correct. Second. Go upstairs.
[Unidentified]: Go upstairs.
[Robin Stein]: Sorry, tonight a little blistered. Did Verizon have anything to say on that garden?
[Tim McGivern]: I haven't asked yet. Do you guys have anything to say on that garden? Thank you, Robin.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: No problem. Are we responding to the concerns in the chat or is that for the public opinion time? I mean, there is additional concerns in the chat.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, let me check it out. In the meantime, Brian, do you have any objections to trying to preserve that little garden at the base of that pole there?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We should be able to work around that as best we can and keep it as it is. Okay. All right. Thank you, Sean.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right, let me... So the concerns in the chat are health concerns, and somebody is quoting the scientific American opinion piece that I strongly object to because there are other scientific American opinion pieces that contradict it completely and explicitly. The problem is we cannot take into concern health impacts. The fact that children live nearby is a health concern. If we thought the pole was going to fall on a child, that would be a concern we could take into account.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Alicia.
[Tim McGivern]: There are concerns with the other concern that I see here, Alicia. How secure is our personal data with all of these small cells of fixed utility poles throughout the city so I know Verizon has addressed that in previous meetings, but for the sake of some folks here, who obviously didn't go to the meetings before, I will ask Verizon. During this part of the agenda, I know we didn't say that that's what we would do, but if you could just speak briefly about the data protection aspect of 5G in small cells and what, if any, impacts this rollout has on data protection.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Maybe I should jump in here. I've read a bit because it's come up in the past. What the experts were saying was that 5G is just as secure as 4G, but because it's a newer technology, that it should be able to be more secure than current standards. I assume that's what they're going to work towards.
[Tim McGivern]: It does. Thank you. Thank you very much. That sounds similar and consistent with the responses we've heard on that topic before from Verizon. Does the committee feel like we need more response from Verizon on that particular topic at this time? Hearing none.
[Paul Mochi]: No, I don't think so. No. OK.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. I would agree, yeah. So again, just to summarize for the resident bringing it up, The idea being is what we've been told is that the data being secured on this network should be better than what it was prior because the technology is getting better. So it's not going the other way. All right. So we have a motion on the floor and we also have a second. So the motion on the floor is approved with standard conditions and to take measures to protect the garden during installation, the private garden. Do I, so that was seconded, so we'll take a roll call vote. Marianne?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul? Yes. Alicia?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: And me, yes. All right, so 60 Oakland Street is approved with standard conditions plus one special condition. All right, next is 84 Paris Street. For this one, my measurements, 10 meters to the decimal point there, Marianne, to the top of the pole, 32.8 feet. So no city assets on this pole. The base needs concrete. This is one of the city's newer, newly built roads. just saying that as an FYI so folks know, no visible ADA clearances that I can see on this one, 22 feet to the closest dwelling, which is a three-story dwelling. So with that said, do we have any public comments on this one?
[Unidentified]: No, I'm not seeing any raised hands, or were there any emails?
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so open for discussion by the committee.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, what did you say the height was on that? I'm sorry, could you repeat the height, please?
[Tim McGivern]: Sure, 32.8 feet.
[Paul Mochi]: And that's to the existing top of the pole, correct, I believe?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's from the sidewalk surface to the top of the pole.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay, thanks.
[Tim McGivern]: Which is, just so folks can understand, that is 10 meters, exactly. All right, I don't have any discussions on this one. So the floor is open for a motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: Motion to approve with our standard conditions.
[Unidentified]: Do we have a second? I'll second. We'll call Marianne.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul? Yes. And I am also a yes. All right, 84 Paris Street is approved with us in the conditions. Next is 167 Grant Avenue, pole number 1876, application number 70. This one, 34 feet to the top of the pole. There's one city light on this pole. The base was fine, no visible ADA clearances. This one is relatively close compared to other ones to a resident, eight feet. However, it's a two-story resident and the antenna actually sits above the roof level. And you can see from this picture in the application too, it's quite a ways up there. So, but the measurement from the pole to the building is eight feet. And this is another one where I thought that the, well, no, actually, no, this isn't that one, sorry. It's a different one. Right, so that was my takeaway for this particular poll. So do we have any public comment for 167 Grand Avenue, poll 1876?
