[Tim McGivern]: This meeting is gonna be recorded, so if Nina, you wanna get the recording going?
[Nina Nazarian]: Recording in progress.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. I will now call to order this meeting of the Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee of the City of Medford to hold hearings for Verizon applications for 18 proposed small cell infrastructure in the City of Medford. This meeting is being recorded. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting of the Medford Ad Hoc Small Cell Committee will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Before 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. Members of the public may also access and participate in the meeting by using the Zoom information below. No in-person attendance of the 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. Information regarding the applications is available at https colon backslash backslash www.medfordma.org backslash boards backslash small cell committee. So welcome. Continue. I did click continue on the record. Hopefully everybody can hear me. All right, so welcome. This committee and this hearing is operated pursuant to the interim policy for small cell wireless installations, which is a result of an FCC declaratory ruling and order. I'd like to introduce the committee. So if you can see everybody's name there on the screen, the committee members are Paul Moki, the building commissioner, Mary Ann O'Connor, the director of public health, Alicia Hunt, And I have to change this. She's now the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability. And me, Tim McGibbon, City Engineer and Chair of the Committee. We're here to consider the following locations Verizon has applied for under the City of Medford Interim Policy. I'm just gonna read those locations real quickly. So folks know they're at the right place. Yale Street at Dartmouth Street, Brookside Parkway, West Street, 39 Charnwood Road, 48 Clark Street, Gorley Road, 18 Fleming Street, 24 Pearl Street, 26 Royal Street, 40 Ashland Street, 23 Woodrow Avenue, 163 Forest Street, 199 Forest Street, 12 Fulton Street, 123 Grant Avenue, Logan Avenue, 83 Washington Street and 59 Jerome Street. As stated in the policy, the FCC declaratory ruling significantly limits the ability of cities and towns to regulate small cell wireless. The committee's purview is limited to the policy, and we're not able to consider concerns. A big one that a lot of folks I know are concerned about is the potential health impacts. So that's outside the purview of this committee. Also, what is outside the purview of this committee is whether or not the FCC standards do what they are supposed to do. So we're not here to discuss whether or not the FCC standards are appropriate. With that said, if you are here because of health related concerns, we will certainly hear you and we certainly understand your concerns, but we recommend you contact your state and federal legislation as this law comes from the federal level of government. I'd also like to state up front that the city does not choose these locations. I know we received some comments and also during the last round of hearings, there was seems to be this idea that the city has chosen locations that we don't, we are just reviewing them under the policy and whether or not they are approvable under this policy. And then the last thing I'd like to do at the moment, we have our lawyer here, Robin Stein. I would just ask her to give a quick introduction of the purview of this committee and how it relates to that FCC declaratory ruling, specifically what is not within our purview. So Robin, if you could just take a couple minutes and summarize that, that would be fantastic.
[Robin Stein]: Sure, I think you pretty much summed it up already, Tim. Good evening, everyone. My name is Robin Stein. I'm an attorney at KP Law, a more special counsel to the city of Medford. As Tim said, essentially, there is federal law that regulates the imposition of the provision of personal wireless services, personal wireless service facilities. That law allows cities and towns to regulate those services and that infrastructure Um, so long as the application of the regulations doesn't materially inhibit or prohibit those services. And so the city has a policy in place. It can apply that policy to the applications. Um, so long as it doesn't create, uh, essentially a material prohibition of the services. Um, and that's, I'm sure a concept that we'll, we'll talk about a bit tonight, um, in undertaking that review. As Tim said, one of the things that this committee is not permitted to consider are potential health impacts from the installations. Is that something that is set by federal law? So, certainly available if more questions come up, but that is the basic framework. The city's gonna apply its policy. It can't apply its policy in a way that materially prohibits the provision of the wireless services.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you, Robin, appreciate it.
[Robin Stein]: Of course.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so I'm just gonna summarize the agenda so people know what to expect. After this introduction, Verizon will be given an opportunity to make a presentation. After the presentation, the committee members will be given an opportunity to ask questions to Verizon. There will be a public comment period for non-site specific, or in other words, general comments. And then we'll go into, at the beginning of that, there'll be, we'll look at email comments as well, because I know comments came in via email. Then I'll call on voices in favor of the applications and then I'll call on voices in opposition of the applications, everyone who speaks will receive two minutes. and questions to Verizon should be directed to the chair. And also while you're speaking, we'll give you a warning when it gets close to the end of the two minutes, so folks can wrap things up. After this public comment period, we will discuss each application location. After the committee discusses, the public will be able to make site-specific comments. Again, that'll be two minutes per speaker. So again, if you have site-specific comments, please try to save those until the site comes up. Then there'll be more discussion by the committee or there may be, and then we'll move into a motion and I'll open the floor for a motion by committee member to vote on the applications one at a time. Presuming the motion carries, the chair will indicate the members may grant, grant with conditions or deny each application and the vote will be taken through roll call. Here are the rules of the hearing. Please use the raise hand function if you'd like to comment during the public participation periods. If you have an issue with that, or if you'd like to submit your comment through the chat, the chat is available to do that. But please try not to abuse that. I think it worked out well when we've done this before. So we will be looking there. If folks have trouble with the raise hand, technical issues, don't want to speak for some reason, they want to put it in writing, that's OK. Please direct comments and questions to the chair through me. No profanity, no name calling, no other rude or disruptive behavior. It's just not acceptable. The chair reserves the right to mute participants who become disruptive to the proceedings. Each speaker will receive two minutes, as I stated before, and then a couple of ground rules for time. We're gonna set an end time at 10 p.m. If this reaches 10 p.m. and there's still applications left, we will look to continue the hearing to a specific date certain. We also take a break at 8 p.m. for just five minute break so people can do what they need to do. So one of the next piece in the agenda, introduce map locations. So on the city's website, not only did we include the applications themselves, but we also mapped all the locations. So that's available. So when we go through each location, we'll be bringing up the map to look at them on the map for discussion. All right, I'm now going to ask the applicant to introduce themselves to the committee, and if they have a presentation to make, they're welcome to make that on these 18 applications. And then after the presentation, we'll ask some questions before going into the public comment period. So, Lyson?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, very good. Thank you. I think we do have a presentation. I think, Stan, are you running that presentation? I think Stan is muted now.
