[Tim McGivern]: I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. And this is a meeting of the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee, March 31st, 2021, 6 p.m. Hearing for Verizon applications for 44 proposed small cell infrastructure antennas in the city of Medford. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. Mass General Law 30 a section 18 and the governor's March 15 2020 order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting of the Medford adult small cell committee will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public into parties with the right into a requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the city of Medford website at www. medfordmass.org. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to listen or watch the meeting may do so by viewing the meeting on cable access or online through Medford Community Media's YouTube channel. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the City of Medford or Medford Community Media website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. The dial-in number for the meeting is 1-929-205-6099. Again, 1-929-205-6099, with an ID number of 933-7697-5064. That ID again is 933-7697-5064. All right, so I want to welcome everybody for coming. This meeting and the hearing for the 44 applications is under the interim policy for small cell wireless installations, which is a result of an FCC declaratory ruling and order. I'd like to first introduce the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee, the committee NFM, If you could just raise your hand when I call your name, that would be great. Um, so you can say hello, just so folks know who you are. Right. Um, Paul Moki, who is the building commissioner, Paul. That's Paul. And if, um, if committee members, if you could change your name to show that you're on the committee, just so folks know that would be helpful. Marianne O'Connor, who is the director of public health, Marianne. She's there. Alicia Hunt, Director of Office of Community Development, there. And me, Tim McGibbon, I am the City Engineer, and I was assigned to chair this committee. We are here to consider the following locations Verizon has applied for under the City of Medford Interim Policy for Small Cell Wireless Installations. I'm gonna read all 44 now. They are based, the titles of them are based off of the approximate location. They also have utility poll numbers associated with them, but since most people don't know the utility poll numbers, I'm just going to read the closest address in the application number. They all have application numbers that we've been using for tracking and I'm sure Verizon is as well. For the purposes of tonight, we've grouped them into three. geographic categories. So I'm just gonna go through one at a time. First geographic category is South Medford. And the applications are as follows. Application number three, close to 287 Main Street. And I should mention too, these are all existing utility poles where the applications apply to existing utility poles. 287 Main Street, application number three. 24 Wareham Street, application 36. 13 Higgins Avenue, application 41. 28 Killscythe Road, application 42. 48 Granville Ave, application 44. 25 Dexter Street, application six. 39 Albion Street, application seven. 20 Winchester Street, application eight. Four Colby Street, application nine. 333 Main Street, application 35. 600 Boston Avenue, application 45. 13 New Bern Avenue, application 39. 8 Alfred Street, application 38. 236 Harvard Street, application 46. 549 Main Street, application 40. 89 Princeton Street, application 47. 62 Marion Street, application 37. and 499 or close to 499 Main Street, application 005. That one is really closer to the Tufts pool building, doesn't have an address. The next grouping is the applications in the Hillside Upper Mystic Avenue area. These include 50 George Street, application one, 200 Boston Avenue, application 15, 16 Mystic Avenue, application 20, zero Boston Avenue, application 48, 97 Greenleaf Avenue, application 11. 110 Winthrop Street, application 12. 281 Boston Avenue, application 14. 204 Winthrop Street, application 17. 24 Tesla Avenue, application 50. 42 Martin Street, application 53. 90 North Street, application 52. 104 College Avenue, application 10. 21 Fairmont Street, application 13. 32 Brookings Street, application 18. 42 Quincy Street, application 51. 25 Brooks Park, application two. The next group of locations is the Medford Square and Glenwood area. Locations include 13 Bradley Road, application 22. 87 Forest Street, application 23. 10 Cherry Street, application 28. 101 Sheridan Avenue, application 29. 148 Washington Street, application 32. 4 Central Avenue, application 33. 72 Salem Street, application 21. 17 Court Street, application 26. 71 Central Avenue, application 30. 45 Brogan Road, application 27. The policy charges this committee with ruling, we may rule to grant grant with conditions or deny the applications. That's just stated from the policy. And I'd like to just summarize the agenda. After this introduction, Verizon will make a presentation. After this 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. During that period, I'll first call on the voices in favor of the applications. Second, I'll call on the voices in opposition to the applications. Everyone who speaks will receive two minutes of time. Questions to Verizon should be directed to me, the chair. After the public comment period, we will focus on applications based off of the three general geographic areas I mentioned, South Medford, Hillside slash Upper Mystic Ave, and the Medford Square Glenwood area. The committee will discuss locations at each geographic area. After the committee discusses the locations, the public will be able to make site-specific comments. Again, two minutes per speaker. There may be more discussion by the committee before moving on to a motion. The chair will then open the floor for a motion by a committee member to vote on the applications one at a time in this group. Presuming the motion carries, the chair will indicate that the members may grant grant with conditions or deny each application. And then the vote will be taken via roll call. Rules of the hearing. If you wish to speak, please use the raise hand function and we will put a queue together and calling you in order. We'll do the best that we can between Amanda and Dave. I think we'll do the best we can there. Obviously, Zoom makes it a little bit tricky, but we'll figure it out. We want to make sure that folks have an opportunity to speak. Again, please direct comments and questions to the chair, to me, and we can get the questions to Verizon. They'll hear them. No profanity, no name calling, no other rude or disruptive behavior. I reserve the right as the chair to mute participants who disrupt the proceedings. And each speaker will receive two minutes as I've stated a couple of times. Written comments may still be submitted via email, 5gcomments at medford-ma.gov. We will check that email address. before voting, see if there's any comments still that need to be put into the record. We have the chat disabled due to the expectation of a largely attended hearing, and we'd like to funnel written comments to the email address. Amanda, were you able to find the map Okay, all right. So what I'd like to do is just briefly introduce that map if you wanna share your screen. To assist in this discussion, we've mapped the proposed locations. That map has been available to folks via the website. If you just wanna share it for a moment. And we'll come back to this. So this is the map, just a Google map street view. So what we'll be able to do is zoom in on each location as they come up as needed while we discuss. Thank you, Amanda. You can go back to regular view. Okay, I'd like to... All right, well, before we get into the comments and the map and things like that, Verizon has prepared a presentation After the presentation, the committee may ask questions before going into the public comment period. So with that said, is there someone from Verizon who would like to introduce your team and get going on the presentation?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is Michael Gymo representing Verizon. We do have a presentation. Kathleen Finn would like to share her screen to put that up. Very good, thank you. Thank you for hearing our applications today to the committee members and to the members of the public who are here. These are all applications for attaching equipment to existing utility poles. Slide. Verizon has a website. The website is called, with more information about it, it's proposed wireless sites in Medford. It's called improveyourwireless.com slash Medford. And you can reach that if there's any information after tonight that you're looking for. Slide. So I'm Michael Gyma. I'm the legal counsel for Verizon from the law firm Robinson and Cole. Stan Yusevich from Verizon Government Affairs is here. He'll speak to you as well. Jason Flanagan is a radio frequency engineer. He helps to design the network from a technical standpoint. He'll make a few remarks. Sean Conway is a Verizon engineer. He will describe the small cell equipment and the process of determining pole locations. And Dr. Eric Swanson is a professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh, and he will cover the safety of small cells. Slide, please. Just a real brief overview on the legal context for these applications. Medford has a small cell policy as the chair just discussed. That small cell policy governs to the extent that it's not inconsistent with federal law. Federal law has a number of aspects of regulation of small cell projects. Federal law imposes a 60 day time limit on a municipality to approve or deny small cell applications. It controls the extent to which a city or state can regulate the design of small cells. It prohibits municipalities from placing a moratorium on small cell deployment or from prohibiting service from being provided in a particular area. And it also says that municipalities may not evaluate small cell applications based on health concerns. Slide. Kathleen, so the background on these particular applications is Verizon filed applications in the fall of 2019 that comply with the federal law as well as the local policy. There were public hearings scheduled in November and December 2019 but those were not held. Verizon held an information fair for the community to provide some more information about these projects. In January of 2020, about 150 residents attended. The city set a small cell committee hearing for March 18th, 2020. Unfortunately, that timing didn't work because it was canceled when the COVID shutdowns took effect. Verizon has extended by agreement the 60 day federal shot clock four times during those periods of time, but that shot clock ran out on May 15th, 2020, and has not been extended, but Verizon has continued to work with the city process as a show of good faith. And we're here tonight at the hearing to have the 44 applications heard. I'm gonna turn this over to Stan Yusevich next, and he's gonna give some additional information to you, slide.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Michael, and thank you members of the committee. the members of the public. Verizon is prepared to make a significant investment in Medford's technology infrastructure, as we have in other neighboring communities, such as Somerville, Cambridge, Revere, Malden, and Boston. Slide. We have all witnessed the rapid growth in the demand for wireless service. This demand for wireless technology has increased dramatically since the COVID-19 outbreak. More people are working from their homes and their children are being educated remotely. As we see from tonight's hearing, technology is making it possible for the important work of local government to continue. In recent years, let's slide, thank you. In recent years, Verizon started bringing the next generation of wireless technology to the region's larger cities like Boston. Now we are expanding to 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 starting point to provide these benefits to the neighborhoods of Medford. Our plan, however, will improve wireless service for the entire city. Slide. The promise and benefits of the future of 5G is bright. Collectively, we can imagine and create opportunities for greater energy, efficiencies in our buildings, traffic signaling coordination, communication reliabilities for our first responders, and increased access to remote learning. Slide. The 5G economy will have a significant impact on American cities and towns, large and small, over the next 10 years. we will see benefits across the country, including over $43 billion in economic growth and the creation of over 100,000 new jobs in Massachusetts alone. These are the reasons that we are here. These are the reasons why you have these applications before you. I respectfully ask for the support and the approval of these applications. And I want to thank you for your time, and I appreciate your service to the community. Next I'll turn it over to Jason Flanagan from Verizon Engineering.
[SPEAKER_29]: Hello, my name is Jason Flanagan and I'm the radio frequency engineer for these locations that we are proposing today. This slide that we're looking at is an example of what the sites we are proposing will cover. They're contained mostly to line of sight coverage, which means if you can't see the antenna, you most likely won't be able to be covered by the antenna. Since the frequencies licensed to us by the FCC are much higher than the frequencies used for our older technologies, coverage is much smaller than what you would previously expect for a cell site. You can think of it in relation to a vehicle driving by your house, playing loud music. The first thing you'll hear is the low frequencies, which are the taller, bigger buildings. They travel further than the higher frequencies, which is what all these sites we are proposing today are using. Next up to discuss siting concerns is Sean Conway.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Thank you, Jason, and thank you everyone for attending tonight. My name is Sean Conway. I'm an engineer with Horizon Wireless in the real estate department, and I work on small cells. What exactly is a small cell? As Jason said, they're small antennas that we bring in and place on street furniture, utility poles or light poles to fill in areas of our network where we have capacity issues or coverage issues. So we don't have to put in a giant macro site. We're able to fill these areas in with these small cells. On the slide here, we're going to show you what exactly a small cell looks like. At the top of the pole, We have a set of antennas that will emit the radio frequency out to get the signal. Just below that, we have a fiber connection that will connect the site back to our network. Below that, we have a power disconnect that if any utility workers or workers need to get onto the pole, they're able to go into that and disconnect the site to turn it off so they can work at the location. And below that's our power meter. I'll also mention that within this installation, there are no fans or cooling agents that are on the installation. So once Jason is able to select an area we would like to put a small cell, the real estate team goes out and tries to find a good pole to attach to. That's not the easiest thing. As you may know, many of the poles out there have transformers or other equipment on it, which at that time does not allow us to attach to those poles. We're also limited by two, maybe three poles outside of the area where Jason would like to cover to attach to a utility pole. Once we do find the right utility pole, we have to complete our location design plan. Part of the location design plan is to ensure that all ADA requirements are reviewed and met. And at that point, we have our design completed. We submit applications into the utility companies. The utility companies then take our applications, review them, and get back to us with any work that needs to be done to the poll to make it ready for our attachment. Once the poll is ready for our attachment, we're able to go to the local municipality for our permitting, which is where we are at this point. And now I'd like to turn it over to our IRS expert, Dr. Eric Swanson.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Good evening, everyone. Thanks for attending. My name is Eric Swanson, and I'm here to talk to you about safety and health effects of this new technology. So as was mentioned by Mike at the beginning, I'm a professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh. I'm also a fellow of the American Physical Society. I'm a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and I'm a former resident of Dorchester. I want to stress that I'm going to be presenting the consensus scientific view on health and safety aspects of this technology. In no way am I a fringe person and I don't hold fringe views in terms of science or politics for that matter. Next slide, please. So as you probably know, cell phones receive and transmit electromagnetic waves. Those waves can be described by different numbers like frequency or a wavelength or energy. And when you consider them all in total, we call that thing the spectrum. So this figure here on the left shows the spectrum for electromagnetic waves. And you're familiar with parts of this. So for instance, you see the rainbow there, that's the visible part of the spectrum. And if you go higher in frequency or energy, you hit UV or x-rays. If you go down lower, you hit microwaves or radio waves, et cetera. Next slide, please. And just to show you what we're talking about, this green blob is about where 5G sits in this spectrum. So next slide, please. That green blob, or where 5G is, is about a factor of 30,000 below what I've colored red in this slide. The red area is called ionizing radiation. That radiation is special in that it's energetic enough that it can strip electrons from atoms. And when it does that, it can damage tissue. Next slide, please. In contrast, 5G is part of what's called the non-ionizing spectrum. So that's indicated in green here. That radiation, those waves, those electromagnetic waves, are not energetic enough to strip electrons from atoms. So they don't create ions, and it can't cause damage to biological cells like DNA. And as an aside, it doesn't matter how intense that radiation is, and it doesn't matter how long the exposure is to that radiation. Next slide, please. So you're probably familiar with this at an intuitive level. For instance, if you sit inside, outside of the sun, outside of the sun's rays, and you have a light on, that light emits visible radiation. Similarly, a monitor emits visible radiation. And that visible radiation doesn't cause your skin to tan, and it doesn't give you sunburn, and it doesn't damage your tissue. unlike ultraviolet radiation, which as you know, can tan your skin or give you sunburns, which is up in the ionizing part of the spectrum. Next slide, please. So, and here, by the way, at the bottom, I'm indicating a few more things. So 5G is there near microwave radiation, that's in your microwave oven. 4G is a little bit lower and radio is a bit lower. Now this non-ionizing radiation doesn't do nothing. What it does do is heat things. So a microwave oven will heat water. And in fact, the only verified biological effect of all non-ionizing radiation is heating. So next slide, please. Now, because of this heating, because of this heating effect, the FCC regulates it. They don't want people to be getting too much heat from a cell phone or any infrastructure that exists out there. So there are regulations in place to protect the public. These regulations are made in consultation with national advising bodies and the international community as well. They are extremely strict. I've looked at how they do this. Levels are set at approximately 1 50th of the level to produce any effect whatsoever in animal experiments. And I could give you the numbers, but just to set the scale here, this heating, This heating pad that I show, a hot water bottle that I show on the slide, produces about 50 times more heat than is permittable under FCC regulations. If this hot water bottle were regulated by the FCC, it would be illegal. And just to make it obvious, I of course like the heat that my hot water bottle produces. That feels nice. Next slide, please. You should be assured that the FCC regularly reviews its regulations and updates them to keep track of technology. This little thing in blue shows you a recent reevaluation that the Food and Drug Administration did on 5G technology. They examined more than 100 recent studies and they determined that the current level of regulations is perfectly adequate to protect the health of the public. And the last little point I'd like to make is that because we're talking about 5G. Typical 5G small cells produce electromagnetic waves that are about a factor of 250 below those already strict FCC regulations. And with that, I'll turn it back to Mike.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Thank you, Dr. Swanson. So this slide shows the applications, but the chair went through these and I think they've been broken into the same groups. This is just so you can see the breakdown of those groups. Slide, please. Thank you for your attention, and we'll all remain available throughout the hearing tonight for questions or additional information if anyone has questions for Verizon.
[SPEAKER_26]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm going to open up questions from the committee. So Alicia, Marianne, and Paul.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll start with one. believe that this was part of the requirement, but I feel that it would be helpful to hear you say this, that each of the polls that you're looking, that all of these right now are intended to go on polls, that's obvious from the names of the locations, that each of the polls has been checked, that it is in safe and good condition. We have over time had polls that looked kind of perilous and need to get replaced, and that you've done due diligence, the National Grid has done due diligence, that the polls in this list are considered safe. I'm calling.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Hi, Alicia. I can take that question. Yes, when we submit an application to the, they do go out and do an OCALC report to make sure that the, anything we're adding to the poll can be handled by the existing poll. If not, they would request us to do
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Sean, I think you cut out that last part. Maybe you want to repeat your last couple of sentences. If not, what are you supposed to do?
[Alicia Hunt]: Your sound isn't working right. I heard the first half of your answer and I see your mouth moving again. Sorry.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Hello? I can hear you now. Okay, so when we submit an application to the utilities, they go out and do an OCALC report, which is a structural report to ensure that the pole can withstand anything that we're adding to the location. If there is an issue with the pole, like you say, it might be leaning or isn't adequate to hold our materials, they will ask for a pole replacement. We would put a new pole in that would handle the loading that we're adding to the pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: And none of these are double poles, that was one of our metrics requirements.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We would not install anything on a double pole, no.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you.
[Paul Mochi]: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions if I could. Yes, go ahead, Paul. Thank you. Okay, I was looking through some of the, I actually have some of the old paper applications that I think were filed initially And as I was looking through them, a lot of the applications that I looked at, they were mounted on top of the poles. Is that usually the standard practice for mounting this equipment? Or are there going to be some that are going to be flush mounted to the side of the poles? Do you know?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: So the requirements are determined by the utility. And in Medford, National Grid does allow us to attach to the top of the pole. That's where we would like to be if we can. In some cases, we may attach equipment into the communication space. It would be on a standoff off of the pole, and the antennas would sit on that bracket off of the pole. They wouldn't be flush mounted to the pole.
[Paul Mochi]: OK. And some of the equipment, I know the meter socket and some of the other equipment that are shown, again, these diagrams. Lowest level above a sidewalk is 8 feet. You won't be going any closer than 8 feet. Is that correct?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Correct. That is set forth by the utility company that the meter has to be at 8 feet.
[Paul Mochi]: OK. And I think I just have one other question for now. I noticed, again, in these packets, there were, let's say, a couple of engineering programs. You have some calculations on our shear lows and bending moment design. And the application, actually, every application I was looking at, letter F says part of the packet is a structural safety certification of the pole's equipment in the pole. And that's also required in our interim policy where you would have to, on page six, these have to be certified by a registered professional engineer that the pole location will safely support the pole's equipment. I didn't see anything that was certified by an engineer on any of these applications. Has that changed at all? Have you updated that at all?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We had submitted our OCALC reports that come from National Grid to meet that structural requirement.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, I saw those, Sean, but I'm just wondering, are there any plans to get these certified just so we'll have, you know, that it will be certified by a registered design professional? We could certainly do that. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make that request. And again, that's, For a couple of reasons, as you know, Sean, it's listed as what's the pilot package you submitted. And also, that is a requirement under our interim policy we have with the city. So if we could put that in there, that would be good. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul, I had a similar comment. The calculations are included, but they're not certified by a PE. And the committee can discuss how we want to address that. It's something that could be conditioned. So it's something for us to think about. We can talk about that more later. I made a note of it as a potential condition, if that's how the committee moves. All right.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Mr. Chairman, I also add a similar to that. I know our policy requires an affidavit of a radio frequency engineer or radio frequency safety officer. I'm not sure I saw those with many of the applications. My other question is, in looking over some of the safety guidelines and some of the FCC regs, in some of your applications, the lowest point of the antenna is below the required or recommended 10 meters or 33 feet. Um, and that seems to be a safety guideline from the FCC. So I'm wondering if you are going to be addressing that because of the lower than 32 feet, it's really going against kind of one of the checkoff list guidelines. The safety.