[Unidentified]: No, there's no public comment.
[Tim McGivern]: No public comment, okay. Discussion questions from the committee. If no discussion, just waiting a motion. I didn't have any suggestions for this one.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with our standard conditions.
[Unidentified]: Right. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Paul.
[Tim McGivern]: Roll call vote, Mary Ann? Alicia?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. And I am a yes as well. 167 Grant Avenue is approved with standard conditions. 33 Grant Avenue is next. On 33 Grant Avenue, the measurement is 37.8 to the top of the pole. No city assets on this pole. The base is okay, it's just a grass strip. No visible ADA clearance issues and 15 feet to the closest dwelling, which is a three-story dwelling. So any public comment on this one, Anna?
[Unidentified]: No, there's no public comment.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Discussion, questions, et cetera. If not, I'll wait a motion.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve this site with standard conditions. Second.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Marianne. Thank you, Bob. Do a roll call vote.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul. Yes. Mary Ann.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I'm a yes as well. So 33 Grant Avenue is approved with standard conditions. Next one is 103 Otis Street, 103 Otis Street. Poll number 1333, application number 74, Verizon's reference. This one, 39.4 feet to the top of the pole. One city light is on here. Again, the base is a grass strip, again, on this one, and it looks okay. No visible ADA clearance issues. 34 feet to the closest building. And this is an interesting one, because it's got a brick sidewalk, not a lot of brick sidewalks out there. It's pretty cool. Anyway.
[Alicia Hunt]: Does that play into the ADA or anything like that? I mean, I assume the city is not about to change the sidewalk?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we wouldn't change the sidewalk. I didn't see any reason to field visit this one. Sometimes bricks do come loose and things like that. But the pole is not in the sidewalk. The pole is in the grass strip. And the clearance issues aren't there. So, well, you know, there's plenty of clearance. As any work by others in the city, if they were to damage something, they would have to fix it. So if that sidewalk is damaged while they're doing work on that pole, it would be their responsibility to fix it. It looks like it's pretty settled in place, that particular sidewalk. Any public comment on this one, Anna?
[Unidentified]: No, there's no public comment.
[Tim McGivern]: Sorry, you cut out, was that a no?
[Unidentified]: No, there's no public comment.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. All right, with that said, our usual discussion until motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with our standard comments.
[Tim McGivern]: Standard conditions.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Has it been a long week for you two already? Because it's sure has been a long one for me already. I've never had a busier two days of my life, actually, I don't think.
[Paul Mochi]: I second that, Tim.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, yeah, it's crazy. All right. All right, so we have a motion on the table to approve with standard conditions from Alicia. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Paul. And roll call vote. Mary Ann? Yes. Alicia?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul. Yes. And me, yes. 103 Otis Street is approved with our standard conditions. And this is the last one. And this is the last one. So this is 15 Daniel Street, poll 2939, application number 76 on the Verizon's reference. And the numbers... 38.8 feet to the top of the pole. There's one city light on this one. The base is okay. No visible ADA clearance issues. 26 feet to the nearest dwelling. It's a two-story building with attic windows, as you can see in the picture there. With that said, any public comment on this one, Anna?
[Unidentified]: Yes, there was an email comment submitted from John Hagan on Daniel Street, who states his opposition to federal jail equipment being placed near his property.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so we acknowledge that. What was the address on that? Sorry, I missed the address.