[SPEAKER_12]: This is Kathleen Finn from Verizon. I don't seem to have the privilege to be able to share the screen. Actually, I do now.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Thanks, Kathleen. Okay, thank you. So thank you for hearing our applications tonight to the committee and to the people who were in attendance here. Similar to the group that the committee addressed last spring, these are all applications for attaching equipment to existing utility poles and slide. We're gonna explain to you more about it as we go along. Verizon has a public information website. So in addition to the information that's on the city's website, you can go to improveyourwireless.com Medford, and you also can email Verizon if you have direct questions or comments at the address that's on the screen now, vzw.medford.small.cell.program at verizonwireless.com. Slide. I'm just going to introduce the team we have here tonight. I'm Mike Chima with the law firm Robinson and Cole, and I'm legal counsel on this application. Stan Yusevich is the Verizon Government Affairs representative, and he'll be speaking to you after me. We have Jason Flanagan, who's a radio frequency engineer. That means he helps design the network from a technical standpoint. We have Sean Conway, who's a Verizon engineer, and he will describe the small cell equipment and the process that Verizon went through to determine poll locations. And then we've invited Dr. Eric Swanson, who is a professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh. And Dr. Swanson will cover the safety of small cells and answer questions if folks have them. Slide, please, Kathleen. And the chair went through a little of this, I'm just gonna be very brief, but there's a legal context for these applications. First, Medford has a small cell policy, and that policy governs the committee on these to the extent not inconsistent with federal law. Federal law does govern a lot of aspects of these types of installations. The federal law imposes a 60-day time limit to approve or deny the small cell applications. In this case, we've given the city an extension. We filed these applications back in June. And we've given the city an extension so we could be heard tonight. Federal law also controls the extent to which a city can regulate the design of small cells. And it prohibits municipalities from placing a moratorium on small cell deployment or from prohibiting service from being provided in an area. And federal law also says municipalities may not evaluate small cell applications based on health concerns. Slide, please. Stan's gonna speak to you now.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Mike. I hope I'm off mute. I believe I am. I want to thank the members of the ad hoc committee and the members of the public that are here today watching via Zoom. As you're aware, 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. In recent years, Verizon started bringing the next generation of wireless technology to the region's larger cities like Boston. Now we're expanding to new cities and towns. We've chosen Medford to provide better wireless coverage. This effort is to better serve your residents, schoolchildren, and businesses. The applications we've submitted are a starting point to provide these benefits to the neighborhoods of Medford. Our plan, however, will provide improved wireless service for the entire city. Next slide, please. We have all witnessed the rapid growth in demand for wireless services. This demand for wireless technology has increased dramatically since the COVID-19 outbreak. 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. Slide. Wireless technology has quickly progressed since the first cell phones were introduced Each generation of cell phone technology has expanded technology capabilities. Second generation technology enabled us to view emails on our phones. And the third generation brought us GPS, enabling us to use our phones to help us navigate. 4G technology enabled streaming of videos. Now we are migrating to the fifth generation, or 5G technology. that will greatly enhance the speed and capability of our cell phones. Slide. The promise and benefit 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 reliability for our first responders, and increased access for remote learning. Slide. The 5G economy will have a significant impact on America's cities and towns, large and small. Over the next 10 years, we will see benefits across the country, including $43 billion in economic growth and the creation of 100,000 new jobs in Massachusetts alone. Slide. A May 2001 research study asked homeowners what they prioritize when it came to buying a new home. And it's clear that homeowners prioritize 5G and high speed internet, eight out of 10, saying that having 5G as a home internet creates greater value. Over the past year, realtors have also been fielding more questions from homeowners about access to broadband, home internet, and cellular service. Slide. You can see here that homebuyers prioritize fast, reliable home internet. as good cellular service over modern appliances, nearby attractions and amenities, commute time, and good schools. These are the reasons that we are here and these are the reasons why you have these applications before you. I respectfully ask that you support and improve these applications. I wanna thank you for your time and I appreciate your service to this community. Next, I'll turn to Jason Flanagan, Verizon RF engineer.
[SPEAKER_17]: Hi, my name is Jason Flanagan. I'm the RF engineer for the city of Medford. This slide gives you an example of how far one of the cells we're talking about will cover. Our Verizon's 5G Ultra Wideband technology uses a much higher frequency than we previously used with our 4G technology. A higher frequency will not travel as far as a lower frequency due to the physics and how a signal travels through the air. This works similarly to how you hear a car with a loud stereo driving by when you're walking down the street. First, you hear the low frequency bass notes, and then as the car gets closer, you'll hear the high frequency vocal notes. High frequency notes are also the first to fade as the car drives away from you. Next, we will have Sean Conway with some sighting notes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Hey, everyone. Sean Conway, an engineer at Verizon Wireless. I work on the real estate for small cells. As you can see from what Jason showed us there with the map, we have a very small area to go out and select a location that will work for our 5G network. So once Jason selects a location, we go out and try to select a good pole to attach our antennas and equipment to. Shown here is an example of what a 5G location looks like. Our antennas and radios will be up top of the pole in this case. We have our fiber connection down in the middle of the pole. And then lower on the pole, we have a power disconnect and the power meter. The power disconnect is to allow anyone that's working in the area that needed to go up onto the pole, they could shut down the site without asking us. They could just shut it down, go up, do their work, and then turn it back on when they left. And basically our only design options that we're looking for in Medford are utility poles. But we have in other areas used streetlights and traffic signals. Slide, please. And just to give you guys a representation of the size of the antennas that are up on the telephone pole, it's about the size of a small parking sign. This one taken from the city of Boston. You can see it's about the same size as that. Next, I'm going to pass it on to Dr. Eric Swanson.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee and everyone else. I'm happy to talk to you tonight about the safety of this equipment. As we noted, I am a professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh and just a bit more information about me. I'm also a fellow of the American Physical Society. I'm a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former resident of Dorchester. The information I'll be giving you is the consensus scientific view on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation. In other words, it's what the broad scientific community believes about that issue. Next slide, please. As you know, cell phones receive and transmit electromagnetic waves. Those waves can be described by the frequency or energy of them or by their wavelength. And if you think about ocean waves, that's a good analog. The figure here shows what's called the spectrum, which is the totality of all the possible waves labeled by their wavelengths or their frequency. And parts of this are very familiar to you. So that little slice in the middle there is visible light. Light is electromagnetic waves. And you see it broken out into the colors of the rainbow. If you go higher in frequency or higher in energy, you hit ultraviolet light, which we're also familiar with. Higher still in frequency or energy is X-rays, and higher than that is gamma rays. If you go down, you also hit familiar things, thermal radiation that you may have seen in movies with these night image cameras, microwaves, radio waves, and so on. Next slide, please. 5G, just for our information, sits there somewhere between radio and thermal in the spectrum. Next slide, please. Some parts of the spectrum are dangerous in a way that I'll describe to people and to animals. It's called the ionizing spectrum. It's indicated in red there. It starts at frequencies associated with ultraviolet radiation. The way it works is that this radiation, these waves, are energetic enough that they can actually strip electrons off of atoms. And if you do that to the wrong molecules in your skin cells, for instance, that can cause tissue damage. That, by the way, is what leads to tanning of skin. Next slide, please. The waves we're talking about are below that threshold. There actually is a threshold above which that effect can happen and below which it doesn't happen. It's indicated in green here. The green is called non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't have sufficient energy to actually strip electrons from atoms. And because of that, it can't do things like damage DNA. And you're actually familiar with this on an intuitive level. artificial lights like the ones I'm sitting under and everyone else is sitting under right now only produce waves in the visible part of the spectrum that's below the threshold. And as you know, you don't get tan from sitting underneath those lights and certainly don't get things like skin cancer. The physics of how that works tells us that it doesn't matter how long you were underneath the lights, which you also know, and it doesn't matter how intense those lights are. What would happen if I were to turn up the intensity of the lights over me right now is that I would feel heat from those lights. And in fact, that is the only verified effect of non-ionizing radiation is that it heats the material. Next slide, please. Okay, so I already covered that. Next slide, please. Okay, and just to fill in a bit more details again, so I already mentioned 5G, 5G is near microwave, 4G is a little bit below that, and standard radio like your AM and FM stations operate a little bit below that. 5G itself is about a factor of 30,000 below this threshold, which is reassuring, it's a big number, but I want to stress that even if you were only a factor of two or one and a half below the threshold, it's a threshold, it's non-ionizing, it's still safe in terms of damage to skin cells. Next slide, please. So I mentioned that the effect that this non-ionizing radiation does have is thermal, it heats things. And again, you know this, if you step out into the sun, you'll feel warm, or if you step underneath a very bright light, you'll feel heat from that light. The FCC, because of this, the FCC regulates this radiation, these non-ionizing waves. Their limits are very strict. There are thousands upon thousands of studies that are done on the effects of this. And what they do is that they take the minimal levels where anything can happen, anything is detectable, and reduce those by an additional factor of 50 to set their limits. All the equipment that is installed meets these equipments. And even if more equipment is installed, it still needs to meet these limits. Just for comparison, a typical heating pad, I show a heating pad here, one of those red rubbery things that you fill with hot water, those would violate FCC limits by about a factor of 50, 50 times higher than they would permit. And by the way, I kind of like those heating pads, so I'm not exactly alarmed by them. Next slide, please. There is this myth that the FCC is behind in its regulation of this equipment, but that's not true. They regularly update their regulations. They regularly consult with the agencies that deal with these things. FCC doesn't do it directly. Things like people like the FDA do and the IEEE and American Medical Association, and they regularly review. Just recently, several hundred new studies were examined. And the last point I'd like to make is that typical 5G small cells on your streets will be operating at about 250 times below the strict FCC limits. Okay, with that, I'll turn it back to Mike. Thank you very much.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: There we go. Okay, thanks, great. This is a list of the addresses for the small cell pole attachments that we've applied to the city for and are being heard tonight. So I'll leave that up for a few seconds. And then slide, please. And this concludes our presentation. Thank you for your attention. The whole panel will remain available for questions that the committee or the public may have throughout the hearing tonight. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much, Team Verizon. All right, so now we'll take questions and comments from the committee members. So Paul, Marianne, and Alicia, if you have questions, I'll let you guys go first.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Dr. Swanson, could you speak to the distance and the impact of distance as far as the radio frequency waves go?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Yes, thank you. I'd be happy to. It's a good question. The distance does matter. So the further away you are from the equipment, the further underneath the FCC limits you are, for every factor of two you move away, the safety factor grows by a factor of four. So the figures I gave you were if you were as close as you can reasonably get to one of these 5G small cell things, which will be standing underneath it. As you move further away, it'll just get less and less.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And are there limitations set on by the FCC?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of what you said.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Are there distance limits put on by the regulations by the FCC?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Are there distance limits? No, they don't specifically regulate how close you can get to one of these. What they do is regulate the exposure that you're allowed to get, the amount of heating you're allowed to get. And that has to be below a certain amount.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That's time related?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: It's not actually time related. It's just it's how much you receive in total. So, you know, how much energy basically how much heating you get is what it regulates.