[Tim McGivern]: Sean or Verizon, do you have anything to say for that?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I wonder if Dr. Swanson would care to address the height of the antenna issue.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Sure. The amount of electromagnetic energy that you're exposed to is a function of how far you are from these antennas. And of course, the FCC regulates, takes that into account when they make their regulations. So generally speaking, if these antennas typically are about 20 feet above the sidewalk, and if you're below one, you'll receive, I want to get this right, about 0.4% of the limit of the FCC regulations.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm looking at guidelines from the FCC, which is a local officials guide and one of the checklist is that the lowest point of the antenna will be at least 10 meters above the ground or 33 feet. So that's something I would like to put in.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: It's even less. As far as I, I don't know if that applies to... Dr. Swanson, could you speak louder?
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, you're very quiet.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Sorry, I'll try to move my microphone closer to me.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's much better.
[Tim McGivern]: So we complete with that response. Marianne, did they provide the information you're looking for?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: If I could address that also, I think that reference is not to a guide for small cells or any regulation.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: It's a radio frequency guide, so.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: It's a radio frequency guide, so it doesn't apply to small cells. It was a draft, I don't know what the date on that is, sometime in the early 2000s, I think. It had to do with towers, not with small cells.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So a lot of these polls seem like they are higher than 33, but there are several that aren't. That would be my concern. And the affidavit piece regarding the radio frequency engineer, the radio frequency safety officer? that's required in our policy?
[Tim McGivern]: I can tell you what they, they submitted cover letters from, that states that they meet the standards, and it's signed by a Verizon representative, but I'm not sure, and this was something that was brought up a year ago too, I believe, whether or not it's considered an affidavit signed by a radio frequency professional. So that's, I think the policy was looking for. And Marianne, this is probably again, this is something similar to the PE certification, where if the committee so moves, it could be a condition to be addressed that in that manner, if the committee decides to move in that direction. So I've made a note of it. The, Applications themselves, again, they did contain about a page and a half of statement with a diagram, making the statements that are required in the policy, but not necessarily signed off by an affidavit form signed off by radio frequency professional. So I think it's something that there may need to be something done there, certainly.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Mr. Chairman, so we can maybe put this to bed at the hearing. I don't think we object to an after-the-fact condition, but we do have Jason Flanagan here. I think he can address as to all these polls that they would comply completely with the federal requirements. So I'd ask Jason if he can answer that question, please.
[SPEAKER_29]: Yes, thank you. Yes, everything we have proposed tonight complies with all FCC guidelines that have been laid forth to us.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: That's with respect to radio frequency energy levels, Jason?
[SPEAKER_29]: That's correct.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Okay. And you're a radio frequency professional.
[SPEAKER_29]: That's correct.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. Okay. I'll ask my questions now. So I think you've addressed a couple of them, but I'll just go through them here. One of the things I was unclear on, are all of these antennas located within a shroud or some canister type enclosure? And are the wires concealed? I know the diagram showed wires. It was unclear if these are shrouded in a canister type enclosure. And related to these, and I've gone through all the applications, everything looks like it's the same equipment on existing utility poles. I just want to confirm that that is the case.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Sean, can you address this?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: They are all the same equipment on each utility pole.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. And are they located entirely within a shroud or a canister type enclosure, which the policy requires?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: They are not located within a shroud. These antennas cannot be located within a shroud or they don't perform.
[Tim McGivern]: I just pulled my reference here. The first item under aesthetic requirements under the policy, and I'll just read it verbatim. Each small cell wireless infrastructure antenna shall be located entirely within a shroud or canister type enclosure.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: So, Mr. chairman that's that's a requirement that would interfere with the operation of these facilities, so we would respectfully request to the extent that we can't do that a waiver from. That requirement, because it has the effect of prohibiting us from providing this service, the the frequencies that these antennas operate at. do not work with the kind of shrouds that you're talking about there. These antennas are designed to be visually low impact and they're located at the top of the pole. Sean showed a picture of these, but in terms of an actual shroud, that's not something that Verizon has been able to do with these antennas. And I understand we did request that in the submission in the cover letter. Sean, if you wanna give any more detail on the reason that requirement would prohibit us from providing the technology, that would probably be helpful.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, I mean, I think you said it, Mike, basically, the antennas go within a shroud. The signal's blocked, so they just don't work. On our macro sites and larger sites, we can put those large antennas within RF-friendly shrouding, and the signal will go through them. But the small cells, these 5G small cells don't allow that.
[Tim McGivern]: And I got the letter here, you are correct. I'll just read the portion of the letter. Verizon Wireless respectfully requests that the city waive the requirements on page three of the policy that establish a shrouding requirement, and that establish a diameter restriction on the antenna enclosure, and instead review the Verizon Wireless application using the FCC's definition of small cell wireless facility. which reads small cell wireless facility means a wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications. Each antenna could fit within an enclosure of no more than three cubic feet in volume and all other wireless equipment associated with the wireless facility is cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. Following types of ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume, electrical meter, concealment elements, telecommunications, demarcation box, grounding equipment, power transfer switch, cutoff switch, vertical cable runs for the connection power and other services. All equipment was confirmed, and you also confirmed that these wouldn't have any cooling fans. Do we anticipate noise from any of these antennas? It's all the same equipment, so assuming they're all powered the same, we anticipate noise.
[SPEAKER_26]: Sure.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: There should be no noise from these, and yeah, there's no cooling fans on these locations.
[Tim McGivern]: So when you say no noise, no detectable noise? I mean, everything is- No detectable noise. When wireless facilities go on these utility poles, utility poles are primarily used to hang overhead wires, historically. Does placing wireless antennas on them interrupt or change the capabilities for service providers to provide wired service to their customers? No. This question, you probably know this because you have been evaluating these poll locations, but many of them are within 20 to 30 feet of residential dwellings. Some of these dwellings have third stories on them. And there are some situations where the plane of the living space is at or near the plane of the antenna. I know you've spoken about EF emissions the safety and the standards and things, but I was wondering if you could talk about that specific distance, 20 to 30 feet, and then prolonged exposure and other standards that are met regarding that, because you may have someone living in a space, confined to a space potentially, in a third floor bedroom, and maybe 30 feet away from the antenna and experiencing whatever emissions they are experiencing from that distance for a prolonged period of time. So could someone speak to that concern?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: So we'll ask Dr. Swanson if he could please address that.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_26]: Dr. Swanson. You're not coming through. Are you muted? Yeah, I'm not seeing him.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: He might've gotten bounced off somehow. Can we go back to that later when we can retrieve Dr. Swanson? Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: The application indicates the expected life of the equipment is approximately two years. Could some please explain the end of life, excuse me, the end of life process for this equipment as it relates to the utility pole and the schedule of installation? For example, if the rollout of this takes six months, is Verizon returning to remove the installed system 18 months later in the cycle?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We would go out For our network, we would need to replace them. But if there's an issue with the location, we would go out and replace them. It's not like the end of life would mean the end of the site. Once the site becomes part of our network, we would always want it to be part of our network.
[Tim McGivern]: So if I understand you correctly, you're monitoring the equipment. And if it's faltering nearing its end of life or whatever, then it would be scheduled for replacement? Correct. And would the equipment change in any specification during a replacement such as this?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I, I couldn't say for sure if it would change yes or no, maybe kind of just depend on where the technology was at the time. I can't see it changing too much from what's out there. Um, but again, unless, uh, we know what's coming two years down the road, I can't tell you exactly what we would be changing it to.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: So Mr. Chairman, I think Dr. Swanson is available if you want him to go back to that question.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we'll go back one second. I just want, we'll finish up this question first.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Okay, very good.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. So, and just to be clear, and if you were to change equipment or the specifications would change, my understanding of the policy is that you would have to revisit this committee.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: If it was a requirement of the policy, yes, we would revisit the committee.
[Tim McGivern]: OK, yeah, I think if it's the same equipment and you're replacing the exact same equipment, that's different than if you are bringing in new technology that you want to put in the same location. For example, that's hypothetical. All that's hypothetical.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yep, we would come back if there was a change of technology or equipment that was different than we had.
[Tim McGivern]: OK, so I'll go back to the other question. A couple of questions I think that can be kind of grouped in. A lot of these questions are the same questions I've heard from residents. So, okay. Question number four, while the professor was out, was many of these installations have residential dwellings within 20 or 30 feet of the pole location. And then there are some third story, situations where you have residential dwellings and third stories within 20 to 30 feet. And I know that you have distance and the emissions, you know, the risk goes down with distance in that 20 to 30 zone and prolonged exposure because you may end up with a situation where someone is bound to their bed. So what do the safety standards say for an individual who's in their home, they can't leave their bedroom, and that bedroom is on the third story and you're within 20 and 30 feet of one of these antennas? How do the safety standards address that prolonged exposure situation, even though it may be below your maximum permissible exposure limits?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Yes, thank you. And sorry for the Zoom glitch there.
[Tim McGivern]: It's OK.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: So if you're up at the same height as an antenna, then you will be receiving more energy than if you were below it, for instance, because it tends to be directional. However, that's taken into account in the FCC standards. So the figures that I quote you are worst case. So in other words, it doesn't matter. It still has to apply by the, still have to live by the standards. As for the time of this, There is no time specification given in the FCC standards. In other words, it doesn't matter if you live next to one of these things, or if you only pass it once a day on your commute or something like that. And the reason for that is actually a physics principle that was understood by none other than Albert Einstein. When it comes to these thermal effects, there's no cumulative effect. It doesn't matter how long you're exposed to this electromagnetic energy for.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: So, Dr. Swanson, just to be clear, if there was somebody who was bedridden, as the chair has asked, that would still, they would still be protected by the FCC regulations, compliance with those FCC regulations?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Absolutely. They would be completely in compliance.
[Tim McGivern]: And how close does one need to get before they would feel impacts or not be within standards?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: You need to basically climb the pole and hug the equipment to be going beyond FCC standards. So for example, if you work on it, if you're a line worker and you need to adjust something in one of these small cell antennas, you're supposed to turn it off before you go and work on it. I should stress again, though, that if you ask me personally, would I go and hug one of these things, that discomfort it might cause, because I have to climb a pole, there'd be no health effects. These limits are so strict that you'd have more effect on you than by taking your hat off, for instance, if you go outside.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions?
[Tim McGivern]: So just to summarize so I understand and for the benefit of other folks here trying to understand this. So we're talking about thermal impacts. and we're talking about proximity to the antenna. And what you're stating is, is if you were right up against, your skin was on the antenna, then you would still be within the standards of a maximum permissible exposure. And then also you stated that time doesn't have an impact, so you could be exposed, at a distance of say 20 or 30 feet or closer for an extended prolonged period of time, and there would be no cumulative impact to the tissue of the body. Do I understand that correctly? Have I summarized correctly?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Yes, sir, but I should clarify just in case.
[Tim McGivern]: Please.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: I understand how precise you want me to be. The second statement about time, absolutely true. The first statement about how close you can exactly get, it depends on the equipment and so on. A typical equipment, you can get within a couple feet. That's about as precise as I want to get before you hit the FCC limit.
[Tim McGivern]: And I believe the diagram that was sent along You indicated eight and a half feet. Is that zone away from the antenna? Does that sound correct, Verizon team? This is just the diagram submitted, eight and a half feet. Up in the antenna is the end of the MPE limit zone.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I think that diagram actually shows a rate. There's a few ranges there. One is I think 20 to 100%, if I'm not mistaken. and then one is less than, right?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think the green zone is 1% to 20%.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Okay, and then what's the blue zone? I don't have that in front of me, unfortunately.
[Tim McGivern]: That's okay, the blue zone is 20% to 100%.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Okay, so anything that's not in the blue or green zone is what Dr. Swanson was talking about when he talked about hugging the antenna. If you're within the blue zone, you are still in compliance with the FCC regulations. In other words, that you have not been exposed at a greater amount than the FCC regulations permit. That's why it's 20 to 100%.
[Tim McGivern]: Next question. Since we're operating under federal law, federal order here, as well as the the policy created by the city, what is the public's recourse if they believe that our emissions are beyond the MPE or maximum permissible exposure limits?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I mean, belief wouldn't really have to do with it. It would have to be a measurement. If someone were to measure and find that there was a noncompliance, Verizon would take that very seriously. Their licenses depend on compliance with all of the FCC requirements. They're very comfortable with this technology that it always does comply with those requirements. But if someone were to come up with different information, they would wanna know about that. And anybody who wanted to would have the ability to file a complaint with the FCC about that.
[Tim McGivern]: So the recourse, if a resident measured levels that they think are not compliant then they would file a complaint with the FCC?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: They could do that.
[Tim McGivern]: And what else could they do?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: They could do that. They could also go back to your committee because your requirements require us to comply with FCC regulations. So they've got both local recourse and federal recourse, and they would contact Verizon and give them that information. I mean, I can tell you that doesn't happen, but if someone, if it were to happen hypothetically, that's what people would be able to do.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Is there any third party testing post installation to confirm that the installations are indeed meeting the RF emission standards?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Could you mind repeating the question there, Mr. Chairman?
[Tim McGivern]: Sure. The question is, after After installation, is there a third party testing or any testing to confirm that the actual installed locations are under the limits for our permissions?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I don't believe there's a routine checking of individual sites, but they do constantly monitor their sites. And if the equipment was not operating the way it was supposed to operate, they would have a maintenance check and go out there and address it. Jason may be able to give us a little more detail on what happens if he gets a signal that something's not working at a cell site.
[SPEAKER_29]: Yes, if we have if we have alarms that go off in the switch, if there's a problem with our equipment. So we usually have a tech go out and confirm it. And in this case, we would probably also need someone with one of our riggers with a bucket truck to go out and check the equipment.
[Tim McGivern]: But there isn't any sort of post-construction, post-installation protocol to confirm basically what our design requirements?
[SPEAKER_29]: Welcome, Milo. These installations are very, as you said, they're all similar. They're all the same. We know how they're going to propagate. The equipment is the same and we know the maximum. propagation of the equipment. So as you saw on the diagram you were holding up earlier, that diagram for safety is if the site is operating at max power with the max number of users on it, and they would actually have to be kind of far away because the signal would be as powered up as possible trying to hit them at the limits of its coverage. So that is the absolute maximum limit of safety exposure, and I can't exceed that diagram. So we're not... We've done all our testing beforehand, and we do not have any concern for a site to be unsafe in that regard.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: The equipment is also certified to manufacturer standards, so that is built into the design of the equipment before it's sold. They've conducted all those tests on the equipment, the manufacturers would.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, understood, understood. I come from a world where specifications are always tested post installation and post construction. So it's a little, a little strange to hear that we have a design standards for equipment and the equipment goes up and there's no follow up testing. I'm trying to understand that a little bit more because you have a piece of equipment that you've tested in a lab, I'm sure. And the purpose of testing post-installation would be to confirm the laboratory results, as well as see if there's anything interrupting the functioning of the equipment, whether it may be other power, other electromagnetic sources, potentially. So anyway, that's something maybe the committee wants to discuss further. Those were my questions. Any other questions from the committee? At the moment, there'll be more time when we get into the census specific, but. Mary Ann, Alicia, or Paul. Okay. All right, so we're gonna move to the general non-site-specific public comments. We're gonna open the floor to comments from the public. If you have questions for Verizon, please direct your questions to me, the chair. Before, I did say in the summary that I would call on voices in favor. There are a couple of city council members here attending this meeting. I'd like to call on them first to speak during the comment period. So I'm not sure, let's see, we've got Councilor Marks here. And I think I saw President Caraviello here as well. I know Councilor Marks, you have your hand up.
[Michael Marks]: I do, can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: I can, hello. So why don't we just confirm Amanda and Dave, could you guys confirm any other councilors who may wish to speak and we can go ahead and hear from Councilor Marks and then after councilors we'll go to folks in favor.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Tim, and I would respectfully ask that, whereas I've received hundreds of emails and phone calls over the past year and a half, that I'd be allotted more than two minutes to make my presentation on behalf of the residents of this community that took the time to reach out to me. So I respectfully would request that. I want to thank the ad hoc committee members for their due diligence on this. I also want to recognize a few of my colleagues in city government. President Caraviello is on the call, as well as Councilor George Scarpelli and Representative Paul Donato. You know, just briefly, at the beginning of the presentation, I heard the words uttered we can't consider health concerns when discussing the applications. And let me just say in my 26 years in city government in this community, I find that to be outrageous, that health concerns cannot be discussed or considered by residents or a city public entity. If I could also, I appreciate the knowledge that we have through our building commissioner, city engineer, community development director, and the board of health. However, I would say that I think it would be a great opportunity for the city of Medford to have their own experts as well on the subjects as which was mentioned by the Verizon experts that we heard from. As a member of the city council, I am concerned that corporate greed and commercial benefits of 5G will outweigh the potential long-term health effects of 5G on our residents. 5G will substantially increase resident exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. This has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand our government officials fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect the health and safety of our residents and our environment. I'd like to just call upon an article that I read from the Americans for Responsible Technology. And this is one segment of the article, but the article is 5G technology versus science and freedom of choice. And it goes on to state, and I quote, human exposure guidelines from radio frequency microwave radiation used by the FCC are more than 20 years old and address only thermal, not biological impacts of exposure, which have now been firmly established. The guidelines have been the subject of an open FCC doc. docket since 2013 with no resolution, creating an uncertain regulatory environment. Over the last 20 years, a robust body of independent science has emerged showing significant biological impacts from exposure to radiofrequency microwave radiation, including clear evidence of cancer, neurological and cognitive harm, heart abnormalities, reproductive effects, and microwave sickness, among other serious health problems. Populations, especially at risk include pregnant women, children, the elderly, individuals with implanted medical devices or cardiac or neurological problems. I have a couple of questions I have regarding the policy. And I raised these at the last city council meeting and the city council voted unanimously to put out nine different amendments on my resolution. But my first question is, in the city's interim policy, under the application process, it states, for residential areas, guidelines on structure heights and lengths of minimum setback rules from dwellings, parks or playgrounds, or similar recreational areas. So my question to the committee is, what are the minimum dwelling setback rules set forth in the interim policy?
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. I don't believe there are any set in the policy. I believe the policy leaves it open for that, but I didn't see any in there.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so that would be the first question that I leave for discussion for your committee, Mr. Chair. Also included in the city's interim policy is the following language. description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations from a community perspective, including number one, visual aspects, number two, proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, or playgrounds. If you go into the Verizon application, which I had the opportunity to, and look under their response for location selection criteria, They list, and I won't read it all, a laundry list of reasons why these are great locations. And at the bottom it states, it is not directly adjacent to a park or playground. And for some reason, does not talk about a dwelling. So I was just wondering if the committee had the opportunity to look at the location selection criteria and why Verizon omitted dwellings from the reason why they selected the criteria. Has that been looked at Mr. Chair?
[Tim McGivern]: I know personally I've looked at each and every location and I have concerns with many of them regarding proximity to schools, parks and dwellings. Um, so the concern is there. I'm not sure what the my fellow committee members have for concerns, but I certainly do. Um, there's the information that was provided, uh, had more to do with the, um, the polls themselves in the locations, alternate locations for the polls, as you may have seen Council Mars, right?