[Unidentified]: There wasn't a specified address just on Daniel Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, on Daniel Street. So just so the committee is aware, I did look into the right-of-way for this one. You may have noticed that it's up against the highway. So right beyond the pole in this view, there's, well, not right beyond, but a number of feet beyond, there's a fence. That fence most likely lies on the right-of-way line for Interstate 93. So this part of Daniel Street is in the right-of-way system that's in the city's jurisdiction. But if you were to take a right here and kind of follow Daniel Street around, it changes to state jurisdiction. But we are currently, with this poll, we are in the city's jurisdiction as far as the land goes. And then the right-of-way line itself, from what I can tell, runs, basically, you can see those leaf bags. To the left of the leaf bags, there's a flush curb and some sidewalk. That's basically the boundary line for the right-of-way, as well as, obviously, the frontage parcel line for the building. So that's about where that lands to give the committee an understanding of where this pole lives. So it is in our property, and it is right on the edge, basically, on our property. And I didn't see any issues with clearance on this one. But it's just a strange location. As you can see, there's a double pole in the picture, but we have that covered with our conditions. They have to resolve the double pole issue before they install the antenna. So with that said, any public comment on this one, Anna?
[Unidentified]: I believe you already asked that, Tim. There was just one email.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. Yeah. Did I say it's a long week? OK. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Peter Vitales. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Peter Vitales.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I believe from their application that the image, so the image on the screen is from November, 2020, and they actually had an image in their application with the double pole and then newer, what appears to be just the new pole with the double pole gone. They knew we wouldn't approve it with the double pole. So, but it's in there anyhow.
[Tim McGivern]: It looks like the work's already been done for the pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you for explaining the right-of-way stuff. Move approval with our standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Thank you, Alicia. Do we hear a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Paul. Roll call vote, Miriam.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: You cut out right when you spoke. Sorry.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Paul? Yes. And I'm also a yes. All right, so 15 Daniel Street poll 2939 is approved with standard conditions. And then the next item on the agenda is adjournment. Before we do that, just would like to thank everybody for coming, thanking folks for speaking and making comments. Betty-El, I do see your hand raised. We've gone through the agenda, but what I can do is if we'll be brief, I do wanna allow you to speak. If you will be brief, Now I think there are two participants raised hands. So if you could please keep it brief, that's all that I ask. I will let those two participants speak since they have their hands raised and we haven't closed down just yet. So maybe do them in order, Betty L first. Thank you.
[tUX_rthPMVU_SPEAKER_07]: I just wanted to reiterate my points earlier about being able to trust this process and being able to trust that everything under the city's purview is being handled appropriately. And, you know, you do seem to mostly be following the rules that the city has set out, given the constraints placed by the FCC, but then the FCC's processes It's also questionable for me in terms of trust, and I think for a lot of people as well. The rules that were imposed by the FCC back in 2018 and 2019 that limit the ability of cities and towns to regulate small cell wireless infrastructures, that was imposed by former chairman Ajit Pai, who also ruled against net neutrality. I just wanted to raise this point to the public. Net neutrality is the, is a rule that requires internet service providers to serve all content, regardless of who it's from, at the same rate, at the same speeds, at the same level of reliability, whereas the repeal of net neutrality would have allowed for different content providers to serve content at faster rates than others, depending on whether or not they were politically connected well enough or had paid somebody. But former Chairman Pai of the FCC was responsible for repealing net neutrality. And he was also the one that imposed these rules that are keeping municipalities from being able to issue moratoria against small cell infrastructure and to object on the grounds of health and safety. So a process coming from an agency led by a chairman that's already proven so unaccountable to millions of Americans how are we supposed to trust this process? This is something that I just want to voice to the public that's watching this and reading these comments and trying to participate in this process. So thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Betty. I appreciate it. And we do hear you, and we've heard a lot of similar statements in previous meetings. So I'm hoping that word gets out there. And again, like I said at the beginning of the meeting, the best course of action to get this sort of thing changed from a resident advocacy perspective would be to talk to your state and federal legislation. So thank you very much, everybody. Do I have a movement for adjournment? Before that, I just wanted to thank, again, thank you everybody. I was in the middle of thanking folks. Thank you to Verizon and thanks to the public for being here tonight and being patient. So thank you very much. We have a movement for adjournment.
[Paul Mochi]: Thank you, Tim. Nice job tonight. I make a motion to adjourn.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Paul. Do I hear a second?
[Paul Mochi]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: And roll call, Alicia?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann? Yes. And I am also a yes. All right, everybody, have a good night, and I'll see folks tomorrow that I'll see tomorrow. You too, Tim. Thank you. Good night, everybody. Thank you.