[Alicia Hunt]: If I might, Miriam, what I think I'm, I, that makes me ask if I was a resident and I felt like I was too close to one for a lane, how do I know if I'm too close? We assume, I assume a Verizon worker has something that they wear, right? Like you go into a radiation room or something, right? You have a, thing that tells you if you've had too much exposure? Like, how would somebody know that they've been too close for too long?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: I can answer that too, if that's okay. And maybe one of our engineers can chip in too. The way it works, if you're repairing this stuff, the FCC, you know, if you're right next to it, you're going to be pushing the limits. So the FCC, I mean, they just recommend to turn it off. So when people go in to repair these things, they shut them off. They don't have to wear special meters or clothing or anything like that. They just turn it off. You also asked about the length of time you're exposed to it. That actually doesn't matter because the light at the end, the waves are not sufficiently energetic to do any damage to you. All they do is this incredibly mild amount of heating and your body naturally dissipates that heat the way it normally does. So it doesn't matter how long you're exposed to this stuff.
[Alicia Hunt]: So then can you repeat the distance you said? I know you just said it, but it would help to hear it.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Oh, I didn't give a specific one. If you're underneath a typical installation, these things are, I think the ones, all the ones we're talking about here today are 30 feet high or higher. I was going with 20 feet high. So, you know, a little bit closer. So I'm imagining that you're within 20 feet of one of these things.
[Alicia Hunt]: So one of the things that has come up for us in the past is that some of them, these are many are in residential neighborhoods, and some may be horizontal distance from somebody's second or third floor. And so that was something that we were watching. Is this 10 feet from the front of their house, 20 feet, 30 feet at a horizontal level, which is I think part of why we're asking, because even if it's 30 feet up, but your bedroom is only 10 feet away horizontally, you might have a concern there.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: No, you're right, you're right. So these things, when you certify them to be safe, it's the closest a person can reasonably get. So if this is 10 feet from someone's bedroom window, then it should be certified at 10 feet for being safe. I think the communities I've worked in within the past typically have a third party engineering outfit actually certify each piece of equipment at this closest distance. I'm not sure if they do that in Medford or not. But yeah, they should be certified for the reason of the closest reasonable distance that you can get. By the way, 10 feet. you know, these things are very low power. So a factor of 250 that you're below at 20 feet would reduce to a factor of about 70 below the limit when you're 10 feet away. So it's still, it's unbelievably safe. It's not even, it's hardly even measurable, the effect of these things.
[Paul Mochi]: Doctor, when you say these different equipment are certified for specific distances, could you comment on How exactly, what's the process for doing these type of certifications?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, the ones I've seen, again, I guess it might depend on the community. They'll hire a third party company that comes in and what they do is they take all the specifications associated with the piece of equipment, its antenna, configuration, distances to the closest houses. They'll even take trees into account and the power going into it. And they'll run their software to figure out what the exposures are as a fraction of the FCC. And there'll be some little table they give to the town engineers at the end of this.
[Paul Mochi]: And I know in the past, in a lot of residential neighborhoods, when the poles were installed, they tried to put them at the corner of the lot lines. Do you know if a lot of the applications we're looking at tonight on the corners, which would be in between, usually the separation between the houses, or do we have any that are directly in front of the house itself? Do we know?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: That would be a question for Sean.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I got myself unmuted there. So I believe the majority of these locations are in between or across the street from properties. There might be one or two that are in front of, directly in front of the house, but majority are in between or across the street from a residence.
[Tim McGivern]: Sean, you also submitted a graphic that gives some offset distances and how it relates to the percent safety, what the professor was alluding to. The number of offsets we have are eight and a half feet, and one is 3.9 feet. I believe one is for workers and one is, and this is just from my memory from last time, and one is for the safe zone for the general public. So do I have that right? Am I interpreting that right?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Dr. Swanson, can you speak to that?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: I suspect you are. The FCC does have less stringent regulations for line workers. It's about a factor of five, which would give you about this factor of two between the eight feet and the, I think, eight, four feet, you said, for the other people. So I think that makes sense.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it was with the application package. It's the offsets, basically.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Right, yep. That's right.
[Tim McGivern]: So that, yeah, and that's one of the things, you know, I was looking at is offset distances, basically making sure that we're not within that eight and a half feet. So we'll get into that in the site-specific stuff. I had a couple of questions. One question is, if you look at the map of how the applications are spread out, And it's pretty clear that some neighborhoods are being focused on and other neighborhoods don't have any proposals. Could you just speak to sort of the plan moving forward? How many, you know, is the plan to roll this out citywide and why, you know, why are there neighborhoods missing like North Medford, for example?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: So yes, I can take that. The plan is to roll this network out citywide for sure. And just the way that we rolled it out was just how we went into the city, did our reviews, got our stuff done and got our applications into utilities and got licensing and stuff back in that order. So it's just the way we happen to work the city from a real estate perspective. It wasn't like we chose any area of the city over another.
[Tim McGivern]: And is the plan to continue the rollout in other neighborhoods?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Absolutely.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Thank you. Um, and then, um, from the approvals that you had last round, do you have a rough percentage about how many have been installed at this time?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: So yeah, at this point, about 90% of them are currently in construction and a percentage of those are fully installed. They might not be on the air, but they're up on the pole and it takes a little bit more work behind the scenes to officially turn them on the air, but 90% of them are in construction and a good percentage of those are up on the pole at this point.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions from committee members? It doesn't look like it. And I will say that we've had the opportunity to ask Verizon questions at previous hearings. So if the public has questions for Verizon, we can certainly take those as well. All right, so unless there are any more questions from the committee, we'll go into the general non-site specific public comment portion of the hearing. So we'll open the floor to general comments not related to any specific site from the public. If you have questions for Verizon, please go through me. Hold your site-specific comments until the sites come up. First, we're going to deal with comments from email. So Anna, if you want to address any general comments that came in via email, that would be great if we could do that now.
[SPEAKER_08]: for Tim. So as of 6 p.m., 26 comments had been sent to the city's 5G specific comments inbox. Five comments voiced general opposition to any 5G equipment proposals in Medford, and those included, I'm sorry, six comments, and those included comments from Leonard Hanley, street unknown, Natalia Sapita, street unknown, Tim Timerson, street unknown, M.E. Russell, 5 Ellingport, Dave and Stacey Whitaker, 2729 Anglehead Road and James Chambers 20 Usher Road. And then two comments voice general support. Those are from John Siebert, 48 Vernon Street and Janice Brash, Street Unknown. Six comments then questioned why South Medford and or East Medford had the majority of proposals and if North and or West Medford would see a similar number of proposals in the future. And those were from Bonnie Wargo, 26 College Ave John Sieber, 48 Vernon Street, Tom Lincoln, 27 Gleason Street, Jim Vermille, 111 Cedar Road, Stephen Chin, Ronnell Road, and Claudette Collery, 207 Main Street. Other comments included Luke Preissner at 100 Forest Street had a concern about increasing power levels as the technology progresses, acoustic noise from the transceivers and effect on natural foliage. He requests that all small cell towers disclose the frequency and peak transmitter powered as required to do by law. He requests that Verizon be limited to fans that do not produce noise over 55 decibels at 20 feet and 45 decibels heard from indoors and requests that the city required the permittee to pay for the cost of the city planting one new tree for each small cell installation. Other questions included, could it be a condition to Verizon that they must give equal coverage to all parts of the city? And that was from John Seaver at 48 Vernon Street. Tim, should I pause between these for Verizon to answer those questions or should I list out all of the questions?