[Michael Marks]: I just find it, Mr. Chair, ironic that the city interim policy states there's only two aspects, and one is proximity to residential dwellings, schools, parks, and they omit in their letter under the location selection criteria to add residential dwellings. They only talk about schools, parks, and playgrounds. So I find that kind of ironic. considering that, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, many of these locations are within yards of homes, within yards of bedrooms, within yards of where children play and children sleep, as well as seniors and so forth. Also, Mr. Chair, in the city's interim policy under the prohibitions section, it states, no small cell wireless installation shall be installed on poles that do not meet the sidewalk clearance requirements and standards. This includes horizontal and vertical clearances for pedestrian passage, applicable requirements and standards may include, but are not limited to ADA. My question to the chair is, has the city approved each installation for meeting the sidewalk clearance requirements that are spelled out within the interim policy?
[Tim McGivern]: They have been reviewed for clearance. So I reviewed them for horizontal clearance for passage, and I reviewed them for passing vertical passing distance. So the eight and a half feet was mentioned. So those aspects of signs and vertical clearance, as well as pedestrian passing clearance, I did review those.
[Michael Marks]: And does that include a review of ADA as well, Mr. Chair?
[Tim McGivern]: Well that is ADA so ADA would, you know, the context that ADA is applied here would be pedestrian passage on the ground. The pole can't be in a place that's obstructing the pedestrian from passing. Most utility poles in the city, because they go through a grant location process, that is the case. And I did look specifically at the proposals. The biggest concern that I had in regards to these items that you're discussing is proximity to residential structures. that really was the one, you know, many of these, as you may have noticed, 20 to 30 feet within residential structures, which feels very close to me, so.
[Michael Marks]: I appreciate that response. My last just interim policy question is, Under the current interim policy, the applicant is required to provide a certificate of liability insurance. I noticed in going through several of the applications that the Verizon policies have expired. Is that something the committee is reviewing?
[Tim McGivern]: It's bringing to my attention now. Yeah, they may be expired. That's something we would need to have addressed to confirm that Those certificates indicate what policies the entity has in place. So we'd have to get updated versions of those certificates.
[Michael Marks]: So first hearing, but we typically hold a public hearing when portions of the application are not complete?
[Tim McGivern]: The applications were complete when they were submitted to the mayor's office, when they were submitted over a year ago. So I think things like the expiration of the certificate of insurance is something that has happened as the time has passed. So that is something that the committee could consider if we move this way to condition that. up-to-date certificate of insurance, basically.
[Michael Marks]: And I thank the committee for their time. I would respectfully add that the committee's radio frequency regarding proximity to dwellings and a host of other issues that are out there that residents have in this community. And again, I thank you for your time. effort on this. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Because amongst you were breaking up a little bit at the end there. Um, I know some of it was outgoing remarks, but if you had elements that you need to make sure that I get that in the last couple sentences, I think you may want to repeat them.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Chair,
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, you were breaking up in the last couple sentences that you said. So if there are things you'd like to repeat in the last few sentences, that would be good. I don't think anybody was able to hear you.
[Michael Marks]: I apologize. It's my Verizon connection. And I apologize. Mr. Chair, my closing statement was more or less that I hope the committee on small cells does its due diligence and reflects upon the wishes of this community and also looks into their own expert. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. I would like to, before moving on, I would just like to address the framework that the city has put in here. The federal laws surrounding this really sort of prohibit the city from stopping this, prohibiting this effectively, materially prohibiting it. And we have, our legal counsel on the line if committee members would like more information regarding that. It's very interesting. So anyway, are there other Councilors who would like to speak in the general public comment period? All right, thank you, Councilor Marks. Dave and Amanda, we can go ahead and I'd like to ask people in favor to speak first. So we'll open that up now. Amanda, if you want to take them one by one and you think the order that they were received and we'll give folks two minutes. Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Great. Yeah. So I believe, oh, sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: I was gonna say, and if folks could please introduce themselves and state their name and address for the record. Thank you very much.
[Amanda Centrella]: And I apologize if maybe one person came before another, but I tried to capture kind of folks as they raised their hands. So the first person on the list that I have here is Delphine Picard.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_10]: Hi, sorry, I'm having some trouble. Can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_10]: Okay, great. You said you wanted people in favor to speak first. Is that correct?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, but the more that I think about this, I'm not sure how we're gonna know if folks are in favor or not. So if it's out of order, that's okay. We'll just try to keep it to two minutes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_10]: So should I go ahead maybe? Or?
[Tim McGivern]: Go ahead, if you're in opposition, go ahead. We'll just make fun of it. And I'm glad we're recording this. All right.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_10]: So my name is Delphine Picard, and I'm a Medford resident since 2007. I am the mother of three children. And I am extremely concerned about the installation of the 5G antennas over Medford. The reason why is because we have no distance to evaluate the potential health risks of that technology. And I want to add on to what Consular Marks said and quotes the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which was signed by hundreds of scientists in 2007. I should say scientists without any ties to the industry or conflicts of interest, because I think that matters. They are very concerned about the health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. And based on more than over 2000 peer-reviewed research papers and letters, they state that, you know, numerous recent scientific publications have showed that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. I also want to mention that regarding the FCC current exposure limits, They are, as we said, outdated. They are 100 times higher than those of many countries in Europe. They are only designated to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RAF exposure. The FCC also has Lombardian lawsuits against it for not accounting for biological effects. in the setting of their standards. And I want to quote, if I have time, the final report of the commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology from the state of New Hampshire of General Courts in Concord They state in their first recommendation that the majority of the commission believes that the FCC has not exercised due diligence in its mission to manage the electromagnetic environment by not setting exposure limits that protect against health effects. They have failed to support technical means and investigations aimed at reducing human exposures to EMR. electromagnetic radiation. So I just want to urge everyone to do their research. It's all publicly accessible. All over the world, people are asking for time to study the health effects of such a new technology. not aware, but there were strong assumptions from scientists that this is extremely risky, as was said for pregnant women, for babies, for children, but also for all of us. So I think everyone has to make an informed decision on that. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Oh, and Delphine, could you provide your address for the record? Absolutely. It's 10 Brookings Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. All right, next.
[Amanda Centrella]: Next on the list is Peter Jones.
[Tim McGivern]: Hello, Peter.
[SPEAKER_05]: Hi. Getting some feedback. I'm going to move away. One second. Thank you. So I wanted to ask. If Dr. Swanson has any conflicts, if he's paid either by Verizon or by any industry organization for his representation, I also want to ask why he only talks about thermal and ionizing effects of radiation and doesn't speak about any of the other effects, non-ionizing effects, as well as the effects that Delphine Picard just mentioned. Once again, my name is Peter Jones, and I live at 10 Brookings Street in Medford.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you, Peter. And I'd like to see if we can have Mr. Swanson address those two questions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Yes, I'm happy to. I've been working in this area for about 10 years advocating for public knowledge about the real risks associated with this stuff, not imagined risks. However, for the last year and a half or so, I've been employed by CTIA to help spread that message. And for this particular meeting, I am being reimbursed for my time by CTIA. That is a trade organization. As for the non-thermal effects of this radiation, the reason I don't talk about that is because they are not proven to exist. So there have been a long list, laundry lists of things that this radiation is reputed to cause in people. So let me explain why that exists, why people think this, and why you can find almost anything said on the internet about safety. There have been something like 25,000 studies made on the health effects of radiation on people and animals. The false positive rate in those studies is about 5%. That's an industry standard. And what that means is that there exists about 1,000 studies that find something. Now, they're random. It's a false positive. It's random. And that means it's everything, everything you could list. And we heard already long lists of things that could be caused. When you focus on the 5%, you are ignoring the 95%. And honestly, that's why I'm here. because I find it frustrating when people ignore 95% of what is being told them.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Amanda, we'll go to the next person. Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Erin Brandes.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_23]: Hi, my name is Aaron Brandes. And this June I will have lived in Medford for 30 years, all of it on Wareham Street and Marion Street in South Medford. And I have a couple of groups of questions. The first one is... What's your current address? It's 48 Marion Street. OK, thank you. Medford, Massachusetts. Thank you. So from what I understand that these are, okay, these are short range signals. Now, will these signals benefit only people who use Verizon? Coincidentally, there seem to be teams of Verizon salespeople. in my neighborhood like yesterday? Or what if you use T-Mobile? Is this just not of any help to you? And for the town, what happens if AT&T comes? They want to put up towers. I mean, equipment. OK, and Is Verizon willing to give Medford some shareable equipment or equipment for town use to monitor possible effects? OK, that's my first question or set of questions. My second question is a design question. Did Verizon consider using fewer but higher poles? My understanding is that that could be an alternative. I also saw in the documents for the city of Denver, they required the use of radio frequency transparent shrouds. I'm wondering why it didn't, when you said that shrouding will not work, or have you Are you unwilling to consider the expense of radio frequency shrouding? And also, I'm wondering why this plan includes no spots in Lawrence Estates or West Medford, where the property values are generally higher. Is this because you think there will be more resistance? And then finally, I'm wondering how the committee is going to consider the individual cases. Is it strictly a question of how close people are to towers, or will you be affected if someone says they have a lawyer who has some way in which they're going to contest it? Anyway, I know that those are a bunch of questions, but I think that, we deserve answers. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. I will say that the committee has to go by the policy that's set forth for us by the mayor's administration. So we're operating under the policy as written. So I'm not sure if that helps answer the second part of your question. And then as far as the, I'm also interested in the locations and I believe Verizon indicated it was coverage. Is there someone in Verizon who wants to talk about why the neighborhoods that are selected are selected?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I can go ahead and speak to that. This is 44 applications that we filed. As Stan Yusevich mentioned earlier, the goal is to eventually cover all of Medford. This just happens to be the first 44 applications that we filed.
[Tim McGivern]: So basically, Verizon expects to file more?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: We would expect to be able to cover the entire city of Medford.
[Tim McGivern]: Amanda, let's go on to the next person, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, Luke Prezner.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, Luke. Name and address, please. We can't hear you. We'll give him 20 seconds to... Hi there. Hi.
[Luke Preisner]: Luke Prezner, 140 Forest Street. I guess I only have one question and I'll get to it at the end. But I'm not going to take up the whole two minutes. So I've actually really enjoyed the public discussion over RF and spectrum physics, thermal absorption. I thought I heard something about shrouds not being possible, and I think that's easily called into question. While everybody was talking, I read an article in the Microwave Journal. It's pretty recent, and New York City is enforcing shrouds. You know, there was a nice article in the Microwave Journal about RF transparent shrouds that are being deployed in New York City. There's numerous examples, just Google it. Professionally, I work with radars, and I'm familiar with, in our case, Astrofort's composite antenna shrouds for microwave radars. You know, people have seen an AWACS, but the radar is actually inside the rotor dome, so it's going through a composite material. But anyway, that's not my question. I want to know about trees and roads. So Medford has well over 50 miles of roads, and these are going up on posts. So if the line of sight's about 1,000 feet, how many towers are we talking about? Is it 1,000? And then, actually, that's not my question. That is the answer. It's somewhere around 500, maybe 1,000. Here's the question. Has Verizon offered tree plantings as a kind of an aesthetic offset to the introduction of these possibly unsightly units, especially if they're untrouted, as well as an offset to all the, and this is my personal fear, autonomous vehicle traffic that will come once we're in the 5G infrastructure of the future. So it's about tree plantings. Has Verizon offered tree plantings and communities as an offset for introducing this technology to our neighborhoods.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Thank you, Luke. And you were right on time. So the two minutes, so good work. The answer to your question is no, they have not offered any tree plantings and we have not requested any as a city. That is the answer. All right, Amanda, we'll go to the next one.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, Dennis Dedling-Kalhofer.
[Tim McGivern]: And if I could ask folks, if you've had a chance to speak, if you could take your hand down, your virtual hand down, that would be helpful. Make sure we get to everybody. Thank you. All right.
[Denis Dettling Kalthofer]: Okay, hi, so my name is Dennis. Hi, Dennis Detling, Karl Tofer, and I live at 120 North Street in Medford. They're actually, one of the sites is going to be behind my house on the next street up. I just wanted to mention, there's been a lot of studies that have shown, like the others have mentioned, adverse health effects of wireless technology. The FCC has not done any testing on the long-term effects of 5G. Like other people said, it's based on the 4G technology. And even the 4G technology has been shown to have health effects. Even the American Cancer Society said that there have been some cases of brain cancer for people that use cell phones a lot, for example. and that everyone's overall exposure to wireless frequencies will go up with 5G. Also, I don't know if anyone wants to get into the technology about how cells are affected, but they are affected. They've even been shown that cell phones break down the blood-brain barrier and that the city, I wanna mention this study that was, someone mentioned already, but not study, yes, study and a report from the state of New Hampshire. They made some recommendations. And there are 15 all together. I'm not going to read them all. But one of them is that we should migrate schools and libraries from wireless to wire technologies, even with the 4G wireless. They wanted the state of New Hampshire, and we could do this in the city, is to collect signal strength measurements and establish protocols for these measurements. and require the wireless antennas to be set back from residences, businesses, and schools. And Councilor Marks mentioned that as well. They also encourage individuals to migrate from wireless to wire technologies. All it requires is a cable. That's all I wanted to say. And do an impact study. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Amanda, next.
[Amanda Centrella]: I have Larry, just Larry.
[Tim McGivern]: Larry, name and address for the record, please. Larry, are you with us?
[SPEAKER_36]: Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Larry Chucky, 118 Ashcroft Road, Medford, Mass. And I have a couple of comments. At first, I am against putting the 5G because of the health reasons. And there was an article I read in Scientific American. I can give you the name. I'll give you the second article first by John Rappaport on the blog. That one was 5G and the China epidemic. That one said, there's one very serious claim. When 5G employs a frequency at 60 Hertz, there's a disruption in oxygen molecules occurs and the crucial hemoglobin to pick up oxygen and transport it throughout the body is impaired. And the other thing it said in there, Despite widespread denial, the evidence that radio frequency radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming. The accumulating clinical evidence of sick and injured human beings, experiments or evidence of damage to DNA, cells and organ systems. I think we heard that one before. The first article, the article by Scientific American warns 5G is unsafe. That's November 14th, 2019 by Joe McCullough. And a couple of things in there is they made the point that if we need increased internet speed, why don't we use fiber optic connections? Because that would be far better and safer. That is my question. Why don't they use fiber optic connections instead of wireless, because the 5G has the microwave radiation exposures, which we mentioned.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Larry. That's time. Now, I do believe that the market demand is wireless, which is, I believe, why the industry is heading in that direction. And Verizon can correct me if I'm wrong, but based off your presentation and from what I know. Right, Amanda, we'll go to the next person.
[Amanda Centrella]: I have here Alyssa's iPhone. Let me see if I can find you in here.
[Tim McGivern]: So many people with the last name iPhone these days. That was a joke, folks. Did we find her?
[Amanda Centrella]: actually, I'm not seeing them.
[Tim McGivern]: We'll move to the next person if they come back. There's plenty of hands.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yep. So Brad.
[SPEAKER_28]: Hello, Brad. Unmute. Hi, my name is Brad. I'm 49 Dearborn Street in Medford. I have concerns about the 5G. My question to our resident scientist, Dr. Swanson, I believe. He said that he was not fringe. Just want to point out that a lot of the signatories to the call for a moratorium on 5G are mainstream scientists, MDs and scientists. I'd like to comment on that. I also want to point out that the European Parliament has asked for a a prudential slowdown. Let me read you something from the European Parliament statement. It's called effects of 5G wireless on human health, March, 2020. The review concludes that evidence of the biological properties of radio frequency EMF are accumulating progressively. And even though they are in some cases still preliminary or controversial point to the existence of multi-level interactions between EMF and biological systems. So you can find that yourself. So there are a lot of countries and municipalities in Europe and in the United States, they're asking for prudence, caution, slow down, more research. The WHO says that in 2022, they'll have a review of human health and EMF, including 5G. Why are we in such a hurry? Why can't we slow down, do this right, make sure that the technology is absolutely safe for humans and all living things? That's my comment. I hope that Dr. Swanson can answer the question.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Brad. Actually, could you just repeat the question real quick?
[SPEAKER_28]: The question is that Dr. Swanson said that he was not fringe. I'm saying that there are a lot of mainstream MDs and scientists who have signed a moratorium request, and there are very legitimate public health experts writing in places like Scientific American who are not fringe. So what is the answer to the fact that we have mainstream MDs and scientists who are who are asking for prudence, slow down, moratorium, more research, don't rush the technology. Yep. Got it. Okay.
[Amanda Centrella]: So, um, Brad, sorry, Tim. Could you just share your last name for the record?
[SPEAKER_28]: Oh, it's, uh, Clompus, C-L-O-M-P-U-S.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you for your, um, thoroughness. I mean, I much appreciate it from my end. So Dr. Swanson, I asked him to repeat the question just so we all heard it again. He's asking you to comment on the fact that the 250 scientists that have been referred to a couple of times now are not fringe, they are mainstream as well.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Kampos for the opportunity to clarify. I should say that what I mean by fringe is not that they live in a trash bin or something like that. I mean that their opinion is in the minority. You're referring to the 5G appeal. That appeal is being signed by about 260 doctors and scientists in Europe and North America. You can Google this. There are about 6 million scientists and doctors in Europe and North America. And the fact that they could only come up with 260 signatures is the definition of fringe.
[Tim McGivern]: Amanda, next person.
[Amanda Centrella]: Marvin Vinay.
[George Scarpelli]: Hello, Marvin. Good evening. My name is Marvin Vinay. I'm the director of advocacy for Tech Goes Home, and I am not a resident of Medford, but I'd love to give an excerpt of the testimony that has been submitted to the small cell committee members by email, if that's okay. Dear Small Cell Committee members, we at Tech Goes Home are an organization that fights for digital equity daily. We empower communities to use digital tools to overcome barriers and improve lives. To that end, we supply computers, either a new Chromebook or iPad, internet, and 15 hours of digital literacy. In practice, we meet a trifecta, students with remote learning, parents with job security, and seniors with telehealth. Digital access and inclusion are paramount for our learners and to have digitally fit lives. Thus, we've come before this committee to support the approval of Verizon's proposal to install its small cell network throughout Medford. 5G internet services will improve access and coverage for the Medford residents. Connectivity is invaluable today in today's digital world of business learning. And as we know, 16 million public school students across the United States lack access to either an internet connection or device for learning at home. Without reliable internet access, digital inequity will plague residents in the education, telehealth, and workforce development space for years to come. We are pleased to hear that Verizon plans to expand its service area for 5G sales throughout the entire city of Medford. and TGAC has expanded its efforts with families who live and work in Medford and who can truly benefit from this greater access. Last year in the pandemic, we offered four courses in Medford in collaboration with community partners, Best Health Hospitality, and we educated 61 learners. We believe the greater access will afford high quality internet access, will bring much needed resources to the family residents of Medford that we serve, and we're excited that Verizon is looking to expand its footprint in the entire Medford community. I hope that you, the small cell committee, will approve this application to begin. If you have further questions, please contact me at Marvin at techgoeshome.org. And I thank you for this time.
[Amanda Centrella]: Next on our list is George Silvestro.
[Tim McGivern]: Hello?