[Tim McGivern]: I think some of them they've addressed. Maybe we can pause for a moment to see if they could address the fans and the noise question because I know folks who are concerned about that. I will say from the applications and the policy that, and the conditions, I think we said last time, no audible noise from the ground, but I believe they have a passive ventilation system anyway, and I will ask Verizon to address that if they can, please.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I can confirm that, Tim. There's no fans on these outdoor equipment.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Thank you very much, and I believe, um, I believe Mr. Conway addressed the plan that Verizon has so just to summarize and Sean please stop me if I'm incorrect or correct me that they will continue to roll out in the city of Medford. communities like North Medford and West Medford should be seeing a similar spread of proposals for these types of antennas in the upcoming future. I think it's a good way to put it, and that South Medford wasn't necessarily singled out. It's how Verizon decided to roll out their new 5G network in Medford. So hopefully that addresses those comments and those questions. And I think, Anna, was there any other questions that were unique? I think we caught them all, but I wanna make sure we did.
[SPEAKER_08]: There was a question from Natalia Cepeda that said, how can residents learn if a proposal has been approved or rejected by the committee?
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, yeah, I can answer that. So there'll be, you know, this meeting will be recorded. We're gonna, you know, do that action tonight as long as we don't go past 10. And then, the, if you are located, one of the conditions we put it on the prior batch, I'm gonna try to put it on this batch too as a notification to the residents that live within a hundred feet that it was approved and then some basic information associated with it and a contact number for Verizon. So we're gonna propose that same condition, I think, or I'm going to for these applications.
[SPEAKER_08]: And then the last unique question was, voiced by both Maria DiRemo Castagnolo and Kathleen Rourke. I'm sorry, Maria from Thatcher Street and Kathleen Rourke from Street Unknown. And they asked, why are more units being added in Medford, especially if a home is already within a 300 foot of a small cell 5G tower?
[Tim McGivern]: Gotcha. Yep. So the Verizon did touch upon that a bit, but maybe Sean, if you just want to address that specific question, I think you already did, but maybe just hone in on the answer there.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah. As Jason explained, the 5G ultra wideband network doesn't reach as far as our 4G LTE. So when Jason showed us that map, basically that's where a 5G node is going to cover. So we need to find another one just on the outside of that one. So it's contiguous coverage, you know, connecting itself over and over again. Thank you very much.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, Anna, whatever you get.
[SPEAKER_08]: Excuse me. That's all the general comments that I had.
[Tim McGivern]: OK. Robin, go ahead.
[Robin Stein]: Can I just clarify one of the comments about the prior conditions, if that's OK with you?
[Tim McGivern]: Absolutely, please do.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, I'm just yelling at a kid. So just to address the question of how folks will know, I believe what happened last time, obviously, is you'll take a vote publicly. And then last time the board authorized him to go ahead and get the decisions written up and they'll be filed with the city clerk. And then the condition itself that we included last time had to do with notice prior to installation. But I don't believe we had a condition of notice of the decision itself.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, you're right. And that's a good clarification, prior to installation, right? So it's not necessarily.
[Robin Stein]: And then a written decision will follow and it'll get filed. And again, we can discuss conditions, you know, when you get closer to probably the first specific application, but just wanted to clarify.
[Tim McGivern]: I appreciate it. It's a good clarification. Thank you.
[Robin Stein]: Thanks.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. So now we will open the floor for people who are generally in favor of the application who would like to speak. And please, if you could limit yourself to a couple minutes, that would be much appreciated.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: It's been Ken. Did the peak transmission question get answered?
[Tim McGivern]: The peak transmission.
[Nina Nazarian]: Yeah, there was a question.
[SPEAKER_08]: Oh, about the... I can re-read that if you'd like. That was from Luke Prasner, 144th Street, I believe. And he requested that all small cell towers disclose the frequency and peak transmitter power as required to do so by law. Is that what you were talking about, Marianne?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think that's what- Yes, thank you, sorry, yeah. Yeah, yeah, so maybe if Verizon could just speak to that a little bit. I know you guys provided a bunch of information in the applications, and I went and found some of the testing, but is that information, the information that will be included on some of the signage, or is there a different way for the public to get ahold of that information?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: frequencies are all established in Verizon's licenses, so they're allowed to use whatever frequencies they're licensed to use. The power level is really also a question of federal regulation and the equipment being used. The equipment would have a limit in terms of the power that it can be used with and the federal regulations address the concerns that Dr. Swanson addressed in terms of power output in relation to workers and the public. But as long as it's operating within the limits set by the FCC for the radio frequency emissions and it's operating within Verizon's licensed spectrum and Verizon's allowed to operate that equipment.
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't think that the question, we have a lot of very technical residents here in the city, and I don't think that the question was whether or not it was within the allowed spectrum, but whether or not Verizon would be disclosing the specific frequencies and peak transmitter power, peak, sorry, transmitter power for each one, such that a resident could in fact themselves see what it was somewhere.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I'm not aware that they would do that on a site-by-site basis. Now, Sean may have something to add to that, I don't know.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I don't have anything further to add to that, Mike. It's not something that we've done in the past or been asked to.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_04]: If I may, I think there maybe a little confusion with this particular question. I think the question is generated as a result of cell towers, not necessarily small cell nodes. So there's a different standard for cell tower, of course.
[Tim McGivern]: I will say, I know that the equipment gets tested and there are ranges of power output. which are specific for the equipment based off the testing. And I think the frequencies, they are licensed and they are arranged. So I think if we could get the range of the power output, and if we get the range of frequencies that we're operating under, I think that's what the question is asking for. So I think that's good information for us to have, because if the questions are going to be answered by one person of the public, they will be asked by others. So I would like to see if we can get that information from you guys, whether it's after a part of the condition or something like that. I think it's good information. It's just information. All right. With that said, let's open it up for comments. Do we have hands up, Anna, for public participation, for in favor?
[SPEAKER_08]: I don't see any hands up currently, no.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, if you'd like to speak in favor of the petitions, please use the raise hand function or put it in the chat. You can just check the chat real quick. I'll just give a minute for that.
[Alicia Hunt]: I would say there's some neutral questions in the chat. Should I read them all?
[Nina Nazarian]: I also do see a hand up right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, yes. I saw that video. Paul, I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[SPEAKER_04]: There we go. OK. Hi, Paul. Hi. Interesting. I just left a message in the chat. My question was, when are we going to have 5G rollout in the West Medford area? It is glaringly obvious that there's nothing there. The coverage is spotty at best. And I thought it was just the result of being at a higher elevation or the number of large older trees that may affect transmission. I don't know the tech behind it, but that was my main question. When are we going to get 5G in West Medford?
[Tim McGivern]: Hey, thank you. If you want to use the rest, we'll see if Verizon can respond with the rest of your minute, Verizon.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Sean, do you have thoughts on that?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I can respond to that. So our plan right now is to roll the 5G network out over Medford. I really can't talk about our future plans and where we're going next, but eventually we do have plans to cover all of Medford with the 5G ultra wideband network.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Thank you. So no, probably not as good as you want, Paul, but... Not right. Right, I know.
[Alicia Hunt]: Actually, if I don't mind, there's a piece of clarification that I'm actually interested in. They're now starting to sell 5G phones and 5G cell coverage from different cell companies and If somebody were to have some parts of Medford don't have great cell coverage today, right, with your regular 4G phone, if these were installed, does this also improve those cell phone coverages if they don't have the new 5G phones, or will only people with the 5G equipment benefit from this?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: These cells right here will be for 5G ultra-wideband phones that are capable of using the 5G ultra-wideband network.