[Amanda Centrella]: We can hear you.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, I'm sorry. I was on mute. Sorry. I said next. And I said, hello, George. Name and address for the record. I apologize.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: George Silvestro, 45 Brogan Road. I was born in Medford. I'm 64 years old. And I have some concern. I have five letters, notifications from five different properties. The one at 45 Brogan Road I live in, the telephone pole is only 12 feet from my house. My house is eight feet from the side, 10 feet from the sidewalk. The pole itself is two feet from my property line, which is not accessible for baby carriages to go by. It's in front of my living room. And my house is one and a half stories. I know you asked about the 20 to 30 feet. I mean, this is 12 feet. And there's a park across the street, a playground, a ball field that's only, you know, the street went to the street wide. And I don't understand, I'm the only house on this side from Court Street to Park Street and they had to pick the pole in front of my house that I live in, not to mention the three houses, the three families that I have in South Medford, that the poles are in front of those. And South Medford's a tight neighborhood and the poles are close there. That's my concern.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. And just to get the measurements clear that was measured 45 broken road application 27, which will get into specifically single story dwelling is only about 12 feet away. Yes, and it's pole 6734. Yep, okay, so yeah, I know the pole you're talking about. I remember this one, yep. And other drawings in the area are approximately 95 plus feet away. Yours would be the closest one basically right in front of your house. Yes. Yep, it is on the top of the pole. Just so everybody understands, like all the other ones, it's at the top of the pole, not in the plane of your house. But regardless, the horizontal, between the pole and your house is about 12 feet, so I acknowledge that.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: And my picture window looks at the pole.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, I'm acknowledging that. I believe the clearance was okay, but I'll double check as far as the horizontal clearance.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: You can't get up. I mean, I heard them talk about getting a carriage down the street.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we could talk more. It's three feet. You need three feet of sidewalk between the pole and the back sidewalk. There's only 30 inches, sir. Okay. All right. So if there's only 30 inches, then we'll have to confirm that.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_22]: And the pole, they did replace the pole. The pole was, I've been here, my family has been here forever because the streets named after them broke. And the pole was hit in lightning 20 years ago, and they just replaced it two years ago. It broke down, they replaced it prior to putting the LED lights. And since then has listed to the right, picking up the sidewalk three inches and has the sidewalk has now snapped, but it's still two inches above the regular sidewalk. There's no support on the left of the pole.
[Tim McGivern]: And when we get, when we get to that pole, we can talk about it in more detail. Okay. Look at it on the map. So thank you. Next.
[Amanda Centrella]: The next in line is Jarrett Johnson.
[SPEAKER_32]: Hi Jarrett. Hi, hello. My name is Jarrett Johnson. I'm at 39 Douglas Road in Medford. I just wanted to thank the chair and the committee for entertaining all of us Tonight I wanted to echo, you know, Councilor Mark and everyone else that spoke regarding the, you know, possible health impacts and I echo their sentiment and I will not be able to so eloquently speak my concerns as well as they have. But do just want to say, you know, that it is a new technology and, you know, the Verizon spokesperson said that if you could measure, you know, if there was a measurement that was outside the limits that it would be addressed. But, you know, I have searched for commercially available equipment to try to measure, you know, cells. signals in that frequency. Now I've not been able to find anything that goes above six or eight gigahertz, which I think Verizon's 5G would operate well above that. So we're kind of being left in the dark in that aspect. And then, you know, if the committee does unfortunately end up approving these sites, I would just like to recommend that there be a condition of the approval that if the FCC does come to their senses and removes the requirement that cities and states cannot reject sites based on their health impacts that the city would reserve the right to rescind the approval in the case that that requirement was removed.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. That's prudent. And just so everybody knows, I've said this before, The committee is, in the city in general, is operating under federal law and federal order. So the applications in front of us, the committee needs to decide what's in the best interest of the city here. So, you know, we can't materially prohibit these installations. It's federal law. We can't do it. If there's a reason for denial that's set forth in the policy, that's one thing, but if it's not set forth in the policy, that's another thing. And the federal law is pretty dang clear on this matter. I mean, I know it's been tested in court a bunch. So we have to decide as a committee, and I'm speaking to the committee members here, what's in the best interest of the city here. So moving on, Amanda next, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: John Costas.
[John Costas]: Hi, can you hear me all right?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, Sean. Thank you. Name and address for the record.
[John Costas]: John Costas, 25 Salem Street, past president of the Chamber of Commerce and in business in the television repair business for 40 years. Would you really have a double edged sword here? I mean, where does this technology end? I remember back when I first learned the television business, you know, 35 years ago, they told us the history of television and how many people didn't want television to exist. They said, we don't want the transmission of first radio signals because it's going to hurt us. TV was just as bad. Everybody was afraid of a TV because of the RF transmission. And then when the cell phones came out from, you know, 3G, 4G, we heard the same story. Some scientists say yes, it's no problem. Some say there is a problem. But the bottom line is here we are in 2021. And, you know, we need technology. If we're going to keep on going forward, especially now because of COVID, as several people pointed out, technology is at the highest level right now. And who knows what's going to happen in the future. I get a feeling more people are going to be working from home where they're going to need this higher technology or from a remote location where there may not be a fiber network. So as one business in the square for 40 years that's in the RF communication business, I think it's a great idea that you should pursue it and allow it to happen. Thank you. Thank you, John.
[Tim McGivern]: Amanda, next.
[Amanda Centrella]: Joseph Nazaro.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi Joe, Joseph, sorry. You're on mute, name and address for the record. And just a reminder to folks while Joseph is unmuting himself, if you've already spoken during this segment, please put your hand down, your virtual hand, thank you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: It's Joseph Nazaro, 9698 Princeton Street, Medford. I'd like to start by saying that I got atrial afibrillation from holding my cell phone here in my work shirt pocket. I noticed in the cell phone, I don't know if you can see it, I guess you can't. There's a whole section about the dangers of radio frequency radiation. It says, don't hold the cell phone within five millimeters of your body and don't put it to your head for health reasons. I know that Verizon cannot get insured by any insurance company for damage to health because of radio frequency radiation. Lloyd's of London turned them down. And I'd like to make comments at the end, but I have three quick questions. First, what's the propagation range of these antennas? Can I ask a question?
[Tim McGivern]: Well, ask your questions and then we can... All three at once? Yeah, so it was... What's the backhaul?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_01]: What method of backhaul is it? Is it wired backhaul or is it radio wave backhaul? And then where will the batteries be? Are they going to be mounted on the poles or are they going to be on the sidewalk? And will they infringe on the right of way? So those are my three questions. Do you want me to make my comments now or can I hear the questions first, the answer?
[Tim McGivern]: Well, time just about up, but I think those are good questions. And I think if, say that last one again, the last question you had. The batteries. The batteries, okay. So that one, I believe these are fed from a power source on the pole and there are no batteries associated with it. I'd like Verizon to confirm that. And then if someone from Verizon could address your first two questions as well, that'd be great.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Okay, Mike can answer the battery question. There's no battery backup on these. As you mentioned, it's wired, it's an electric meter at the site. As for the backhaul, it is wired backhaul. And I think Jason will be able to answer the first question.
[SPEAKER_29]: Yes, as I said before, these sites are line of sight. They won't go any more than a quarter to a half a mile, depending on how many trees are in the way or how many other objects are in the way.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you. We'll go on to the next person, Amanda, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: I have here Barbara Kendall.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, Barbara.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_16]: Can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: Indeed.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_16]: Okay. I live at 101 Sheridan Ave and the application is number 29. Now there's two poles there right now. They put in a new one and they backed it up against the old one. My biggest problem is that my bedrooms are on the second floor and I'm less than, I believe I'm less than 20 feet from that pole. So the two front bedrooms are used and they're in a direct line of sight to that telephone pole. My other problem is that I don't know what the long-term health effects will be from five. No one seems to be able to provide us with that answer. And the other problem I have is that I like to use my front porch. So I'm less than 20 feet from that pole. So I'm not going to be able to use that front porch anymore because I'll be afraid of whatever microwaves are being emitted from the pole while I'm trying to sit there and enjoy my front porch. My other question is why can't the, the cell towers be covered and something that would protect me, rather than just loose, you know, uncovered on shrouded. Now the other thing is, I feel that. These cells should be in residential areas and not in residential areas they should be in industrial areas, not right in front of my house, I, this is going to take my property value down. If I go to sell my house and who wants to live under a cell tower, it's going to damage the property values and impact my ability to sell my house at a later date. I'm 77 years old. I have two replacement needs and I have some other health issues and my bedroom's on the second floor in a direct line of sight to this telephone pole. So those are my problems. I'm definitely opposed to the cell towers and especially the one in front of my house.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. And the one in front of your house was application 29-101 Sheridan. And I measured 24 feet within two three story residential buildings, and 60 feet within two other three story residential buildings. One of those must be yours, the close one must be yours it sounds like.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_16]: Right in front of my house and that's the one you said had 24 feet. That's not. Yeah, that's exactly impacts my house terribly. So I would like it put someplace down, you know, with a Budweiser brewing plant. That's an industrial area friend, you know, the you've got Wegmans and all of that. That's an industrial area as opposed to a residential area, which is what I have.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you very much, Barbara. Appreciate the input. All right, man, we'll move on to the next person.
[Amanda Centrella]: Sarah O'Grady.
[Tim McGivern]: Hey, Sarah. And while Sarah is getting herself ready, just a reminder, take the hands down if you spoke. And also, if you've heard similar comments to what you're going to make, maybe consider holding off. This is a matter of time. But of course, you're welcome to speak. Sarah, we got you? Looks like not. Maybe we'll move on to the next person.
[Amanda Centrella]: Micah Shalom Kesselman.
[Tim McGivern]: Micah, we have you. If you're speaking, you're on mute. She's clapping or he or she. If you can unmute yourself, speak.
[Micah Kesselman]: All right, there we go. Hi, Michael. Hi, I'm Micah Kesselman. I'm at 499 Main Street. I'm not so much concerned about the placement or the health concerns. But what I am curious about, and this was asked earlier and wasn't answered, is what is Medford getting back from Verizon in terms of equity to the greater population? Are we giving other communities better access to internet? Is the municipality getting access to these base stations to use for municipal purposes? Are we getting anything from this? And also, how is this interacting with spectrum law? basically getting a monopoly on putting up 5G towers and not allowing other competitors to come into the city. I think these are pretty important things for this.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. I can speak to whether Medford is getting anything in regards to service. I don't think specifically the city of Medford is getting specific service from one of these antennas intentionally. I'm not aware of any other things that the city might be getting, as far as I know. That answers your first question. The spectrum law question, can someone from Verizon address that? Is Verizon setting up a monopoly of service here in Medford?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Verizon can only operate in the spectrum that it owns. There are other carriers that have other spectrum that they can operate in. Any carrier could come to Medford and operate under this policy. And in other communities, there are multiple carriers that do that.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. So if just hypothetically, if AT&T or Sprint or whoever wanted to install 5G small cell networks, they would be operating under the same set of federal law and policy or ordinance, whatever it may be at the time here in the city of Medford. So they would have to find bowl locations, and they would have to find places for their antennas, if that's the case. All right, Amanda, we'll move on to the next person.
[Amanda Centrella]: Craig Slatton.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, Craig.
[uJXvTXEl5kY_SPEAKER_22]: Hi. Craig Slatton, 54 Dover Street, Medford, Mass. Can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: We can. Thank you.
[uJXvTXEl5kY_SPEAKER_22]: I have expertise in occupational environmental public health. I do not have expertise in the health effects of exposures to non-ionizing radiation. Dr. Swanson mentioned that he has received support from CTIA. CTIA's website says that their members include carriers, equipment manufacturers, mobile app developers, and content creators. I don't expect Verizon to provide an expert who's not aligned with the industry, but I think it is disingenuous of Verizon and Dr. Swanson to present Dr. Swanson as someone who has been doing health research regarding these exposures. Dr. Swanson's website says, I'm interested in learning how quarks and gluons build the universe. And I imagine that is his expertise. And I imagine he's quite experienced at that. He mentioned that the information is all over the internet. And I just want to point out that in addition to the information that's all over the internet, and there are a lot of sources on the internet that are not reliable. I submitted to the committee a list of 42 peer-reviewed studies that have demonstrated mechanisms of cell damage from non-ionizing radiofrequency exposures, including studies by the National Toxicology Program and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. I asked that if the committee can make that list public in the minutes from this meeting so that others can see that list. I submitted that by email. Moving forward, I think at this time, this is bad public health policy. And although the FCC has sort of locked in our capacity to make decisions for ourselves, I'd like to remind everybody that we certainly can make decisions on whether or not we have accounts with Verizon, both as individuals and as a community. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. And at the end of this period, just so you know, Craig, emails will be read and become part of the public record. So we'll make sure that that's available. I'm not sure if we're posting those emails, but I think we're at least reading them. And so I think you make a very good point there, sharing that information that you've shared with the community. So thank you. Amanda, we'll move on to the next, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: And I apologize for the folks that have already mispronounced names and for the future folks whose names I won't mispronounce. Next person in line, Bryce Shinsuas Kurakula.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Amanda. I've been called much worse, I can promise you that. Bryce Shinsuas, I'm representing Kurakula Center, the Tibetan Buddhist temple located at 68 Magoon Ave. I was recently installed as the new director, though that's not my full-time job. As I mentioned, we are a Tibetan Buddhist temple with about 300 members. And so I'm here in my capacity as director of that organization tonight. I don't think it's controversial to say that throughout history, religious institutions and the scientific community have not always seen eye to eye on every subject. Many of you are probably not well versed in Tibetan history and you can be forgiven for that. But I would tell you that actually in the Tibetan tradition, we are actively encouraged to seek out and embrace science and scientific discoveries, especially if that science turns out to prove that we got something wrong. Mr. Jamo indicated in his first slide that municipalities may not use health concerns as a criterion for evaluating applications. I apologize to everyone if I missed the statute and case sites in his slide. Looking at Verizon's Form 10-K for the 2020 fiscal year, page 17 reads, and I'm quoting now, our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements. So if Verizon is so confident in the safety of this equipment, I would be curious to understand, though not strictly within the context of any particular application, why Verizon made the choice to describe these litigation contingencies in such stark language in the introduction in its report, because typically in a 10-K filing, litigation contingencies are disclosed within a footnote to an exhibit table, not as part of the intro to the management's narrative summary. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Bryce. Does Verizon have any response to that comment? I'd be interested in hearing.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Sure, I'll respond. My comments were on the subject of what a municipality may do to regulate wireless. It had nothing to do with the civil suits that this gentleman was talking about or the disclosures that this gentleman was talking about. I don't think I or anybody else on the team here knows anything about that. We're here to get these facilities permitted within the confines of federal law, which says that a municipality may not regulate on the basis of the environmental effects of wireless facilities. And that is the Federal Telecommunications Act that says that.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Amanda, we'll go on to the next person, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: Susan Liebowitz.
[Tim McGivern]: Hello, Susan.
[MCM00001484_SPEAKER_01]: Hi. My first meeting, first time meeting attendee. Welcome. But let's see, I'm just very concerned about the health effects of this proposed 5G installation. I agree with Councilor Mark's comments. and some of the other members who called for a moratorium on 5G until we are more certain of the health impacts. I mean, enough scientists and well-regarded figures in public health and so forth have expressed concern. Why can we not listen and heed them for once? So I think it is, you know, the FCC's ruling that we cannot make decisions based on health concerns is another that needs to be addressed at the federal level. That is, it's just unbelievable. Let's see, you know, just a more close to home issue. You know, if this did get installed, which I hope very much it is not, is there, there is no ways to measure, you know, if the radiation is reaching limits that it should not. There seems to be no way to measure that. That just seems outrageous. But I hope it doesn't even get to that point. So also, Mr. Swanson, I just had one question. You cited that you're employed by CTI. And I was just curious what that stands for and what kind of company that is, if you wouldn't mind letting us know. Just curious.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Susan. The CTI, I believe, was a trade organization. The acronym, I don't know. So Mr. Swanson, if you want to elaborate on that acronym for us.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: I'd be happy not to. It turns out it doesn't stand for anything.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, interesting.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: It doesn't stand for something, but they just use the letters now. And by the way, you're not alone. One of our Supreme Court justices asked the same question.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. We'll move on to the next person, please, Amanda. Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: Really quick, Susan, can you state your address for the record?
[MCM00001484_SPEAKER_01]: 100 Roberts Road.
[Amanda Centrella]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. All right. Next person.
[Amanda Centrella]: Kathleen Rourke.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, Kathleen.
[SPEAKER_47]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: We can.
[SPEAKER_47]: I have two questions. I think Aaron brought this up earlier and it didn't really get answered. I'm wondering why this first batch of cell towers is being placed where they're being placed. They seem to be targeting lower income neighborhoods and I live in one of them. I'm wondering if that was purposeful. I'm also wondering if this does go ahead and you're going to put these cell towers in neighborhoods that are more financially disadvantaged than other neighborhoods. I don't see any cell towers in West Medford or the Lawrence Estates. Is Verizon, as Mr. Vinay said, you know, we have an equity issue. Is Verizon going to give people in the low-income housing free Wi-Fi? Are they going to make up for that in some way where you're, you know, you're coming in on the backs of people who make less money so that you can get a foothold in this community, what are you giving us back? Are you gonna give those kids and the school free wifi or is this just let's go in and get like the single moms and the people who are not able to pay attention and get a foothold in this community and then we'll move into the richer, more wealthier neighborhoods because it's too late because we're already in. I would like Verizon to answer the question as to why they chose those neighborhoods. And if they're going to, if they're going to give anything back to this community.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. The, just to paraphrase the answer that I believe we did receive. They plan to roll out more this would be the first. phase of their rollout to get citywide coverage. And I'm gonna let Verizon speak too, but I believe they also had mentioned that the first 44 locations were to cover gaps in coverage. I believe that's what they stated. Verizon, would you like to clarify anything that I just said or specifically address the question? Thank you.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Jason, can you address the basis for these sites, the starting of these sites?
[SPEAKER_29]: Yes, like the chairman said, these are just the first of our applications. We are looking to deploy throughout the entire city of Medford, and we are not targeting any specific income level in particular. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: And the second part of the question, I believe the answer is that Verizon isn't planning on giving anything to the city of Medford in regards to wireless equipment or anything like that. Do I have that correct as well?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I'd ask Stan if he could comment on that.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: You know, at this juncture we were looking to deploy a network and part of that network is coverage and the coverage is enjoyed by, you know, for instance, public safety offices, you know, being able to fill in the the gap in existing wireless network. So I think the benefits are in the network itself, of course. And we do, of course, offer competitive grants, which the city has taken part of in the past in terms of education. But there is nothing specifically that would warrant us giving out something, if you will. This is about deploying an entire network.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Amanda, next person, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: And really quick, Kathleen, could you just provide your address for the record? My name is Logan Abb. Thank you. Carolyn's iPhone is next in the queue.
[Tim McGivern]: Hey, Carolyn.
[R49wqTZ5YIg_SPEAKER_02]: Hi, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I know this has already been asked, but I don't think residents have received an adequate answer, but I think we'd like to know how and why these particular locations were selected, what the reasoning was behind selecting these 44 locations specifically. My next question is, I think everyone in the city knows there's significant coverage gaps at the high school. Are 5G small cells allowed to be located at schools? And if not, can you explain why? And Dr. Swanson had mentioned that the 5G technology is safe as long as you're outside a couple of feet of the technology. I'm just wondering what are the negative effects if you did get within a couple of feet of the small cell technology? Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. Just one second, taking a note here.
[Amanda Centrella]: Carolyn, could you provide your full name and address for the record?