[Alicia Hunt]: So we would actually need additional cell phone towers that cover 4G in order to improve the 4G coverage in the city.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Right now, yes. All right.
[Tim McGivern]: Let's go to the, do we have another person with their hand up?
[SPEAKER_08]: I'm not seeing anything. Just a reminder that people can find the hand raise function under reactions. It should be that smiley face at the bottom of your screen. Or if you just want to put your video on and raise your hand, I can call on you.
[Tim McGivern]: Why don't we read the neutral comments from the chat?
[Alicia Hunt]: There was a question from Kinga Brody of the transcript asking if these would add to the heat island effect.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I think that's a question for Dr. Swanson, if he can address that.
[Alicia Hunt]: She's referring to the, you know, climate change and Yeah, so fair question.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Anything that you install in a city is going to contribute to the heat island effect and tall buildings contribute to it too because they help trap the heat in the city. The amount of energy that's being used in these 5Gs is really very small compared to running a car. It's nothing. So in principle, yes, it adds to the heat island effect. But in practice, it's so tiny that it's not even worth talking about.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. We have another one? Anymore?
[Alicia Hunt]: No, I think there is just one or two people who are asking for clarification about why we can't talk about the health concerns. And I know that Robin explained that. I'm wondering if it would be helpful. And I feel like there was a question in the chat asking just for clarification and confirmation that we cannot blanketly prohibit these and we cannot put prohibitions, we can't put rules in place that would effectively prohibit these. And I know we discussed that at length in the spring and our other hearings, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate that, I think.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure. I mean, I'll take a stab at it. Basically, the FCC declaratory ruling is big and it's clear in a lot of ways. And one of the elements that it's very clear on is that the municipality's purview is, you know, we're not allowed to blanket prohibit these, but we're also not allowed to create restrictions that end up fundamentally, you know, restricting these. So we're not allowed to do that either. And then there's categories of things we're not allowed to review. And one of them is the health impacts. So the reason why is because it's federal law. That is the reason. So we will abide by federal law. So that's why I said earlier today, if you have an issue with that, then please contact your state and federal representatives. All right, now we can go into general comments against this in opposition. So if you'd like to speak in general opposition, please use the raise hand function and we'll take you one at a time.
[Nina Nazarian]: Tim, before we get to that one, there was another question in the chat that was, it says my bedroom window is 30 feet from the 5G cell tower. Will these microwaves pass through my walls? And can I put protective coverings on my windows to prevent microwaves? like in microwave oven door?
[Tim McGivern]: So I will let Verizon handle that question as far as private property goes and what this person puts up that is within their freedom to do so. But if we could have Verizon speak to the comparison to microwaves and that 30 foot distance. So 20 to 30 feet is, you know, a pretty common offset that we're looking at with utility poles and residential dwellings here in the city of Medford. So anyway, it's a good question. Thank you.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: So Dr. Swanson, I think you addressed some of this earlier, but you could maybe answer that gentleman's question.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Sure. Yeah, 30 feet is a nice distance. You are probably a factor of a thousand or more below the FCC regulations. You probably can buy material that you can put on your walls that could screen these waves of these frequencies. But I would suggest to you to think carefully about this because the waves that are produced by the light bulbs in your house are far higher in frequency and far more intense, thousands of times more intense. So if you're worried about the 5G, you should be much more worried about the light bulbs in your house. Honestly, in my opinion, you would be wasting your money trying to install some sort of shielding in your house.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you very much. Let's go to the first speaker, if we could, please. Anyone raising their hand?
[SPEAKER_08]: No, it looks like we still don't have any hand raises.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so with that said, we took care of comments, we took care of email, and now we can move on to the applications themselves. All right, so the first one is Yale Street at Dartmouth Street, so we'll give Lisa, we'll give you a minute to find that on the map. And I'll just, while you're doing that, I'm gonna go through my measurements. Pull the application up here. All right, so the way that this portion of the hearing is going to go.
[Nina Nazarian]: I apologize for interrupting. I do see one hand raised.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. If we want to hear that person speak, we can do it right now before we dive into the next one. So, Susan Lee Woods. Hello, Susan.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hello, hello, hello. Can you hear me? Hi. Yep. I believe that you said, I know that talking about health concerns is not, you're not allowed to take it into consideration. I believe you said that we could still voice opinions about that. Am I correct?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, you can. As long as it's not a whole bunch of people. I think I know a lot of people in general are concerned about health impacts. So we're definitely open to hearing it and we wanna know what your concerns are.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay, so even though Dr. Swanson cited evidence as cited statistics indicating that the safety of 5G. Nonetheless, it's well known that there are studies showing negative impacts of 5G, cancer, cardiac and neurological issues, pregnancy and children's health. So I just want to say that I think that the fact that the federal legislation has have forbidden us to take this health concerns into consideration is absurd. I think that why don't we test that law? It is absurd. But also, why can't we have an open debate about the health risks? Why can't we have a pro and con forum, Dr. Swenson on the one hand and the other side on the other hand, so that we could hearing about that. So basically, can we, as Medford residents, can we test the law? Another consideration is I believe that Lexington and Concord have been able to reject 5G. And how did they do it? So those are the issues for me.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. Thank you, Susan. I appreciate it. Okay. And it's hard, we just, as you know, it's not within the purview, but again, I highly recommend you contact your state and federal legislatures. And also, I don't think that there would be anything stopping residents from trying to have some sort of debate like that. So, and it just depends on how it's organized, who leads it, what the city's role is, but I don't think you should shy away from activities like that. So, you know, for what it's worth. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right.
[SPEAKER_08]: We do now have another hint.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, we will take we will take Kapita. Do I have that right? And Kapita?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, hi, thank you. I just want to voice similarly to what Susan said that, well, first of all, it's not clear if the decision is going to happen now, but the way this meeting is set up, there's very little space for actually voicing really not wanting this, especially with kids in the house. So I'm really worried and I'm just very upset about it. So I don't know how this meeting is relevant for those of us who opposed it at this time, it looks like it's just going to go ahead regardless. So I just wanted to voice it and ask about the voting. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure, so I'll tell you about the process. Thank you for your comment. So we'll go, we'll go through each individual location. We'll talk about it. This committee talks about the policy. So is it ADA compliant? Is it sitting on top of the pole like it's supposed to and not offset in some unsafe manner? Is the pole structurally sound to handle it? Does it roughly meet the requirements of the ADA? not roughly, does it meet the aesthetic standards that the policy has set? So things like that, as opposed to the health impacts. And, you know, of course, I have children too. And I know everybody's concerned about the health impact. So again, the really the best way to get productivity out of those comments is through your public legislature. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, by the way. We're gonna we're gonna move on. Looks like we don't have any hands. So So first one, Yale Street and Dartmouth Street. So basically what we're gonna do is we're going to discuss each location. The committee will discuss each location and I have some measurements I'll read off and then we'll have public participation for each one. Again, two minute limit and then some discussion and then we'll wait for a motion and our options are either to approve, approve with conditions or deny and we'll do one at a time. So first one, Yale Street at Dartmouth Street. This is on utility poll number 686. That's right, Nia.
[Alicia Hunt]: As I'm finding that, Tim, in the past, we actually stated some blanket conditions before we went through each and every one of them. Yep. I failed to look those up myself. I got it. If you have them, should we read off the ones that we had before and then so that everybody knows what our bottom, like where we're, our baseline here?
[Tim McGivern]: But that sounds good. I'll do that right now. So we had about 12 general conditions and actually Verizon proactively submitted information on these 18 to eliminate a couple of them. So for example, we had one that was, that read as follows. Prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the applicant shall provide to the city engineer a certification by a registered professional engineer that the poll will safely support the new equipment as required by paragraph 2F of the policy. So, not only did they do that for the ones that they submitted before to satisfy the condition but This application package, these 18, have the stamped certification from a structural engineer for the locations. So we don't need that one anymore. The next one, prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the applicant shall provide to the city engineer a signed affidavit from a radio frequency engineer or radio frequency safety officer with Massachusetts experience that demonstrates that the resulting radio frequency emission levels from the small cell or related equipment to be installed pursuant hereto complies with the applicable FCC radio frequency emission regulations, as well as any Commonwealth of Massachusetts health and safety standards at the street level and at the nearest occupied building as required by paragraph 2H of the policy. So again, Verizon did submit that information for the last applications to satisfy the condition and they included it in these applications here. So they have that affidavit covered. Then here are the ones that we may want to consider to continue with. Prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the applicant shall provide to the city engineer updated insurance certificates as required by paragraph 2i of the policy. And this is just because their certificate expired in June. So it's just an updated expiration date on their insurance certificate. So basically a clerical item, a bookkeeping item. Number four, the applicant shall pay for the costs of preparation or quote make ready work related to moving or relocating any city owned streetlights or other infrastructure related to the installation of any small cell or related equipment. Number five, installation of any small cell or related equipment on double poles is strictly prohibited. If a new or replacement pole is installed in the future to accommodate that equipment, the applicant will remove or cause the removal of the old pole prior to installing any small cell or related equipment on the new or replacement pole. Number six, prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment on the pole, the applicant shall document and submit to the city engineer field measurements that demonstrate the horizontal and vertical clearances of any small cell or related equipment and of the existing pole or replacement pole, if any, are in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable Massachusetts regulations. So they did provide a summary table that provides these offsets, but I found one that was off And I think that this is a good one to have in there to make sure that those measurements happen, even though I double checked them. So then number eight was prior to installation of any small cell related equipment, the applicant shall provide to the city engineer a signed affidavit certifying that it will one, maintain that equipment in good repair and according to the FCC standards. Two, remove any such equipment that is not in good repair or not in use within 30 days of being no longer in good repair or no longer in use. And three, in fact, keep that equipment in good repair and in accordance with FCC standards. So, They included that affidavit in the applications as well this time, so we can probably strike that condition as well. Number nine, prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the ground surface at the base of the pole must be in or restored to good condition. This includes repairing concrete sidewalk to city standards. I'm going to recommend that one stay there. There's a few of these that need cleanup and concrete. Number 10, the applicant shall complete installation of the small cell and related equipment within one year of the date hereof, failing which this approval shall expire and a new application and approval will be necessary before any small cell or related equipment may be installed on the pole or used at this location. Upon request of the applicant, the committee may approve one extension of that time period not to exceed six months. Number 11, a minimum of 30 days prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment on the pole, the applicant shall provide written notice of the intended installation to abutters within 100 feet of the intended installation. The notice shall include information about the work to be done, the type of equipment to be installed, and a description of the applicable standards that the equipment complies with, and contact information to reach the applicant in the event there is a problem or an issue with the functioning of the equipment. Number 12, the applicant shall comply with the policy and any additional applicable state, local, and federal requirements, including but not limited to obtaining an electrical permit. So those were the 12 conditions, and it looks like, in my opinion, we can strike number one, number two, and number eight, because they have provided that information ahead of time.
[Nina Nazarian]: Tim, there is one item in the chat for clarification. The request is please define what a cell tower is as opposed to a 5G mini transmitter, if my terminology is correct, and the power output of each.
[Tim McGivern]: So they're asking what's the difference between a cell tower and a small cell installation and what are the differences in the power output of each one?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I think that's a Dr. Swanson question or Jason Flanagan.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, yeah, guys and if you guys have an answer for that, that'd be good. I can say something and maybe Jason can correct me. There's no specific answer to these because each installation is different but I can give you typical numbers. A typical tower will operate at, say, 200 watts or 400 watts. And just for comparison, my laptop is probably about 200 watts or four old-fashioned light bulbs. The small g also varies, but it'll be down at 20 watts or 30 watts, something like that.
[Tim McGivern]: And what's the difference between a cell tower and a small cell installation. Yeah.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Oh, sorry. Thank you. I forgot to answer that part. So the cell towers are the ones you see when you're driving along the highway. Usually you don't notice them, but if you're paying attention, there'll be these. you know, these metal towers that go up for 100 or 200 feet with some flat panels at the top of them. Those are the 4G towers. These 5G installations are very different because they're low power and they're very small. So they're sort of the size of a toaster or something like that. And you have up on the screen, it looks like a light pole. There'd be just a sort of a toaster attached to the side of that light pole up there. That's what a 5G would look like.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and you guys went through approximately the size of the size of a parking sign. And the few that have been installed in Medford, the committee has looked at, you know, they're, they're way up there. Usually people don't really notice transformers on poles, you're probably not going to notice these, they're higher than transformers. So once you start looking above your eye line above your eyebrow line at the city sky. You'll notice quite a few things. In my personal opinion, it's ugly, but it's there. Lots of wires and equipment. So at least it'll blend in. All right.
[Alicia Hunt]: Why don't I actually, I'm gonna just briefly share a photo of a 5G installation in Medford.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, yep.
[Alicia Hunt]: Actually our first, so people understand, right? Oops, sorry, share screen. Take this image on my screen. This is, in fact, in front of 200 Boston Ave. I took this photo earlier today. So you can see this at the very top. And I actually would have to stop that share and share this very quickly. This is the box. So that crossing sign, you can even see how it's a little bent there. These are the boxes that go behind it. When we had our hearings in the spring, the presentation indicated this equipment would be a lot larger than this. So it turns out that the actual installed equipment was pretty small.
[Tim McGivern]: Thanks, Alicia. That's very helpful. Yeah, the original proposal they had, that box was about the size of a mini fridge. So it's like a quarter of the size, so much less impactful.
[Alicia Hunt]: I tried to grab a photo of a cell tower, but I couldn't find it that quickly right now. Cell towers are all different.
[Tim McGivern]: They come in all different shapes and sizes. There's some that look like trees, some that look like flagpoles, some that look like steel arrays. So it's hard to pin down what a cell tower is and looks like. But we at least know what these 5G antennas that are going up in Medford look like.
[Alicia Hunt]: So this is the first location, if you're ready.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I'm ready I'll just read off my numbers. So, this one at 43 feet to the top.
[Robin Stein]: And it's Robin. Can I just ask that, make a suggestion you can totally ignore me if you don't want to do it this way but since you just ran through the conditions and we're in the general discussion session, just to see if there are any members of the public wanted to comment on those conditions because I know ultimately, they're going to be referred to a standard conditions in your vote.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure. I mean, yeah, that's a good idea. If anybody in the public has any comments on those conditions, those were what were the general conditions for the last round of applications.
[Robin Stein]: I'm assuming Verizon is still okay with those, but if there was anything they wanted to discuss as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: And for the public, we were able to see you physically raising your hand in a room before. With the shared screen up, we need you to go to the bottom of your screen and click on, it doesn't look the same on my screen.
[Nina Nazarian]: I'm able to go between.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No problem.
[Alicia Hunt]: So you can see people if they raise their hand. It says reactions and you can click raise hand. We would be able to see those.
[Nina Nazarian]: There's a number of ways you can get our attention. If you raise your hand on the reactions, you can also turn your video on and just show us your hand. I don't see any hands at this point.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, well, let's move on. And when we get into the discussion piece, we can go over those conditions again. confirm with Verizon that they're still okay with them or if they need to change anything or whatever. So we'll do that. So 43 feet to the top of the pole, there's an existing permit parking sign and an existing city light on this pole. Concrete is missing at the base and we'll need an expansion joint down there. And it appears to meet ADA clearances and the closest dwelling is more than 75 feet away across the street. All right, so discussion questions from the committee. have any questions or want to discuss this one at all. Going to public participation, do we have any folks that would like to speak on this location?
[Nina Nazarian]: I'm not sure if it's a comment on this location, but in the chat there is a question. Would some judicious tree cutting help with extending transmission range of 5G devices?