[R49wqTZ5YIg_SPEAKER_02]: Yes, sorry. Carolyn Montello, 108 Ashcroft Road.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so the three questions, how and why these 44 locations were specifically selected. I will allow Verizon to comment on that. I'm not sure if we're going to get any more information. out of them in regards to that question. But we'll see if they have anything more to say. And then are they allowed near schools? And if they are not, why? And what are the negative effects if you are within the offset zone where you're going to experience impacts?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yes, sure, Mr. Chairman. So on the specific poll locations, we're happy to get into that when you start addressing the individual poll locations. Each of the applications, as you know, has an explanation of why that poll location was selected. In terms of locating at a school, I am not aware of any reason or prohibition on locating near a school unless the city has something we're not aware of, but there's no other reason. And in fact, we have had these installations approved on streets that have schools. And the third piece of it in terms of the impacts, that's a hypothetical question. As we know, nobody's gonna be hanging two feet in front of a pole except the power workers. And Sean previously addressed what the protocol is for the power workers. They disconnect the pole before, they disconnect the system before they go up there.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: I can answer that in terms of what the physics says, if you like, though, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, yeah, take a minute, yep.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, thanks. Yeah, so if you broke regulations, if you left it on and stood right next to one of these, you would feel a heating, it would be similar but less intense than when you step from shade into sunlight. That's what you would feel.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. All right, Amanda, next person. Looks like the hands are starting to reduce in number, so anyway.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, Nan K is next in the queue.
[Tim McGivern]: Hello, Nan. Nan, you with us? All right, we'll go to the next person and if Nan is able to come join us, we'll go to her or him, but let's go to the next person.
[Amanda Centrella]: So question for you, Mr. Chair, there is a person who had already spoken, that's next in the queue. Should we continue through the folks who haven't had a chance yet and go back to them or just go to the next person in line?
[Tim McGivern]: We should, thank you for the question, we should go to the people who haven't had a chance yet first.
[Amanda Centrella]: Okay, so then next in the queue is Donna.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi Donna.
[Amanda Centrella]: Who I'm actually not seeing in our participants pool.
[SPEAKER_46]: I'm back on. I couldn't get my device unmuted. I'm Nan Kaye. Okay, thank you for your time. So I feel the next best step is for the committee to deny the applications for the reason to further study 5G. including health, but also technical, operational, and physical regulations of the equipment. Verizon's presentation relating to the law and health perspectives conflate the historical data studies and regulations on radio frequency and the unique 5G networks when it serves the purpose of installing the 5G networks, but then they discount the historical radio frequency regulations when it's not convenient. and in turn appear to be dismissive to the citizens and the committee members trying to educate themselves to be informed on the topic. If we can further study the issue, I hope We can hear from a panel of scientists that present different views in terms of what is best for our city. I do feel, actually, I do not feel it is okay to approve the applications currently with this many Medford residents feeling unsafe. Feeling safe is a basic human need. If committee members do not feel they can deny for health concerns, it is reasonable to deny because we do not fully understand the operation and regulation of the equipment, such as the comment referring to the typical equipment Do we understand if the typical equipment at times can exceed the maximum permissible exposure limits depending on the fluctuating EMFs and the power density? Verizon commented that has never been questioned on the MPE limits. How would a citizen monitor and measure exposure to question it. If eventually installed, is it possible to install a tool that can continuously monitor the exposure since it could fluctuate? Health effects are not fully understood. As already stated, many U.S. cities and countries around the world are studying not only the thermal effects but the non-thermal effects and they are also slowing and stopping the installation. Regarding the law perspective, the second slide of the presentation referred several times in capital letters to federal law, but what federal laws are you referring to, and what are the dates of those laws? In terms of the business perspective, it's a false narrative, selling that it is needed or Medford will fall behind. As I said, many cities and countries are not ready for 5G because they're waiting to see its effects. So- I like a lot of the residents' ideas if it is eventually installed. And I still feel like there's not a lot of their questions were answered, such as, you know, who is this Verizon 5G going to serve? What about the people who don't have Verizon? And what about when other companies want to come in and install equipment? Thank you for your time.
[Tim McGivern]: I will say that we are tasked with operating under the policy, which was created from the FCC order declaratory ruling, which basically sets up this whole framework. So there are, again, the committee has to decide what the best move would be for the city and, you know, what a denial would mean and how that would move forward. It's sort of important to know that and understand that under the federal framework. So that's really important to know. So if the committee were to decide to move to deny the applications, where that would put the city and where that would put this set of applications under the law and how that would pan out. So it's important to remember that. All right, next person, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: And Nan Kay, could you provide your full name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_46]: Hi, I'm at 70 Marion Street. Your full name? Nancy Kopecky.
[Amanda Centrella]: Thank you. Next on the queue is Donna.
[Tim McGivern]: Hey, Donna. You're muted, Donna.
[SPEAKER_12]: Okay, my name is Donna Edmonds. I live at 43 Marion Street. My first question, I guess, is for the committee. They keep saying that they have to look at these applications. And my question is, why are cities like Concord and Lexington that are wealthier, why are they able to reject these applications? Is it because they have enough money to pay for attorneys? What is the reason?
[Tim McGivern]: Is that a question for me?
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: I do not know the answer to that question.
[SPEAKER_12]: Okay, so then my second question is, I mean, I echo all the health concerns that people have already spoken of. I take care of my 95-year-old mom. She's lived here since 1968. That's why I've been popping in and out all evening because she keeps calling me for help. So we're very concerned. I mean, We're losing sleep over this. And if you look at the map, and maybe that comes later, but I mean, the South Medford area is a very dense cluster. And if there are health concerns associated with one unit, what's gonna happen in our neighborhood? I mean, it just makes us feel like a health experiment. And I guess that's all I have to say.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Donna. Amanda, next.
[Amanda Centrella]: Galaxy Note Oz.
[Tim McGivern]: Hello, Mr. Note Oz.
[SPEAKER_06]: Sorry about that. Andrew Oswald, 59 George Street. I was wondering, I guess, a question and a comment. Where can we find technical specifications on the equipment? I've seen a lot of kind of glossing over of, you know, like we're going to put something up and it looks like this, but I don't see things like frequency, effective radiated power, antenna gain, perhaps an FCC ID, specifications that would allow us to know exactly what they're putting on the tower. These are all required for any transmitter or transmission system. And then I guess I would sort of also strongly advise that there shouldn't be a diversion beyond the recommendations of the FCC. So if that is 10 meters from the transmitter, then I would look at that as a pretty hard rule. So if the poles are not tall enough or the houses are too close, then the transmitter shouldn't be located there.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you very much. Could you please list the items once again that you're curious about, and then we'll have Verizon address that question. I believe the specifications that they include in the application was the information that was requested in the policy, and that information was provided, but if there's additional information that you're looking to get, maybe Verizon could provide it now. So could you maybe rattle off that list again? Can't unmute. Amanda, are you able to unmute?
[SPEAKER_06]: There we go. Yeah. So the specifications on the equipment that's being installed. So what is the antenna and the gain and radiation pattern? What is the radiative power of the equipment? What frequencies does it operate at? The FCC ID filing for any transmitter is pretty informative. as to how it was designed and what its operating requirements are. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Verizon team, do you guys get that? Can you provide any of that information right now?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Jason, is that information you have?
[SPEAKER_29]: I have some of the information. I can say that these antennas are operating in the 28 gigahertz spectrum. And we are limited to a power maximum of one kilowatt per FCC license. Wow, that's a lot.
[Tim McGivern]: And what about the FCC ID? Is that something that we have? No, I do not have that.
[SPEAKER_06]: I suppose manufacturer of the transmitter model would also be.
[Tim McGivern]: I believe it's A3LHT1K01-57A. This is the FCC report for certification of the Samsung equipment that's proposed.
[SPEAKER_05]: Samsung?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Okay. And the applications have the name of the, The applications themselves have the equipment, the antenna itself is a Samsung HT-IK01 radio unit antenna. Okay.
[SPEAKER_06]: Is that information on our website somewhere?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, those are on the, all those applications have that information on there. The FCC report, which is available online, is the testing report that they did. You know, it's a large. Yeah. I have to generate them for my products, so. Okay, all right, so you're aware of it. So that's where I got the FCC ID. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. Amanda, next.
[Amanda Centrella]: Tony is next.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, Tony.
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_02]: Hello. First, I'd like to thank the chairman for his very organized meeting. And then, Councilor Marks, your statements were right on. Obviously, we're not going to be able to do anything. They got two big, deeper pockets, as Michael would know. And Stan is just looking on because it's all a done deal. So what I would recommend, the city of Medford do is to hold that FCC document of 30 feet or whatever, 30 meters or whatever it is, and not let them get away with it. Because if we're going to stop this at all or change it, we can't allow them any variances, zero, none. Because this is a done deal. Because we'll get sued, as we all know. Why can Lexington and Concord do it? I don't know. I had sent the mayor a document from what was happening in Cambridge. Cambridge got a lot of money, a lot of power, but they're putting them up over there. So if the FCC says it's 30 meters or 10 meters, if they're 29 and a half, sorry. That's our only option. Our only option is to hold what they hold dear, which is the law, which they just happen to help write. So, Mr. Swanson, I can't believe that you think that the only thing that's important is heat. If that's the case, then when I go to my dentist and I get an x-ray and she walks out the room, hey, there's no heat. That thing could be there for a long time. To only think that heat is the only thing that makes a difference is like thinking that the only thing important is light is, you know, how bright it is as compared to any kind of any other option. So I, you know, so it's a done deal, you know, sounds like, and that, Tim, we really don't have any options here, but I would highly recommend that we hold them to the letter of the law so Michael can read it for them and not give them anything. Anything. I'm done.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Can we get your name and your address?
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_02]: My name is Tony Nadella and I'm at 33 Frederick Avenue. And I've been a resident for Medford for over 20 years. Thank you. And if somebody wants to comment on that, I'd like to come back. I'd like to make a comment also.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, one second. Stan, go ahead.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, Tim, I just, for the record, just want to let you know that we do have small cell deployment in Lexington. We go where there is coverage issues, and that's what we try to address with all of this.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. I'll give Verizon an opportunity to address anything that Tony said.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Mr. Chairman, can I address the comment about the dental X-ray?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, please.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Yes, so a dental x-ray is a good example of something that the 5G technology is not. And that is a dental x-ray works in the ionizing part of the spectrum. And that's why it can penetrate your skin and give an image of a tooth. And it is a very different thing than 5G or 4G and so on.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. And Amanda, we can go to the next person, please.
[Amanda Centrella]: Next in the queue is Melanie.
[Tim McGivern]: Melanie.
[Melanie Tringali]: Hi, this is Melanie Congali. I reside at 116 Forest Street, and I also have property close to the other installations at Park Street and Stoughton Street by Boston Ave. I too am just a little bit concerned about the health issues. I feel more studies need to be done, but I'm not going to go into that because most people have. What I have a question on though is the number of potential towers that could end up being within the city of Medford. Right now there's I don't know 40 or 50 permits being applied for at this time. And my understanding is with 5g that they need to be pretty close together to for the coverage, right? And so as you increase the coverage throughout the city, what is the potential for a number of permits being issued? One, and two, has the committee thought about, is there a number of permits being limited? So what if AT&T also wants to apply or other wireless companies want to apply for these permits? Do they work off of the horizon? Some of those, or do they have to have their own? I don't know. So those are my questions.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Melanie. So as far as, we don't have any other applications in front of this committee from other carriers at this point. It's just Verizon, and it's 44. And the committee doesn't have, we don't write the policy. We were placed in the policy as the committee, with a narrow job. So I hope that answers your questions.
[Melanie Tringali]: No, well, no. So you're saying that we could have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these towers throughout the city is basically what you're saying. As more and more carriers apply for permits, more and more of these towers could be installed. Yes. And so there was no consideration on, so who wrote the policy? Are you saying FCC or someone else throughout the city on the number of permits that could be given?
[Tim McGivern]: This policy was adopted under the previous mayor.
[Melanie Tringali]: Is there any, I mean, have you guys considered changing that policy on the number of permits that are allowed?
[Tim McGivern]: That's not a question for this committee. That would be a question for either the mayor or the city council. Those would be the two entities in the city that have the authority to either create policy, which would be the mayor's authority, or create ordinance, which is the city council's authority.
[Melanie Tringali]: So maybe Councilor Marks might want to take that up and think about the number of permits we want to be issuing as a city overall.
[Tim McGivern]: As of now, there is no cap.
[Melanie Tringali]: Yeah, okay.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Next person please. Marie Izzo. Hello Marie.
[Amanda Centrella]: Hi, this is Marie Izzo.
[Marie Izzo]: I'm at 29 Pilgrim Road. I'm curious if anyone has done any studies on how 5G affects wildlife, birds, bees, squirrels, any sort of animal that might find itself sitting on one of those poles?
[Tim McGivern]: Good question, Verizon. Have any wildlife studies that you're aware of been done? Do we know the impacts of wildlife?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Dr. Swanson knows of any, I don't know.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Of course they study animals. So I don't know if you consider rats and mice wildlife or not, probably not. The one that I know of that's referred to a lot is in reference to bees. There actually is a study on the effect of this radiation with respect to bees. And what they find is that the amount of energy that they would be exposed to in their bodies, that they would acquire in their bodies because of it, is about a billionth of a watt. And that's unmeasurable, by the way, with normal instruments. So in other words, there's no effect at all on bees.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Amanda, next person, please.
[SPEAKER_45]: Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-K This is my first meeting, so I'm sorry if you're having to repeat this.
[Tim McGivern]: That's okay. Yes, that is, you are correct. So it's whether or not they meet the policy as written. So, you know, under the circumstances where the, you know, the applications meet the policy, but the committee denies, then it would likely go to court and the federal law you know, this has been tested in court. So we may, we have to make the, the committee needs to make the decision on what's in the best interest of the city based off of what we have in front of us. So that's what we're trying to do here, but appreciate the inquiry. All right, Amanda, anyone else?
[Amanda Centrella]: There are two individuals that had put in a comment earlier and had re-raised their hands. Oh, and actually I see someone else who is new. So I'll, Michael C if you want to speak first.
[Mike Caldera]: Hi everybody. My name is Michael Caldera. I live at 33 Governors App. I am in range of one of the proposed towers. And I just wanted to be the sole Medford resident other than John Costas to say that I think technology is awesome. I think infrastructure investment is important for the future of our city. I do have a scientific background. I've read the science. My background isn't in this particular technology, but I've read plenty of scientific papers and I just want to call out that some of the studies being talked about are disputed. The New Hampshire report being talked about, there was a minority of members of that commission that even said, hey, the way this commission conducted itself was so problematic that we actually have have to have a counter report. So I understand this is a polarizing issue. I certainly respect the, you know, some of the concerns being raised by other residents, especially those in close proximity to some of these devices. But, you know, I just hope that the committee recognizes that It's a pretty big time investment to spend, you know, going on three hours on a call just to say nicely that, Hey, technology is a good thing. And, you know, if anyone's familiar with Ashline experiment, right. The lines, there's a lot of pressure to say the lines are the same, you know, they're, they're different. At least that's the way I'm seeing it. So there are residents out there. I'm not the only one. Uh, I appreciate John speaking up. I'm sure there's others out there. I certainly encountered them in various Medford groups. I don't think this is a settled issue. So just wanted to get that information out there. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Michael. And the remaining two folks who have their hands up, I believe have spoke before. So if you have something new to say, we will entertain it, but please try to be brief. We can pick whoever is next, Mona.
[Amanda Centrella]: So Delphine Picard had her hand raised earlier.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_10]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Tim McGivern]: Hi Delphine.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_10]: Hi. Just wanted to mention since we were talking about mainstream science, and I do believe that, as far as I'm concerned, that it's more, you know, scientists without ties to the industry that matter, but Since we're talking about mainstream science, I just want to mention a US national toxicology program that found clear evidence in 2018 that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increases cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. I also want to mention that the IARC, which is the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Just to say that there are, you know, matron scientists probably in these agencies that care about RFR. So I think the 252 scientists, which I believe is the right number, are not against 6 million other doctors and scientists at all. I think mainstream science is definitely at the state of the World Health Organization concerned about health issues. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. And we'll go with that one other person who wanted to speak.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, I actually see three more people, and one of them is a new commenter, Carol.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, Carol, we'll take Carol.
[SPEAKER_42]: Hi, I've been listening. I did have to jump off briefly to drive home, but I just wanted to echo people's concerns about health effects. I understand what you said earlier that we can't deny it based on health effects, but I think I live in South Medford. My name is Carol DeMeo. I live in 11 Malvern Terrace. So although I'm not particularly close to the Hancock Street one or the Main Street one, we suffer from a lot of airplane noise here. And that's just really very detrimental to our health. So I'm concerned about additional potential health effects. So I just wanna put that out there. But also I was interested in hearing from Verizon what the cost of this 5G service is going to be. Because although they're saying they're trying to expand services areas of Medford and people that don't have good internet service for school and work. If the cost is prohibitive, then you're not really increasing access. You're just making it more difficult for people to gain access to the internet. So I was kind of curious if there's going to be an increase in pricing. I know this isn't probably the meeting to talk about that, but what is this going to cost us as community members?
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Carol. And just the hour that we're getting to and we still have more agenda to get through, and this isn't the right forum to talk about the cost of services. I'm sure that that will be an opportunity as a service customer to explore that in the future. We aren't going to address it tonight, though, I'm afraid. So thank you very much for your comments, though. The two people who made comments before, I would ask that if you would only speak again if you do have new information to provide. So with that said, the two who would like to speak. Let's open them up please Amanda.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, Micah Kesselman.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Micah.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah, I'll be quick. So I came to this meeting actually in support of at approving these applications. And at this point, I think this has been sort of a buckwild disaster of a meeting on Verizon's part. I'm not worried about the health. But what I am disappointed by is that you are asking to basically come in with a monopoly on a service on a disaggregated, decentralized internet connectivity that's going to be extremely important in the next few years without any sense of a collaborative spirit with the community. And you've literally said you don't feel any need to give back to the community. And that's buck wild to me. And the externalities associated with that stance are also great. It just blows my mind. So I don't know if there's any way for us to not approve these. I urge the committee to reach out to other communities that have been able to avoid this disaster. But this is basically a disaster in the making if we approve these applications.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Micah.
[Amanda Centrella]: And Tony.
[Tim McGivern]: Tony, welcome back.
[AXh4iBqkQq0_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. So I just want to mention that on February 8th of 2019, the Connecticut Senator, Senator Blumenthal was asking the communications industry whether or not there was any studies that proved that this was not a problem with health. And they all said no. So I'm not sure what Mr. Swanson is saying that there's so many studies that have that. And then I find it also very disingenuous that this gentleman would not tell us what the acronym CTI stands for. It's such a basic thing. Nobody gets called XYZ for no reason. So why can't that question be answered? And I think that we should just delay it as much as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Tony.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, thank you. That was all very great input from the public. I wanna thank you very much. Amanda, go ahead.
[Amanda Centrella]: Sorry, there is one more person.
[Tim McGivern]: New?
[Amanda Centrella]: A former commenter.
[Tim McGivern]: Former, okay. If they can be quick, please.
[SPEAKER_46]: Nan Kay.
[Tim McGivern]: Nan, thank you.
[SPEAKER_46]: Hi, just the previous last comments there, one person brought up the environmental burden of South Medford residents and the airplane noise is one, but also the air. So we have air noise, we have the pollution from I-93, and now we have this other environmental stressor. So I just wanted to add to her comment and also, the previous person's comment who was for the technology, but, um, is really kind of put off by Verizon's show of care and concern for the Medford residents. And, um, that, you know, there's this looming threat of lawsuit if we don't comply with what they want us to do. And I do feel like they really don't care about the residents of Medford. That's all I have to say.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Stan, you want to respond? Yeah, just quickly. Just quickly.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: You know, of course, the wireless network is not a monopoly. There's fierce competition in this arena. In addition, we do give back by way of grants and by community engagement. There's a great deal of volunteer efforts that we are involved with. that we don't seek credit for. So we are part of this community, whether you think so or not. In addition, we've talked about cell towers, not cell towers, they're attachments to existing utility poles. And the standards are very different for both.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Sam. All right, so just, we did receive emails and we received a petition. So I don't know, Amanda, if you and Dave talked about reading that information into the record or not, but I know that we had a petition that 250 residents signed, put their name on basically in favor of granting the applications and a handful of emails in support and also emails in opposition. Dave or Amanda, does one of you guys want to just go through those quickly to get them on the record?
[Amanda Centrella]: I have a few of those, which I'm happy to to put on record. Sorry, just give me one second to pull it up.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay.
[Amanda Centrella]: What would be the best way? I have, there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 residents who provided emails kind of in favor, but it was the same email script. Should I list their names and then read the email?
[Tim McGivern]: Let's see. I don't know if anybody else on the committee has any advice in this matter.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm not... The email was pretty brief. When we do board hearings like ZBA and Community Development Board, we typically will read the letter into the record.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and I'm familiar with the letter. So Amanda, you wanna just read it and we can list the people who signed on to the letter? Let's do that way.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, yep. So this is directed to Director Alicia Hunt from the Community Development Office. Dear Director Hunt, as a resident of Medford and a Verizon employee, I urge you to approve Verizon's small cell applications. This initiative is good for consumers and Medford's economy. Approving Verizon's applications will enable technology companies like Verizon to better meet the increasing demand for high-speed wireless access and to prepare for the coming 5G networks. Consumers want and need better access to wireless data and information services. Quicker and cost-effective deployment of wireless infrastructure will make that possible. That's why I encourage you and all City of Medford leaders to continue to foster technological advancement and investment in Medford and move forward quickly to approve Verizon's applications. Thank you for considering my views and for your service to Medford. And the individuals that, Send that email to us is Ellen Markham, 30 Wicklow Ave, Sarah O'Grady, 139 Forest Street, Nicholas Brucado, Unit 210, 100 Station Landing, Thomas Sanchez-Ubich, 61 Locust Street, Apartment 352, Cheryl Nocella, 32 Ashland Street, Susan Barnes, 234 Ashcroft Street, Stacey Marino, 105 Hemans Ave.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. And then I was told that Jackie has the rundown of the emails. So Jackie, if you want to do that for us, that would be appreciated.
[SPEAKER_13]: Sorry, I could not mute myself. I'm running through them. We've gotten a number just since the meeting has started. So I'm just running through to tally pros and anti. That's how you want to categorize them. I don't have the list ready just yet. So I'm happy to just quickly run down or if you give me a few minutes, I can come back and tell you the numbers we have.
[Tim McGivern]: In the interest of time, I think we should we should move on. And when you're ready, let's let's do that. Yep. Okay. Yep.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And I know, Mr. Chairman, I had gotten several emails that I did forward to the information email for five days.
[Tim McGivern]: So great. Thank you. All right, we're gonna move on to move on to the applications in South Medford vicinity. Amanda, if you could share your screen with the map locations, I'll read the locations.
[Robin Stein]: Excuse me, Tim.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes.
[Robin Stein]: Sorry to interrupt. I didn't want to speak earlier, this is Robyn Stein from KP Law. I just wanted to confirm with you, I know there's been a lot of discussion tonight about the policy and the legal standards, and I thought this might be a good time to ask if you had any questions that you wanted me to address or discuss on those standards before you get into the particular applications, or if there are committee members that have any questions for me, or special town councils.
[Tim McGivern]: That's thank you very much, Robin, I think it may be helpful to receive your commentary about the framework legal framework and sort of the potentials of where this could go. And, you know, as far as that legal framework goes under federal law, because I know, you know, we're trying to decide what what is the best route for the city here. So I think to provide me and folks on this call with sort of a breakdown of that legal framework would be very helpful.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And Chairman, could I add that? Yes, I would really love. specific clarification for everyone on this call, as well as for us on the may not evaluate based on health concerns, because obviously that's the majority of what we heard tonight. And I feel that we really need to understand where that's coming from and what that's about, because that's my concern and obviously the majority of folks on the call.
[Tim McGivern]: So I would love clarification on that. Certainly, and that's why we have Robin here. That's a good point.
[Robin Stein]: Would you like me to do that now?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think now is a good time. Thank you, Robin. I appreciate it.
[Robin Stein]: So again, this is Robin Stein with KP Law and we are special counsel to the city of Medford. I know there's been a lot of conversation and comment tonight about effective prohibitions and federal law and the application of the city's policy. I thought, again, it might be helpful Just to comment on that before you moved on to site specific considerations, but essentially the federal law in this area is very strong. And it does prohibit municipalities when acting in a regulatory authority, which is what you folks are doing from effectively prohibiting wireless telecommunication services. It does prevent the city from regulating those small regulating telecommunications facilities, small cell facilities on the basis of environmental concerns, including health concerns. So you cannot deny these, at least in my opinion, the federal laws that you cannot deny these based off of health concerns. And the city has a policy that was developed specifically for small cell and that policy needs to be applied to individual applications consistent with the federal law. So for example, In my opinion, you can impose a reasonable condition that's founded in your policy on a particular application, so long as that condition is not going to effectively prohibit the ability to install the facility and to provide the wireless services. For example, we heard earlier about potential conditions such as providing a structural analysis or an RF affidavit or updated insurance and those, in my opinion, are reasonable conditions that it doesn't seem like should create any kind of prohibition on the ability to provide the services as opposed to potentially some other forms of conditions that might actually result in the service not being able to be provided. So again, the federal law is very strong in this area. I'm happy to address any specific questions that you have. But again, the city has its policy. That policy has to be applied under the guidelines of the federal law that you have the language that you cannot effectively prohibit the provision of the telecommunications services. And again, if there are specific questions, I'm happy to get into more detail, but I hope that's a helpful summary.
[Tim McGivern]: Robin. Any other questions from the committee?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: No, I appreciate that clarification. And I think it's helpful for everyone on the call to understand the constraints we're under at this point.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it is important.
[Paul Mochi]: Mr. Chairman? Yeah, Tim? Yeah, one follow up question for Robin. So Robin, you mentioned, we all heard all the concerns tonight. And if there is a specific concern, like you brought up a structural concern about the poll or the certification that we're waiting to receive on the poll, that would be a legitimate reason for denial. However, if we had health concerns, we're not going to be that successful in denying it. Is that what you're saying?
[Robin Stein]: No, that's not what I'm saying. So for example, if you have For example, I think it would be reasonable to condition an approval on getting the structural analysis that you need as a condition, because your regulation requires that to be provided. So long as they can prove that they're structurally sound, I think that's fine. But the federal law is explicit that you can't consider environmental concerns, including health concerns, as part of your analysis. So, for example, if there was a legitimate concern that a poll could not hold one of these and Verizon could not satisfy that, which I honestly can't imagine happening because I can't imagine why any applicant would want to put their infrastructure on a pole that wasn't sound, we could have that particular conversation. But to the extent that the question is, we don't have this signed by a structural engineer, I think it would be fair and appropriate to have a condition where you approve the pole, that that be provided before anything goes on the pole. It'd be a different story if we had actual evidence of an actual structural deficiency. But it's my understanding, at least, and Tim can speak to that issue, that there are no actual structural concerns with any of the proposed polls.
[Tim McGivern]: They submitted calculations, and the calculations aren't certified by a PE. Yeah, Paul that could be in what really what Robin so I'm speaking to the committee here. If we deny based off of health concerns, then the federal law is explicit. So, the polls that are on the docket in the application, then become contested. uh, legally. And then, you know, where does that end up? That ends up probably with us not winning that legal case and the applications, the, the, um, attendance get installed, you know, as applied. Um, so which is why I'm getting to this idea of what's in the best interest of the city here and the position that we're in and what we have in front of us. Um, does it make more sense to condition, um, And that's a decision that the committee needs to make.
[Robin Stein]: And Paul, to answer your question just generally, I mean, given the strength of the federal law, my opinion generally about these applications is that defending denials is very difficult. And there's probably very limited circumstances in which you could successfully defend a denial. So that's generally how the federal law is going to apply to these.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman and Kim, but the affidavit requested the policy around the safety officer and such we can't put on as a condition.
[Robin Stein]: I think it would, you know, again, you know, I don't know the Verizon is the objection. If there was a concern about that, we could discuss, or you could discuss it with them, but I think that would be a reasonable condition as well. And I think they indicated earlier, they were okay with that. So to the extent that you were to approve these, you know, you could approve them. There were three conditions that we, that I had made notes of as you were discussing this. And the first was the sign up from, a certified engineer, the second was the affidavit related to the RF compliance, and the third were updated insurance certificates. You know, I haven't heard anything this evening that tells me that any of those would be improper conditions or result in effective prohibitions. They all seem reasonable and it doesn't sound like Verizon's raised any issues with any of those that would need further consideration. So those types of conditions, in my opinion, would be very reasonable when they're well within your policy.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Robin. I will note that there are a couple of people who would like to speak. What I'd like to do is if those speakers can hang on until the next opportunity for public comment, which is in the site-specific area, just because it's 9, 10 p.m. and I think we've heard a lot of concerns. Many of them aren't necessarily in the purview of this committee. Um, so with that said, I am going to move on to applications in South Medford. And if you're waiting to speak, there will be another opportunity to speak. Um, with that said, um, I do also want to make note of, uh, two objections that I received by phone that were site specific. One was for 22 Sheppard Avenue. So the resident lived at 22 Sheppard Avenue and one was, uh, 94 and 96 Stanley Avenue, uh, by Bernadette and Brian Christopher. and I don't believe they were able to make the meeting tonight. Just gonna get those vocal by phone call objections on the record here. All right, so applications in South Medford. Amanda, can we open up the map for South Medford? Share screen. Awesome. Thank you very much. And if we can want to zoom into sort of that bottom piece that's sticking out, I'm not sure how familiar you are with South Medford, but about the bottom third. Yeah, there you go. There you go. Good, all right, I'm gonna read the locations again in case people forgot. 287 Main Street, 24 Wareham Street, 13 Higgins Avenue, 28 Killscythe Road, 48 Granville Avenue, 25 Dexter Street, 39 Albion Street, 20 Winchester Street, 4 Colby Street, 333 Main Street, 600 Boston Avenue, 13 Newbern Avenue, 8 Alfred Street, 236 Harvard Street, 549 Main Street, 89 Princeton Street, 62 Marion Street, and 499 Main Street. That last one is not really at 499, it's closer to the Tufts pool building. So with this map here, we are open to discussion, the committee, so I'm opening the discussion to the committee members. And we have the map at our disposal so we can, and everything should be labeled there, Amanda, so we can get to where we need to. Let me just get my list of notes out on the specific locations. I don't know about the rest of you, but I wake up at four, so this is tough for me, but I'll pull through. All right, here we go. All right, committee members, do we have any specific questions on specific locations as listed in the agenda for this area?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: My only objection would be to any of those that are not 10 meters, about 33 feet high. Higher. The lowest point of the antenna, and I believe there was one on Main Street. I don't have it in front of me right now, but. you know, per the FCC guidelines, and I know they're saying that's from, you know, 20 years ago, but the studies they used, you know, from 20 years ago as well, so. And do we know which ones those are, or? I know there was one on Main Street, and I don't have the poll in front of me. I believe it was, let's say 603.
[Tim McGivern]: 333 Main Street.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Mr. Chairman, will we be given an opportunity to address that issue?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, I believe you did. You said it didn't apply, but while I'm pulling the file, if you want to address it, go ahead.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Certainly, yeah. I'm not 100% sure where this information has been coming from, but it is not a regulation of the FCC and it's not a regulation that governs wireless, that would be a regulation on the basis of health effects of radio frequency, which I think you just heard from your council is not a basis for a denial. I believe the guidance that's being referred to concerns PCS, which is a type of antenna that operates at macro sites like a cell tower or a building type site. And the issue that it addresses is whether how high a pole has to be to be exempt from having to do a study ahead of time. And the ruling or the guidance at the time was if it was 10 meters or less, then you were supposed to do a study. It had nothing to do with this kind of technology or these kinds of poles. Unless someone can point me to something different, I'm fairly certain that that's the source of this 10 meter distance.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Correct, but there's nothing right now for this type of technology. So I guess my point is that's what we have to rely on for radio frequency.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I would just make the point that if you do rely on that, you're violating the federal regulation, the federal statute that says you can't regulate on the basis of radio frequency impacts. These facilities comply with the FCC standards. And so that's the only basis for that kind of regulation. The height has nothing to do with anything else other than you're raising it as a rationale for health concerns. And I just want to point that out.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Okay, back to Aurora. All right.
[Alicia Hunt]: I actually have two other questions completely unrelated to what we've been talking about. They're much more on the logistical side. Um, one is a one off question. Um, I. Conceding that there are 40 of these and looking at them. I believe that there is one and there might be more than one. It's at 48 grand lab. It says the streetlight has to be moved. I realize this mount might sound petty in front of all of this, but we own the streetlights and we did a big study and figured out you know what's where exactly. And I'd like to understand what that means and what that would entail and who's paying for it and moved where.
[Tim McGivern]: Would Verizon like to address that question? It's 48 Granville Ave.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: John, can you address that?
[Alicia Hunt]: If it helps, it's number 44 of the applications.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Thank you, thank you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: As I mentioned earlier, when we submit our application, the utility company does make-ready work to make space for our antenna on there. When they decide what the make-ready work is, they send us an invoice to pay for all the make-ready work, and the utility does prepare the pole for our attachment.
[Alicia Hunt]: I have a question. If the utility decides that because the city owns this one, we have to pay for that, can we expect to bill Verizon for the cost of moving it? Because it's not our choice to move it.
[SPEAKER_45]: It would cost us a couple of hundred dollars.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Sean, you want to take that one?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Sure. I'm pretty sure all the make ready costs come to Verizon, but we could work with the city if the city was billed for moving the lights.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. And hopefully National Grid will speak to us because they don't own those streetlights in Medford anymore. And they didn't at the time of this application, we bought them in 2017. I have one other question that's more in the logistical that actually sounds like this. A large number of these applications implied, indicated that there would be a new pole at the location or a taller pole, that there was a height of current pole and then a height of a new pole. I could pick one and give you an example if that's helpful. Off the top of my head, I'd say there are 15 of these same ballpark to indicate either a new pole or a pole extension. Pole extensions make me nervous around safety, physical safety of it. New poles, I just wanted to know how that was going to play into this. We have a lot of trouble with new poles in getting National Grid and Verizon to partner together, own and manage the poles in Medford to remove the old poles when we switch from one to the other.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Sure, I can speak to that one as well. Again, when we file our applications, the utility company decides what the make ready work is. And as we were talking about earlier, the structural of the old calculation report that they do sometimes comes back saying that we need a new pole to handle the equipment that's going on to the pole. So, excuse me, National Grid would then replace the pole. It's up to them on the size that they want to replace the pole at. They may replace the pole at a higher level based on some future work that they might be coming in there or future attachers to the pole to make room for other people that may want to attach to the pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: Do you have a time schedule for this work? And I ask that because in my experience, I'm putting in a new poll, getting the old one removed, can take multiple years in the city of Medford. I'm hoping that if this is your project, you can make sure that, and Medford residents need double polls. And if this generates many new double polls, we're just gonna be hearing that on the up.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yep, certainly. We don't like double poles either. To remove double poles, like you said, it does sometimes take a while. There's other attachers on the pole we need to work with to get them to move their stuff. And we would certainly take it as a condition of approval that we wouldn't install anything on a double pole. We'd make sure the double pole is gone before we install.
[Alicia Hunt]: Which would obviously make it in your best interest to help move along that double pole situation.
[Tim McGivern]: Correct. And yeah, double polls are not allowed per policy.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I'm happy to take that answer blankedly. I noted on these applications, which ones I thought that was going to occur on, but there's no need to discuss them as individuals. Okay. And, oh my God, Robin. I noticed that Robin is taking track of conditions. Assuming that we were to approve these, I would definitely want to include a condition that we're not installing these on double poles. And I'd like to include a condition that if the city needs to incur costs, either because National Grid is pushing them to us or National Grid informs us that we are responsible for moving streetlights, that we would then invoice Verizon or perhaps pass those invoices along to Verizon. Um, if for any costs that we incur because of directly because of.
[Robin Stein]: Sure, so I actually, as you were talking in this discussion on Mrs. Robinson again, just were added as conditions to the list I've been keeping track of that Verizon will cover the cost of any so-called make ready work related to moving or relocating any city or lights or infrastructure. And also that Verizon will not install the equipment on any double poles and will cause the removal of any double poles before installing any of this equipment on a new pole in the future. So certainly if there's an issue with that, we can discuss it, but my understanding is those are conditions that Verizon is okay with.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, there is one poll I want to zoom in on, at least here, and it is the one near Stanley Avenue, which if you look at it, it's where Alumni Fields is for Tufts University, Amanda. Just above that, directly above that. Move up a little bit where Alumni Fields is, yeah, near Stanley Avenue. Right there. Yeah. You want to zoom in on that location? Thank you. We'll leave it right there just for a moment. I believe it's under College Avenue. Can you click on it and see what it's listed under? 104 College Avenue, okay. This is the one that was very close to a building. As we can see there, that measurement was 18 feet to a two-story dwelling there in the residence on Stanley Avenue, 94 and 96. Wanted to log their objection to that one. So I just wanted to take a closer look at it, revisit it. There it is. It's at the bottom of the pile. I'm just reviewing the location selection criteria submitted with the application. So this particular location, the alternate locations that were reviewed and didn't meet their requirements and their guidelines were at 104 College Avenue, 105 College Avenue, an unnumbered College Avenue address and 96 College Avenue. So in this vicinity, and my question To Verizon, it also states here in this one, it says that this location is not directly adjacent to a park, school, or playground. While that may be true, there is a school right across the street. So maybe not directly adjacent to it, but it is across the street. I was wondering if Verizon could talk a little bit more about the sighting of this particular antenna and why those other locations were not adequate.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Hey, Tim, I can speak to that. I don't know, if we want to go to the street level, I can kind of show you why the polls weren't attachable for us. I do have some pictures I could show.
[Tim McGivern]: I think, I'm not sure if we can go to street level on this particular map. I mean, if you want to describe why, that's fine.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: So yeah, so the poll we selected, as you can see, you have the dot there. So the poll is going to provide good coverage up Stanley Ave and up and down College Ave. You can kind of see that next poll that's right there at that tree. It's got some heavy equipment on the top of it. It's got what's called a primary recloser. It basically brings the primary power down to another connection. We can't attach to that poll. The next poll up is poll 1560. It would be, I don't know if it's north or south, but north of that poll, I guess. Above that pole, the next pole up has a transformer on it, so we can't attach to that pole. And as I had mentioned earlier, as you kind of get further away from the RF selected location, we start to lose the coverage that we wanted to get, and it doesn't allow the network to be contiguous. So if we go the other way from Stanley Avenue, And we have at the corner of Stearns and College, it's another pole that has primary reclosers on it. That's also a three-way junction pole. So primary power goes up and down the street and then also comes to that pole from another location. So there's three different connections of primary power on the pole. They don't let us attach to those poles, National Grid doesn't. If you move down, To the next pole is pole 742. It's another three-way junction pole. Also has these primary recloses on the top of it. And then if you move to the next pole, pole 743, that's also a three-way junction pole. Also has primary closes on it. So we're basically restricted six poles to either side of the location we selected that we weren't able to attach to. OK, thank you. Sure.