[Tim McGivern]: Maybe, but I don't know if we'd allow it. But we like our trees. So we try to, when utility companies want to trim our trees, then they can, they have actually requirements that they have to meet and obligations for tree trimming when it comes to overhead wires. It's not, doesn't always work out great for the trees. So anybody who's had this happen to the house probably knows is a big V cut in the tree over time, some of the branches start to die and the trees suffers they're suffering anyway because they're urban street trees. So I mean, I don't know technically if the answer to your question but I don't think that the city would want tree trimming to increase service, unless it was a real need to. So anyway, hopefully that answers the question. All right, so that's the information for this one. And so just before there's any motion, I just want to revisit those conditions again. And the ones that remain and we'll just renumber them. So I'm going to renumber them and go forth and then we can talk about them. All right, so number one, basically the certificate of insurance liability is expired. So we just need ones that aren't expired. So prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the applicant shall provide to the city, the city engineer updated insurance certificates as required by paragraph two I of the policy. That's number one, number two. The applicant shall pay for the costs of preparation or quote make ready work related to moving or relocating any city on streetlights or other infrastructure related to the installation of any small cell or related equipment. So an example of this one committee is when we did 200 Boston Avenue, which is the one Alicia showed us. They're going to, and I trust that they're still going to do this is take that sign off give us a new sign and put it where it's supposed to be in front of the crosswalk so in other words this condition is says that the proponent pays for that. Number three. Installation of any small cell or related equipment on double poles is strictly prohibited. If a new or replacement pole is installed in the future to accommodate that equipment, the applicant will remove or cause the removal of the old pole prior to installing any small cell or related equipment on the new or replacement pole. So that's a double pole. They're not allowed anyway, but sometimes they're in transition and there's one pole in transition here. Number four, prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment on the poll, the applicant shall document and submit to the city engineer field measurements that demonstrate the horizontal and vertical clearances, any small cell or related equipment of the end of the existing poll. or a placement poll, if any, on compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable Massachusetts regulations. This one came about, I think I know, this one came about because the boxes were bigger, we weren't sure exactly the clearances height wise, and we measure the width, but we wanted to confirm that the proponent was making those measurements, which is why we require that one. So that one was number four. Number five, the new small cell or related equipment shall not create any noise detectable to the human ear at the pole location on the ground and at the nearest residence. Number six, remember I renumbered these. Prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment, the ground surface at the base of the pole must be in or restored to good condition. This includes repairing concrete sidewalk to city standards. Number seven, The applicant shall complete installation of the small cell and related equipment within one year of the date hereof, failing which this approval shall expire and a new application and approval will be necessary before any small cell or related equipment may be installed on the pole or used at this location. Upon request of the applicant, the committee may approve one extension of that time period, not to exceed six months. Number eight. A minimum of 30 days prior to installation of any small cell or related equipment on the pole, the applicant shall provide written notice of the intended installation to abutters within 100 feet of the intended installation. The notice shall include information about the work to be done, the type of equipment to be installed, and a description of the applicable standards that the equipment complies with, and contact information to reach the applicant in the event there is a problem or an issue with the functioning of the equipment. Number nine, the applicant shall comply with the policy and any additional applicable state, local and federal requirements, including, but not limited to obtaining an electrical permit. So does the committee have any comments on those? Wanna change any of those, add to them or anything like that?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: No, Tim, but can I make a motion that we accept those and not have to do a review on every single application that we accept ones that Verizon has already addressed, and that we go on that new numbered list that you have, but that we know that those going forward instead of every single application going through that.
[Tim McGivern]: Sure. I don't think it needs to be a motion, but what we can do is ask Verizon if they have any objections to those nine conditions, and we can call those our general conditions, and we can reference the general conditions for the poll locations if we want to approve with conditions.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Those are fine, Mr. Chairman. Those are the same as the last ones, and we were fine with those.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, okay. Thank you very much. All right, so those will be called our general conditions, those nine, and we'll move forward like that with that language. So, here we go.
[Paul Mochi]: Excuse me, just a quick question on that. I don't know if we implemented this before, but do we have any requirement for Verizon to notify the committee members when they're actually starting construction? Because as you know, we'll get I have various calls from residents about different construction projects and they don't know if it's a building permit project or if it's a public works project in the street when they see trucks pulling up. Do we have any notification that the community members will be getting prior to these installations?
[Tim McGivern]: Not in those conditions, but let me see if there's anything in the poll. I don't know if we did that last time online.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: There's a recertification process, and that has to happen. Let's see.
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't think so. Oh, go ahead, Alicia. They were supposed to notify us as the committee members. Maybe they notified somebody in the administration, pulled a permit or something, but I was not aware that they were being installed. And that could have been on our side, but it wouldn't hurt if they had to email the four of us that they were starting.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, I think it's just that maybe in condition 11 that you just say they have to provide notice to the abutters and to the members of the committee. Or I'm sorry, it's now condition eight, sorry, former condition 11.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, the 100 foot one, okay. Let me just read the language real quick.
[Robin Stein]: If that works, unless you want something else.
[Tim McGivern]: I think that's a good suggestion, Robin. What I wanna do is just look at the language, see if we can squeeze it in there and see if Verizon has any objections.
[Alicia Hunt]: And to be clear, I don't need a paper letter for everyone for each of 100 installations, but the email would be appreciated.
[Tim McGivern]: So maybe we don't wrap it up into this condition, Alicia. Maybe we just have a new condition that says prior to installation of the antennas, we're notified via email. I mean, Sean could do that via email.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I don't think that's a problem, Mr. Chair. Just for clarity's sake, we would provide you with one notice before we went out and started construction in a particular part of the city. Is that the idea? The way we do the notices to the public, it's more efficient to send them out at once and then they're built as they're built. We would propose to do the same thing, I think, with... the emails to you. Obviously, if you ever have any questions, you can also, you know, reach out to any of us and we're happy to try to get answers for you very quickly.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep. Yeah. I've reached out to Sean. I mean, I think it's, I think it's maybe an email with a tentative schedule or a schedule, you know, when you think you're going to start that route, you know, start what applications and then when you think you'll be done. I think that would be good information. The other committees member, instead of getting, like Alicia, like you said, we don't want emails for every single one. Oh, it's going tomorrow, it's going tomorrow, whatever. One email that says we're going to start installing in this neighborhood or this round of applications, and then we intend to complete by some date in the future. I think that that would be helpful to me.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. What we're trying to avoid though, is you sent mail in September that you were starting installation and then, but then you stopped and you started again in March and you know, and then you stopped and you started again. Right. Like we wouldn't, you know, we're just trying to like, you're actively doing them. And then if you stop, we would like to know that you have re re-engaged, you know.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I think one point of contact would be sufficient. Like probably Tim would make more sense for your office. I don't think my office needs to be notified of that. So, yeah. I think just one notification, if Tim wants to notify the committee, that's great. But I don't think Verizon needs to email us all every time they stop and start and do this. And I think we need to move on to the actual, applications at hand.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, so I mean, so just to cover this here. We could do a couple of different things here. I could just put myself on the list so every time they send out notification to the 100 feet, one goes to me, and I know, and I can email you guys, or we could have another condition that says, when you're starting on this date, we think we're gonna end on this date. And if they have to stop for a long period of time, they'll also let us know. We could have a condition like that.
[Paul Mochi]: I think that's fine too. If we get specific concerns on a specific site, we can just reach out to you and get a status update on it. I think that would be fine.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and the contact team for Verizon has been the same basically for all these applications and they've been pretty open for questions. So I'm okay with that, if Verizon's okay with that. So if I could get one of you guys to float that condition here, and then, well, first Verizon, do you have an issue?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I just wanna make sure I understand where you ended up on that. Are we notifying you, Mr. Chairman, as part of our group notification? Is that the idea?
[Tim McGivern]: No, no, I think it just notify me when you begin installing and then when you plan to end installing a group of applications, like say these 18, and then if you have to stop and it is going to be, you have to stop for multiple weeks, then we'd want to know that as well.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: So, so, so just basically inform you of the schedule ahead of time, I think. Yeah. I think that's, I think that's fine. And, and again, um, you know, not to belabor it, but as a condition versus just as a courtesy, we're also just happy to give you that information on a, you know, courtesy basis. It's fine if it's in a condition. I just would urge you to not make it too specific so we get tied up in technicalities or anything like that. If there's a condition that says we'd notify you of the intended schedule before we start construction, I think that's fine.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, yeah, and that's what I'm getting at. Okay, thank you. Yep, so schedule for installation. So we can word that condition, a general schedule of installation, including if the schedule needs to end. So we can now word it something like that. All right, sound good? I would also like to move on as well. So with that said, we have 10 conditions now, general conditions. And do I hear a motion on this particular location?