[Tim McGivern]: Are there any polls that we want to zoom in on, committee? So I just want to look at any other ones. The measurements that I made on these poles as far as distances to structures and things like that, many of them are similar. This is one of the closer ones, which is one of the reasons there was an objection via telephone. So I wanted to just sort of take a look at this particular one. Most of the others, the dwellings are within, you know, somewhere between 20 and 50 feet typically. Um, you know, one of the conditions that, um, that I would like to entertain if, uh, we are so moved in that direction would be to, um, confirm many of the things that I've looked at as far as, uh, ADA accessibility. Um, any clearances there was one that, uh, it looks like when I measured it, I measured about three feet, but the gentleman who lived there on Broken Road said it's more like 30 inches. So if that's the case, you know, that pole doesn't meet the ADA requirements. So we wouldn't, we want to see a different location or a correction of the pole before the antenna goes on, for example. With that said, The next thing to do is to have public comment and for the, I'm sorry, for the committee to discuss these locations and then public participation after that. And before we do the public participation part, I believe Jackie's ready with the email records. So what are the feelings of the committee?
[Alicia Hunt]: Do we hear the general rec email report from Jackie first before being specific here?
[Tim McGivern]: I'm okay with that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Great, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. Jackie, you ready?
[SPEAKER_13]: Sorry, I didn't realize I could unmute myself. So I have going through the 5G comments number just came in as the meeting was going on. So by my count, there are 13 emails in favor of 5G, and that includes a petition with 168 names on it. So, well, I shouldn't say includes, there's 13 plus the 168 names. There were 18 emails with general comments and questions that didn't seem to be for or against, and there are 26 emails against. applications. Some of these were for specific locations, others were more general, just against.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, what we're going to do, Jackie, is when we go into specific locations and have the public comment for each location, can you cross-check to see if one of those emails refers to a specific location and we can get the concern on the record? Okay.
[SPEAKER_13]: I have the addresses here, so I can definitely do that.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. All right, so we're ready to move on.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Should we do those first? From Jackie, the specific emails and locations before we do.
[SPEAKER_13]: I can just raise my hand when you get to a specific application if you want.
[Tim McGivern]: I'd rather do it that way just because I want to go, I just want to read the list. I just want to go down the list.
[SPEAKER_13]: How would you prefer that I do it? Do you want me to raise my hand whenever you get to that specific address or area?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, because what we'll do, I'm gonna read the location, the application, and then see if the public has comments and then discussion by the committee. And, you know, at this point, we have to vote on each one of them. So we can, before we vote on the first one, if many of these are gonna be the same, we can talk about how we're going to move and then what if there are conditions on that we can kind of get those all squared away I have some notes in that in that effect. So, the, you know, I've thought about this a lot I think the best way to do it because of the way that, you know, my opinion is the, you know, if we, if we were to deny these for reasons that don't hold water, then these, these go up as is. But if we condition these, we have at least some, some control. So I think that, you know, that's my opinion. It's taken me a while to get to that place, but I'm there. So, With that said, let's go to, I'm just gonna go in order that they're listed. And I think, I hope they're the same on my notes that they are in the actual agenda. I have the agenda just in case. First one is 287 Main Street. So if Amanda, you can go to the 287 Main Street one.
[Alicia Hunt]: Are we planning to look at each and every location individually?
[Tim McGivern]: We don't have to look at them individually, but we have to act on each one individually.
[Alicia Hunt]: We can't do with them as groups.
[Robin Stein]: Excuse me, Tim, this is Robin again. Can I clarify, you're also intending to take any public comment on each one, correct?
[Tim McGivern]: Correct, yeah.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can we talk about the idea of Um, continuing the meeting to a date certain because. Going on to four hours is really like if I thought this was gonna be done in a half hour, but if we were thinking we're gonna be here another two more hours looking at each one of these. I think we should consider it.
[Tim McGivern]: Um, I think the the I mean, I agree, the comment period, I wanted to make sure that everybody had a chance to speak, but your point is well taken. Do we have any sort of framework that is limiting us from doing something like that if we were to do a date certain at some point in the future, Robin or Dave or someone?
[Robin Stein]: I think you might wanna at least let Verizon comment on their thoughts on that?
[Tim McGivern]: Well, I just didn't know if the committee had any, if we could even bring that up.
[Robin Stein]: You're well beyond the shot clock dates to act on these. So I think it's important to get Verizon's feedback on that. Certainly if it's going to be a brief continuance, you know, into next week or sometime soon, they may have a different opinion. But I do, you know, you do want to be able to address these thoughtfully and, you know, we are almost four hours in. So perhaps let's see what Verizon has to say about that.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I'll see. Let's put that out there now since Alicia brought it up. It was something I was thinking about too. Does Verizon have any strong opinions on the matter?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I think we'd like to proceed as far as we can tonight. This is something where we've been waiting now for 15 months or something to have a hearing on these applications. I know there may be some that you end up having questions on that might have to get pushed off, but I would think for the bulk of these, at this point, having heard all the discussion already, I would think it might move pretty quickly.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Can we entertain a time cap that we can agree on? tend to agree that there's been a long waiting period and it makes sense to try to get through as many as we can. I just, you know, I'm gonna run out of steam around 11, you know, I'm not even gonna be able to function basically, so.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Understood, yep.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, can we revisit this at say 11 o'clock?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Let's revisit it then.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you very much.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Chairman, can I ask that we also, when you're discussing individual ones, can you identify them by poll number? Because when I go through the applications, the addresses are really hard to find. But the poll numbers are kind of easy.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think you mean the application number? The poll numbers are not on there.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Well, they're on the diagrams. That's what I look at. Same on the diagrams, the poll numbers are easier identified on the diagrams.
[Tim McGivern]: The answer is yes, I have the poll numbers here as well.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, all right. So the first one we're going to talk about is 287 Main Street. 287 Main Street is application number three, and it's utility pole number 4136. All right, so we got it, it's right there. Let me keep this here. All right. Comments from the committee on this particular location? All right, hearing none, I'm gonna go to public comment for 287 Main Street, application number three, Utility Poll 4136. If there are folks who would like to speak on this application, please raise your hand and we'll have Amanda open you up and you have two minutes. Anybody?
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't see Amanda, but I see one resident with their hand raised.
[Tim McGivern]: I do too.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, sorry, I am not sure how to look at participants while sharing a screen. Oh, OK. Guess I'll have to stop the share.
[Tim McGivern]: Maybe we could have Jackie or Dave share the map.
[SPEAKER_13]: Dave, if you're willing, I'm just sifting the public comments to make sure I don't miss one of the addresses.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: I can do it if you want, or Amanda.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, Alicia, if you can do it. I think we just need someone to navigate to the spots, that's all. Everyone's got a job here, so.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, so I see Lou Roy has their hand raised.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, hi Lou.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_31]: Hi, this is Charlene Roy, 48 Granville Ave. You mentioned that you were gonna remove the light from the telephone pole. Are you then gonna leave our street in darkness? It's one short little street and that street light is pretty valuable.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think she's speaking to the other one that I mentioned that the street light 48 Granville Ave. Are you speaking to that one, ma'am? We're not on that one yet. We'll get to that one in a few minutes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we'll get to it. And I think that it brings up an idea of a condition.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: I don't think we should be removing lights to then make a street dark. I don't think we should be doing that. So potential for a condition there. All right, so anyone to speak on 287 Main Street? I didn't see anything, so we can go to discussion. By the committee, I have a couple of things. Just in general, I agree if someone on the committee were to move to approve this or grant this one with a condition, then I would recommend that we adopt the condition that A PE certification has to be submitted by a structural engineer. We discussed that one already. And then also a affidavit from an RF professional, signed affidavit, indicating that it meets all the current standards for RF emissions as stated in the policy. an updated insurance certificate be supplied. And then as stated in the policy, you shouldn't be going on poles that aren't meeting ADA clearances. So if the pole is not meeting ADA clearances, for example, you need at least 36 inches between pole and back of sidewalk, then they shouldn't be going up there. I'd like to make that a condition. They've stated that these aren't in shrouds and they're asking for a waiver of the shroud requirement. And, you know, I know that's something that's pretty explicit in the policy. And from what I have been told here at this hearing, that there are shrouding methods. The shrouding is a aesthetic consideration. to help with reducing the visual pollution. So I'm not exactly sure how we deal with that particular situation. I don't know if anybody else on the committee has thoughts on it.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think it's a matter of opinion. I think when you have a shroud around it and it looks like a giant can up there, I'd like that less than the look of an actual antenna. I actually was unclear why we wanted these to look like they were cans up there.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I tend to agree with you, Alicia. I think to not have the canister seems like a better option to me.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, Tim, comment on those canisters. Sometimes in the past when we've had, I agree with you, Alicia, because in the past when they try to put some false chimneys or something of that nature when these are on building tops, they don't really seem to weather well, and it's probably more of an unsightly type of thing than it does any good to camouflage that. And Tim, on these conditions, a lot of these conditions seem like general conditions. Are we going to, they're going to basically apply to most locations? Do you want to make that applicable to all locations instead of reading them, you know, for every particular one?
[Tim McGivern]: I do, Paul, what I kind of want to do is group them and say, those are the standard conditions that apply. As I've said before, and I think we all know at this point, the equipment is the same, utility, they're all existing utility poles. They're all within, you know, very similar type settings. So many of these conditions can be applied to all of them that I'm bringing up.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Mr. Chairman, I would forward a motion that they apply to all of them, and that we just blanket those same conditions to everyone, as opposed to going to individual ones and applying those conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and I guess that's why, Marion, why I'm reading them now and getting them on the table now, so we can do that. I would like to do that too.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. So anyway, back to the shroud. I mean, I understand it is in the policy, they're asking for a waiver and the committee seems to think that it's better to not have them shrouded. So if we hold them to the policy, then we have shrouds, canister style shrouds over the antennas. So, We have to, if we vote to grant the location, then, or the application, then we're effectively granting that waiver because the applications have that in there stated up front.
[Alicia Hunt]: We could just, their chair, we could just check with Robin, should we, because it's clear that that's something that's either for all or none, should we vote in the, like have a separate vote to, like I move to grant them a waiver on the shroud policy, and we vote on that independently of all of these, or should it be in the conditions on each one as it gets
[Robin Stein]: So I tend to agree with Tim's reading. I mean, I don't know that it's, this isn't sub, you know, kind of in the nature of subdivision where you grant a waiver. In my opinion, if you grant the application, then you're granting what they've applied for. And I don't think a specific waiver is necessary, particularly where you've heard from the applicant that applying that component of your policy may be an effective prohibition and where you're applying a policy consistent with federal law. I think that it would be fine. to the extent that you just grant an application, it's granted as is. I also, to the earlier comment, I think it makes some sense to have you vote to adopt what you're referring to as your standard conditions that you can then in each motion say, this is subject to the standard conditions we've adopted. And so, we may, before you do that, wanna just run through one more time and make sure everyone's on the same page with what those are.
[Tim McGivern]: Got it. Um, now Robin, have you been, have you been keeping track of them?
[Robin Stein]: I'm not even sure if that, so I can, I can tell you the ones that I have.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. All right. Well, let's pull up on that for the moment.
[Robin Stein]: I was just going as we go.
[Tim McGivern]: Perfect. Perfect. Um, I hadn't written down your noise. Uh, they did state there was no detectable noise. Um, I've, I've heard that before. Um, and then things do end up making noise. Sometimes it's a malfunction. Um, but I'd like to have a condition in there that, uh, um, they, don't create any detectable noise. And if they do, then they need to be repaired, I mean, immediately.
[Robin Stein]: And would that be just no noise that's detectable to the average human ear?
[Tim McGivern]: Average human ear, yeah, ground level or in adjacent dwellings. Let me see what else I had here. I'd like to have a condition about post construction testing to confirm that these installations do in fact meet the standards that all the design documents and testing documents tell us that they meet the FCC standards. You know, it's kind of wild to me that there isn't a protocol set up, but that's just my civil engineering world, I suppose. But, you know, it seems it makes a lot of sense to do follow-up testing on the emissions after it's installed. And I would want that testing to be done at the threshold of dwellings.
[Paul Mochi]: time period for the testing. Do you have anything in mind on that? Once every six months?
[Tim McGivern]: Something like that. Yeah. Some sort of regular intervals, Paul. Yeah. They have an annual recertification. So maybe at the annual recertification. Okay.
[Robin Stein]: Can I, I think that's one, we probably going to want to have some discussion with Verizon on only because they're not going to have access to private property per se, you know, but your, your, I'm just looking at the annual recertification.
[Tim McGivern]: If private property owners grant permission.
[Robin Stein]: Let's see. Guys, I think that's one that we may have to have some conversation with Verizon.
[Tim McGivern]: So Verizon, is that something within your capabilities to do field measurements to determine if you're in compliance and generate a short report?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I don't think we'd be inclined to want to do that, Mr. Chairman. We told you we're going to certify that these will comply. If somebody has different information or if the world changes, as somebody said, and the standards change, then we have to comply with the new standards. But in terms of a post construction monitoring of every pole in this city and every other city, you know, or any place, it's just, it's unworkable to have a condition like that. We would object to that condition. We are fine with the other conditions you talked about, the certifications, the ADA standards, the fact that if National Grid bills you, we will cover that. Those are all fine, but not the RF certification.
[Robin Stein]: And I can also just note in section 2L of the policy, and maybe this will help, it requires an affidavit from the applicant certifying that it will maintain the installations in good repair and according to FCC standards and remove any installation that is not in good repair within 30 days. I wonder if perhaps the committee would be satisfied just with that. I don't know what Verizon's opinion is on that, you do have a requirement in your policy that they keep it in good repair and they certify they'll keep it in good repair.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I think we would not object to that, to having that certification.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and remind me, your engineer stated that these are connected to a system where you receive alarms if it's not functioning properly, is that correct?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yes, 24-7.
[Tim McGivern]: I guess that is really the thing that I'm unfamiliar with, right? It's because the infrastructure that I typically deal with under my purview doesn't have any sort of hardwired situations where it would trigger an alarm, for example, unless you got like a pump system or something like that. So what does the committee feel about this?
[Alicia Hunt]: I feel like we have to trust that it works. There are systems that are supposed to notify us, you know, but that aren't, that don't. And there are systems that absolutely do. If you manage building controls with an HVAC and you set it up correctly to get notified when a building alarm goes off, you get notified. I have seen systems that have that functionality that isn't configured and don't notify anybody. You have to trust that the person who owns it sets it up correctly.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I agree with Alicia. I think those alarms are set in place and we guarantee that they're monitored and, you know, 24 seven, then we have to trust.
[Tim McGivern]: That's what they stated on record in the affidavit.
[Alicia Hunt]: Do we have, right, it's in either the, I wanted to, sorry, it's getting late enough that I'm a little less coherent, but it's on the record in a way such that if it became clear to us for some reason, I don't know how, that they weren't monitoring their alarms, or they weren't functioning correctly. And there was an issue that we would have recourse to, I don't know, sue them, take action, whatever, as opposed to saying, well, you know about it, but it wasn't a condition, so you couldn't, and wanted that we have some standing.
[Robin Stein]: Well, and again, I think that's what L2L gets to in your policy, that they're going to provide you an affidavit that certifies they're going to maintain the installations in good repair and according to standards. And that'll be a condition of the license that they provide that affidavit and they in fact maintain them in good repair and according to FCC standards.
[Alicia Hunt]: And if they don't, we have legal recourse, basically.
[Robin Stein]: I mean, you would try to, it's hard to speak to exactly what it was, but you know, they'd be in violation of their license, so we'd have to take a look at, you know, the next steps there.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm commenting them on what it, yeah. Okay, it makes sense.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm not clear that we can do any better than that.
[Robin Stein]: Robin, if you're aware of a way we could do better, please feel free to say so, but you know, again, you have to apply your policy and that's what's in your policy.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Did anybody else have any proposed conditions that they wanted to include in our slate of standard conditions?
[Alicia Hunt]: I heard you say the one about costs incurred. Did you catch the one about double poles? I know Robin had that one.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, double poles is explicitly prohibited in our policy.
[Robin Stein]: That's it. I don't think it hurts to include the condition that Um, they're not going to install any of the, of these 44 on a double pole. And to the extent that there's a double pole in the future related to them, they said they would remove the double pole before installing on the new pole.
[Tim McGivern]: That's what we want to catch in the condition.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: We don't object to that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. I mean, I think that that's very realistic that new poles are going to be installed at some of these locations and and that they should bear some of the burden of making that move in a timely manner. In the big picture, we benefit from the new poles. They're safer. They're cleaner. It's safer. They're actually installing them thicker and deeper because of climate reasons and larger storms. So we benefit from having new poles installed. We don't benefit from when the second pole gets left there for a while.
[Paul Mochi]: Tim, I have a question for Verizon. I think it's either Robin or Verizon. These applications I was looking at, it looks to me they all have meters on the pole. Is that correct? Electrical meters?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: That's correct.
[Paul Mochi]: OK, so we would, if anything with a meter, we would require an electrical permit. I'm wondering Two questions. One, is there any other kind of local permitting required other than an electrical permit? And two, are there any FCC regulations that may override any local permitting requirements?
[Tim McGivern]: I could talk to some of it. I mean, I know that I looked into whether or not these require trenching, Paul, like if they needed a trenching permit. And the response was that there is no trenching involved with these. So they wouldn't require a permit from our office. That I do know.
[Paul Mochi]: They'll come up from overhead then, Tim, right? Yeah.
[Robin Stein]: So generally speaking, the federal law applies to every way that your regulations are applied. So if it came up that there was an issue, I can't imagine what it would be with an electrical permit, but we'd have to take a look at it.
[Paul Mochi]: Well, usually, yeah. Usually when there's a power source with a meter, it's an electrical call will require an electrical permit for that. But if there's You know, something that maybe an exemption for that, Rob, if you could let us know.
[Robin Stein]: I'm not aware of any exemption. I mean, if Verizon wants to comment, they can. My comment was more just that the federal law applies to how these are regulated, not just by this committee, but by the city as a whole. But I mean, certainly Verizon can weigh in if they think there's some reason they would not need an electrical permit.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I can speak to that. We would pull an electrical permit.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay, yeah, that's what I figured, Sean. I just wanna get that on the record. Thank you. Yep, okay.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, anything else on our slate of standard conditions? Do I hear? any movement, a motion to approve the conditions that we discussed. And if Robin, I could ask you to, before that happens, if you could just read them back and we can make sure that we have them correct.
[Robin Stein]: Sure, just give me one second. So I wanna, I have them in shorthand and I just wanna make them more specific. Sure. I'll tell you what I have is that prior to installation of any equipment, the applicant is going to provide the certification by a registered professional engineer that the pole or location will safely support the proposed equipment as required by paragraph two F of the city's policy. The second condition I have is that prior to installation of any equipment, the applicant will provide an affidavit of a radio frequency engineer or radio frequency safety officer with Massachusetts experience that demonstrates that the resulting radio frequency emission level, some equipment installation at the proposed locations comply with the FCC's radio frequency emissions regulations, as well as any Commonwealth of Massachusetts health and safety standards at the street level and at the nearest occupied building. and that is per paragraph 2H of the policy, that prior to installation of any equipment, the applicant will provide updated insurance certificates as required by the policy. And I believe that's paragraph 2I. Let's see. The next one I have is that the applicant will pay for the cost of any so-called make ready work related to moving or relocating any city lights or infrastructure related to the installation of the equipment. The next one I have is that the applicant will not install any equipment on double poles. And if a new pole is installed in the future to accommodate the equipment, they will, cause removal of any double pole before installing the new equipment on the new pole. Prior to installing any equipment, they'll provide confirmation. And Tim, you can tell me on this one, if prior to confirm, I'm sorry, prior to installing any equipment, they'll provide confirmation that the pole meets ADA requirements, if requested by the city engineer, it may be that you don't need these for everyone, or do you want them for everything?
[Tim McGivern]: What I'm specifically concerned about is horizontal clearances and vertical clearances for pedestrian movements.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, so prior to installation of any equipment the applicant provide to the city engineer?
[Tim McGivern]: Confirmation that via measurements that the poles meet the required clearances, so.
[Robin Stein]: Horizontal and vertical clearances?
[Tim McGivern]: Yep.
[Robin Stein]: For ADA compliance?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, they've stated that. The reason I want that as a condition is because we have one that seems to not be correct. So we have that one on Brogan Avenue. The gentleman who lives there stated that it's 30 inches as opposed to 36, which is you would need 36 inches. So those numbers need to be confirmed.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, so then I also have that the equipment approved will not create any noise detectable to human ear at the pole location on the ground and at the nearest residence. And finally that prior to installing any equipment, the applicant will provide an affidavit certifying that it will maintain the installations in good repair and according to FCC standards and remove any installation not in such good repair or not used within 30 days of being no longer in good repair or no longer in use and will in fact keep the installations in good repair according to FCC standards. Or good repair and according to FCC standards. So those are all the conditions I had.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. Sounds right.
[Robin Stein]: My understanding is those are acceptable to Verizon. So I think it would be fair if somebody wanted to make a motion to have the board treat these as the standard conditions that you can then incorporate in future votes without reciting each one?
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. Do I hear a motion from the committee? I make a motion to accept that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: And I will do a roll call vote. Paul? Yes. Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I'm a yes on that as well. Okay. So we have a set of standard conditions that we can apply if we move to grant. So we're still at 287 Main Street. And the, let me see, I think the next thing for us to do would be to vote on this, to move, I guess I would need a motion by somebody on the committee either to grant grant with conditions or deny. But before we do that, I just want to say a couple of words. If folks could entertain me. I have been reading and looking into this topic for for over a year now, since I was tasked with chairing this committee. And in general, the way that this is, the federal government has limited the municipality and has basically said that, you know, there's not a heck of a lot we can do. We can't prohibit this. I disagree with that 100%. The municipality should be able to represent its residents on technology and installations such as this coming to the city of Medford. With that said, we are in this predicament as a committee. I believe that if we were to do what is in the best interest of the city, we would try to maintain whatever control we have here. If we move to deny the applications, there is a very high chance that this just goes to court and we lose and they are installed as written as applied for. So my position today, And I've talked to other people about my position and things like that. I don't necessarily have anything against 5G technology and moving in that direction, but I have reservations and none of it has to do with the policy itself or the federal law that we're operating under. Should overhead wire telephone poles, utility poles be used for wireless towers? Do I personally think so? No, because I want to see overhead wires go underground and I want to see utility poles out of our streetscape. But that is irrelevant here today. Also, what is irrelevant here today is the health impacts to our residents. And that is unfortunate. It's a situation wherein, again, To the extent that we can sort of control what happens here, I am of the belief that granting with conditions retains the most control here from the city's standpoint. It allows us to condition the approval. With that said, I do believe there's probably more science to be done, and I believe that more science will be done. And there are scientists who are legitimate, who think that wireless technology is detrimental to our health. And I know there are a lot of people who believe that as well, whether it's correct or not. This is a situation that this committee is in, and it's unfortunate. And I wanna be clear that my vote to grant with conditions, which is what I intend to do, does not mean that I am in agreement with how this is all happening. I am not at all. I am of the opinion that the best way for the city to maintain what absolutely minuscule control it has in this situation is to grant these locations with conditions. With that said, I'm looking for a motion from the committee to move forward on 287 Main Street.
[Paul Mochi]: I make a motion that we grant 287 Main Street with the standing conditions we just voted to adopt.
[Tim McGivern]: Do I hear a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: I second.
[Tim McGivern]: I will do a roll call vote. Paul? Yes. Alicia.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Marianne. No. I believe that was a no.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That's a no.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, I vote yes. All right, so the next one is 24 Wareham Street. So if we could zoom in on the location, on the map, and we'll discuss among the committee, and then we'll go to public comment.
[Robin Stein]: I'm sorry, Tim, I didn't get that street address, I apologize.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure, 24 Wareham Street, W-A-R-E-H-A-M, application 36. And I'll get the poll number. The poll number is 664. All right, this 24 Wareham Street, let me get my comments on this one. My comments on this one were 55 feet away from two, three-story residential buildings. Any comments, discussions from the committee? All right, we'll go into public.
[Paul Mochi]: Excuse me. Go ahead. One thing on that one. I just looked at the application online. I'm just looking at the aerial view. Well, the installation looks like it's right under a big tree. And the installation of this antenna going to require any pruning or cutting back of any trees in the area? Did you notice that, Tim?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I can speak to that. We don't plan to do any tree trimming at this location.
[Paul Mochi]: OK.
[Tim McGivern]: One of the things that I did notice, Paul, going through these, is that these overhead wire paths tend to be trimmed out anyway by the utility companies. And they're at that place. where it does get trimmed by the overhead wire companies. So. Okay, good. All right, so we can open up to public comment, Amanda.
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, so Councilor Marks.
[Tim McGivern]: Hello, Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much. I first would like to state that, as was stated earlier by some of the committee members, we're going a little over four hours now on a public hearing. And I think it's really doing the community disservice to proceed any further with a hearing that's already lasted four hours. And going through these piece by piece, potentially could have someone on the line for over five hours. which to me is unacceptable, and that's my own opinion. My question I have is regarding, and I asked this earlier and didn't get a response, was regarding the interim policy and the guidelines that talk about minimum setbacks. And I still have not received an answer regarding minimum setback guidelines. Have they not been established? Will they be established? What are we using for principles regarding setbacks from dwellings in parks and so forth?
[Tim McGivern]: I don't believe that they were established. So they are mentioned in the policy that they can be established, but they weren't ever established.
[Michael Marks]: So the committee's moving ahead without establishing guidelines that the interim policy states there will be guidelines, or at least states, guidelines on structure height, lengths, and minimum setback rules for dwellings, parks, and playgrounds. So we're going ahead approving without, in my opinion, some of the major concerns we heard from residents was regarding the proximity of the 5G outlets to their property. So I'm not quite sure how we move forward I'm not quite sure what the rush to judgment tonight is, to be quite honest with you. You know, naturally, Verizon wants to get this over as quick as humanly possible. But in my opinion, you held a public hearing now, you should at least allow for several days after the public hearing for more public comment. And you're disregarding the community by not doing so. I've been involved with hundreds of public hearings, and that's no exaggeration, in the city of Medford over 26 years. And I've never seen a public hearing run this way, to be quite frank. And it's not a reflection of you, Mr. Chairman. I understand this is a tough task, but to put 44 applicants on one public hearing and then also have a presentation like we did earlier, I think it's too much for one public hearing and it doesn't allow for additional public input. So I would respectfully ask the committee to find out what the setbacks, maybe the committee has to meet again and talk about the setback guidelines and other guidelines within this before they move and start approving these one at a time. And I would respectfully ask that Mr. Chair.
[Tim McGivern]: My understanding is that the committee doesn't have the ability to amend the policy. We have to operate under the policy. And Robin, you can correct me if I'm wrong, we're well beyond the shot clocks established by federal law in this situation.
[Michael Marks]: With all due respect, we've been in a pandemic for the past, you know, 15 months. So, you know, the shot clocks, in my opinion, go out the window.
[Robin Stein]: I can comment on maybe on a different aspect of this. And that's that the FCC's order, the federal regulation, as far as aesthetic requirements go, does require that they be published in advance in order to apply to a particular application. So while it may make sense to adopt additional requirements for the future, the what's in place now is what should be applied to these applications.
[Michael Marks]: So you can't amend policy, but you can grant waivers.
[Robin Stein]: You can amend the policy for the future, yes.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, but the current interim policy states that there'll be guidelines on minimum setback rules. Where are those guidelines? Am I reading this incorrectly? I'm curious to read the guidelines.
[Tim McGivern]: It's item J, 1J. The seat of Medford is particularly sensitive to the visual impacts of small cell wireless infrastructures. Therefore it shall implement and impose on an interim basis, reasonable aesthetic standards pertaining to the size of the antenna, the equipment box and or related cabling, placement of equipment on support structures, establishing flush mounting requirements and spacing requirements and aesthetic measures such as paint matching or design matching for small wireless facilities in specific areas. Camouflage and other concealment methods and for residential areas guidelines on structure heights and lengths and minimum setback rules from dwellings parks or playgrounds or similar recreation areas. And then, after that it says what the aesthetic requirements are. right now, I believe that J section is there to allow the policy to be changed in those arenas in the future, in those categories in the future. That is my understanding of it.
[Michael Marks]: So you're not saying the committee has the ability to create these guidelines?
[Tim McGivern]: The only policy creator in the city, I believe, is the mayor.
[Michael Marks]: I'm not stating creating policy. It clearly states guidelines. And as a committee that's appointed by the mayor, I would believe, and the attorney can correct me from KP Law, that your board would have the ability to set guidelines. That's not a policy change. It's requesting guidelines.
[Robin Stein]: So I think we would need to look into that issue some more. It does say the city of Medford shall implement and impose. And I don't know, as I sit here today, that that means this committee or some other actor on behalf of the city. But in any event, you have to apply the federal law to these applications. The federal law says you can only apply what was published in advance. The applicant needs to know what's expected of them in advance. So even if guidelines were published tomorrow, they would not, in my opinion, be applicable to these applications.
[Michael Marks]: And that's exactly the reason why I'm asking not to rush to judgment tonight and have this committee, the small cell committee, do their due diligence in their homework and create the guidelines that are requested under the interim policy regarding setbacks, which is a major concern for area residents.
[Robin Stein]: Again, I guess the point I'm trying to make is if additional guidelines were enacted tomorrow, regardless of how they're enacted, they still would not apply, in my opinion, to these applications.
[Michael Marks]: Well, I would respectfully disagree with that. I would respectfully disagree with that. Do we still have our city solicitor on the phone?
[Robin Stein]: I'm sorry. I don't know. Did you mean me or did you mean Kim?
[Michael Marks]: Our city solicitor.
[Robin Stein]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: I know that she is here. Mr. Chair, I'm very concerned that we're gonna be approving these applications now one at a time at a late hour. And I'm equally concerned that this body is not addressing the guidelines for setbacks that are part of the interim policy. And whether or not I understand what the attorney stating that would have no bearing on tonight. What I'm respectfully asking is that we don't vote tonight. And maybe we have to come back at another time. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, it was brought up by KP law. some months ago through the city administration that they didn't even think the interim policy that was created by the mayor was something that we should be working off of. And they asked that the city council create an ordinance to govern this. So KP law to me, you know, is jumping around on the issue to be quite frank. And, you know, I really believe this requires more attention than it's receiving tonight.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, we have received advisement throughout this and we've discussed this since the beginning about the policy. It was changed once. I understand you're focusing in on guidelines. I was not aware that this committee is tasked with creating those guidelines. So like Robin said, we can look into it. I'm operating under the advisement that I've received. And as far as the hour, I agree with you. We're quite late into the hour here. My understanding is that this could be dealt with in ordinance as well. It's another avenue to deal with this particular situation with this small cell antennas. So, you know, it is 1030. I would like to ask Verizon again if they're open to continuing the hearing for a date certain in two weeks, I guess.
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, Mr. Chair, I think that we could continue. I've looked at the city's calendar. We do not have to advertise in the newspaper. We need to continue to a certain and we need to post on the city's website. We do not need to re notify a butters and Robin. Correct me if I've gotten any of that wrong, which would mean that we could meet and I've looked at the city's wet calendar next Thursday, which is a week from tomorrow is has nothing that conflicts of a nature that would be inappropriate in my opinion. There's a community preservation committee public hearing at 6.30.
[Robin Stein]: Just to answer your question, yes, if you continue to a time, place and date certain, then you do not need to re-notice anything. You can maintain the continuity of your public notices.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think that we would as a courtesy, posted on the website, we would post it in our regular places, but we don't have to put it in a newspaper, which is actually what for us to publicize in a newspaper, we need two weeks because of the timing of the notices in the papers.
[Tim McGivern]: We can do the roll call again.
[Robin Stein]: And obviously the open meeting law agenda requirements and posting will apply as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: 48 hours notice and through our methods for any public meeting. Yep. But that's where I would suggest next Thursday night, April 8th.
[Paul Mochi]: Having no significant- Miriam and I have a CAC committee meeting that night on the 8th.
[Alicia Hunt]: At five?
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: That meeting's at five?
[Paul Mochi]: Five o'clock, yeah.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah, I'd prefer not to.
[Alicia Hunt]: I will tell you that Wednesday night is a very large community event community, the community.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yep, I'm involved in that.
[Alicia Hunt]: What time do you think on Thursday was Tuesday, Thursday, Tuesday is city council I, I have any of the whole at.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: No, I'll get that too. So what time on Thursday would you be proposing this meeting? What time?
[Paul Mochi]: What do we got, Paul, five? We got five, maybe we can get out of it by 6.30.
[Alicia Hunt]: You wanna make, we could say seven.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: No, I'd prefer 6.30.
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't know what's on the schedule for the CAC meeting.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Better for others.
[Alicia Hunt]: Just because I don't, I do agree that it's, if we're going to take public comments on these and if we're going to think thoughtfully about each one of them, I think we're all hitting our limits. It's irrational.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I mean, I agree. I think we should continue it to a date certain. I mean, that's what I would like to do. It's just, it's getting late and I'm running out of time.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. Can we put some additional guidelines? Like we would not have, we would take public comment on individual locations, but not general public comment, repeating the comments for tonight.
[Tim McGivern]: We'd wanna pick up right where we left off. We'd wanna pick up right where we left off.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, we can put guidelines around that, Robin, that we'll take public comment on individuals, but the general comments and concerns that were heard tonight, people can't say, well, I didn't speak that portion of the meeting.
[Robin Stein]: You know, the public comment on the applications is open, but certainly Tim can request that folks, you know, who've already had an opportunity to speak, don't repeat themselves and that, you know, they limit it. But I mean, you know, if somebody couldn't make the first meeting and really just had a comment, you probably want to just take it. You can't, it's either open or closed, so.
[Tim McGivern]: That's what I would do. I would say if there are any, anyone that didn't comment last time that has a comment to make, Let's start with that and try to limit it and because that is what took up the bulk of our time tonight, which, which is, which is fine. And, you know, I think just the understanding that we are through that portion of the agenda is important. And we can look into questions that Councilor Marks brought up, but I'm fairly certain where we stand and what we're allowed to do on this after thorough discussions on this. So while I do appreciate Councilor Marks' insight, it is always valuable. I'm not sure it changes what we're tasked and set out to do at the moment, and that may be seen as unfortunate.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And while I do appreciate everyone's comments and feelings about health impacts and effects, it's pretty clear that we can't evaluate based on that. So those comments, while incredibly valuable and incredibly important, can't impact our vote. So I think going forward, to make that perfectly clear to people while we wanna hear their opinions, we can act on them. I think it's important as well. Because the majority of the comments tonight were on the health impacts and the concerns. And while those are extremely genuine, we can't do anything. So I think that needs to be made really clear.
[Tim McGivern]: Do we have an availability for Thursday the 8th where all of us are available? Or did I hear 6.30 or 7 or something like that?
[Robin Stein]: I can do that. You might want to check Verizon's availability.
[Tim McGivern]: I want to check us first to see if.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, Tim, I think Marianne and I could probably make a 6.30 if you want, if that's OK with everybody else.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah, we have a 5, so we should be out by 6.30.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.
[Tim McGivern]: Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And just to be clear with the committee, we would pick up where we left off with a short option for public comment at the beginning for folks who didn't have a chance to speak tonight. Okay, now with all that said, Verizon has been listening to what we've been saying, obviously. And I know that we've talked about 11 o'clock. It's 1030 now. Are you guys okay with continuing this on April 8th at 630, starting where we left off?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, we can make it on April 8th. I do think, you know, it's unfortunate that the spirit of trying to get through this by 11 was compromised and there was a lot of repeated discussion. I would hope that the next time that there is not a general public comment period at the beginning, everyone who wanted to comment could have commented this evening. The portion of the hearing we're on is the portion with the individual applications, which you were starting to move through pretty quickly until we got sidetracked. Verizon wants to wrap this up. We've delayed the shot clock now. We're not giving you an extension, but it's right now about eight months after the shot clock expired. So we'd really like to get this moving. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, I actually agree with them in that I'm not in fan of taking public general public comment. I see that there are people now with their hands raised, and I am totally comfortable. We have to take public comment on the individual locations. But if this was the Conservation Commission, they would not accept comment on things that they have no say over, and they would cut it off. And I feel like we've really given people a chance to express their concerns on this. They can continue to send us emails to the email address about it. But I am honestly concerned.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: If we have no say over it, it doesn't make it.
[Alicia Hunt]: I am honestly concerned that there would be residents, people, let's just say people that want this to not happen and would make an effort to recruit people to come talk just to delay it.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, we are in the agenda. And I think we can make it clear that we are on item, whatever we are on in the agenda, we aren't a specific item. And the idea of continuing the hearing is just to pick up where we left off, because we all want to go to bed and I can barely function and other people can barely function. That's really the reason, you know, like I said, I don't know about you guys, but I wake up at four every day. So this to me is way late, which is fine. And I think that public comment period exactly was what you stated, Alicia was that and Verizon, the opportunity for folks to come, that was that. We're on time, the agenda. If there are specific locations that the public would like to speak, then yes, we should have a period where folks can speak on the site-specific locations and go from there. If we hit that fresh-minded, we could probably run through them pretty quickly and be done with it.
[Robin Stein]: And I think Tim can manage the scope of public comment as the chair of the meeting at the next meeting.
[Tim McGivern]: I think so, yeah. And tonight that to let everybody speak was designed into the agenda because we realized that there is a lot of public interest in this topic, which was why it was done that way.
[Robin Stein]: And folks will have an opportunity on site specific discussion to make their comments.
[Tim McGivern]: That's right. That's right. And the agenda is posted. It will be reposted again. And we'll do a roll call. And we have a date certain, April 8th, 630. And do I have a motion from the committee?
[Robin Stein]: And just to clarify, that'll be a remote meeting. So you'll be publishing and posting the call and information.
[Tim McGivern]: That's right. That's right. That's right.
[Robin Stein]: Just as far as location goes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Yeah, all the open meeting laws will be adhered to, all the notifications that we need to do, posting the agenda, all that good stuff.
[Alicia Hunt]: The location will be on the Zoom link, will be on the city's website under the events calendar, just like tonight, for the record. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. So do I hear a motion to continue?
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to continue to April 8th at 6.30.
[Robin Stein]: And just to be clear, we're continuing all of the open applications that one was acted on.
[Tim McGivern]: One was acted on, yep. All the open ones, yep.
[Robin Stein]: All of the other 43 open applications.
[Tim McGivern]: You got it, you got it. And we did also vote on our slate of standard conditions, too. So we have that. So we have made progress tonight. So let's not forget, we made some progress. We will reconvene on the 8th and continue the agenda.
[Robin Stein]: You will need a vote on this, though.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. Well, I need a second. I didn't hear a second.
[Robin Stein]: Oh, sorry. I was getting ahead of things.
[Tim McGivern]: That's OK. Robin, you and I together, we got this. If I miss it, you catch it. So I need a second. A second.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'll second.
[Tim McGivern]: OK, second from Mary Ann. Paul? Yes. Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann? Yes. And me, yes. All right. Thank you very much, everybody. And we will see you on the 8th at 630, right here on Zoom.
[Unidentified]: Thank you all.
[Tim McGivern]: Bye. Thank you for being patient, everybody. And thank you, Verizon, for being patient.
|
total time: 14.1 minutes total words: 955 |
total time: 2.28 minutes total words: 108 |
total time: 1.97 minutes total words: 200 |
|