[Paul Mochi]: I make a motion to approve this particular location with the standing conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do I have a second?
[Nina Nazarian]: Second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Alicia? Yeah. Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: And me, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Brookside Parkway, which is the next one. So that one passes with conditions or general conditions. Brookside Parkway. So while we're navigating to that on the map, I'll read off my measurements. This is on utility pole 930. So I should clarify to the height to the top of the pole and utility pole number are taken off the application and I just verified them. So, actually didn't verify the height I didn't measure the height, but 33.7 reported to the top of the pole. This pole has an existing city light. There's no adjacent sidewalk. The base needs some cleanup. It looks like there's some tillings from the augering. And there's an existing, the existing dwelling is more than 50 feet away across the street. So it's Brookside Parkway. I didn't have any concerns with this one.
[Alicia Hunt]: Because this is Brookside Parkway and it's the poll, the address we were given is 0 Brookside Parkway, I'm having a bit of, oh, is this the one? Could somebody from Verizon confirm with me?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, you're looking at it.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's the one.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not great. And it looks like it's straight out of the 70s. There we go. That's much better. That one? Yes.
[Alicia Hunt]: And it's the existing pole, correct?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: The pole has actually been replaced at this point.
[Alicia Hunt]: So it's not the one we're looking at, but a newer pole is now located there?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Correct.
[Alicia Hunt]: OK. Oh yeah, this street here is from 2012. No wonder I thought I was looking at something in the 70s. And it'll be 35 feet high, and this is the location, and it's across the street from Holmes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's correct.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, as we go through each one, Anna, I'll remind you if we had any emails on these specific addresses. You should speak up, we may forget to ask you each time.
[SPEAKER_08]: All right, actually for this one, we did have an email, but it looks like we also have the person emailed here. Cindy, would you be willing to speak or would you like me to read off your comments? You can just chat or raise your hand. Great, I'll read off the comments then. So Cindy Simas, resides at 205 Brookside Parkway. And first, she had a question of if her service will be interrupted during the upgrade.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: No, there would be no interruption in service.
[SPEAKER_08]: Fantastic. And then she had two comments. First, she was concerned about the effects to the environment and people's houses. And she also would not like any equipment to be placed on her street or that close to her house. So she opposes displacement.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think we hear her comment. I think those questions were answered earlier. And we can't say no just because somebody doesn't want them on the street. There's no ADA reason not to approve this. There's no aesthetic reason. There's no distance reason.
[Tim McGivern]: And it's correct. So I would just await a motion at this point.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So yeah, it's going to go on the top of that pole and the distance from.
[Tim McGivern]: 33.7 is the ground to top of pole.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's the height. And the distance to the homes is clearly further than that. Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with our standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Do you have a second? I'll second. All right. Roll call vote. Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[Nina Nazarian]: It appears like she may be having some... Oh, internet. She looks frozen.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're going to have to wait a minute.
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, she might be logging back in.
[Tim McGivern]: Coming up on our break too, so I'm looking forward to that.
[Alicia Hunt]: In the spring, didn't she have a power outage during one of our meetings?
[Paul Mochi]: Yeah, same problem, exactly, yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it's just a little deja vu.
[Alicia Hunt]: We want to take our five minute break now. it's 745 and allow her to log in. And she doesn't get it.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Of course, saving as last time brings up the ironic idea of coverage. Anyway, if only coverage were better.
[Nina Nazarian]: I'm messaging with her right now. And she said she lost internet. And I'm just trying to seek clarification if it's all together or if she's able to log back on.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, well, maybe we'll take our five minute break now. Are folks okay with that, committee? Yeah, that's fine.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It is now, just switched to 746.
[Tim McGivern]: So we'll meet back here at 751. Sound good? Sounds good, sir. Thank you. All right. Ready? Mary Ann able to make it back?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: I don't see her.
[Paul Mochi]: I just sent her a text, Tim, to see what's going on.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, here she is. Oh, good.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Hey, we have her. Is that you, Marianne?
[Nina Nazarian]: And then she was going to try to enter by her cell phone, so it looks like she's still connected.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Tim McGivern]: We got we got your Marianne.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm here. I'm on my phone. Oh, great. Curious that this only happens to me doing my Verizon 5g. So I'm kidding. I'm kidding.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, I'm not sure when it cut off for you, but we opened the vote for Brookside Parkway, the roll call vote. So we had a yes from Alicia, a yes from Paul, and then you are up.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. And I vote yes as well. So that's an approval with conditions for Brookside Parkway, application 24. All right, next one is, West Street, it's another zero, but it's that one. Pins right on it. This one's on utility pole 1110. It's reported to be 34.8 feet to the top of the pole. No city assets on this pole. Appears to meet ADA clearances. existing dwelling more than 50 feet away across the street. So there it is right there. That is the poll. So now we will take any site-specific comments. Actually, is there any discussion from the committee before we go into any site-specific comments? All right, and do we have anybody raising their hand for this one?
[SPEAKER_08]: No, and there are no comments in the email either.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so at this point we are awaiting any discussion or a motion from the committee.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve zero West Street pole 1110 with standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, do we hear a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right, and roll call vote. Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann? Uh oh.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Oh, is she a co-host?
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann, can you hear us?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thank you, now you can, now it was unmuted, yeah. I couldn't unmute myself before, can you hear me now? I just made a comment.
[Tim McGivern]: I can hear you.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Okay, yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, okay. And I'm a yes, so that's approved with conditions, application number 54. All right, 39 Charnwood Road is next. This is on utility pole 5099, 34.3 feet to the top of the pole. There's an existing city light on this pole. The base concrete is missing. It does appear to meet 88 clearances and it's 22 feet to an existing dwelling, which is two stories. This is the more of the typical type.
[SPEAKER_08]: If there are no questions from the committee, there are a few comments on this one.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_08]: So there's three oppositions. There's one from Elson Ekden-Genzer at 16 Greenleaf, one from Emra Genzer at 16 Greenleaf, and then one from Carol Valenti-Passey at 18 Greenleaf Avenue, and they all oppose this on the grounds of environmental and health issues.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, and are those via email or are those via chat?
[SPEAKER_08]: Those are via email.
[Tim McGivern]: Via email, okay. And do we have anybody, first, do we have anybody on the committee who would like to discuss this location before we see if there's anybody from the public?
[Alicia Hunt]: I just would like Verizon to confirm that the one I have on the screen is correct. Some of them are a little harder to figure out.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: That's correct. Okay. It is.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And that's above the height of the residential dwelling.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it's a two-story dwelling.
[Paul Mochi]: It's kind of like a one and a half type of bungalow. Tim, what did you say the horizontal distance to that was? I'm sorry, I didn't remember what you said there. 22 feet. 22 feet, okay, thanks.
[Tim McGivern]: And all those measurements are approximate. And I did them using Google Earth. I didn't measure all of these with a measuring tape. And also, I should mention to you that Verizon included these measurements as well. So a lot of these I confirmed. So anyway, do we have anybody with their hand up from the public who would like to speak?
[SPEAKER_08]: It doesn't look like there are any.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Thank you very much. So now we will just await a motion. Any further discussion from the committee?
[Alicia Hunt]: All right. I move approval with our standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: OK. Thank you. Do I hear a second?
[Alicia Hunt]: Second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right.
[Tim McGivern]: And roll call vote. Alicia Hunt?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul Moki? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. is on utility pole 5711. The reported measurement at the top of the pole is 29 feet, no signs, no light, no city assets. The base concrete is missing and a sidewalk panel is cracked. So there'll need to be a new panel with an expansion joint for this pole. Appears to meet ADA clearances and it's 24 feet to an existing three-story dwelling.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Um, I have it's so it doesn't make the 33 feet minimum height.
[Tim McGivern]: It is 29 feet to the top of the ball.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I object because I want the 33 feet minimum. Although I know our policy has a typo right now that says 10 feet instead of 10 meters, it should be 33 feet. That's what all the recommendations are for health and safety. So I will not approve of this site.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, any other discussion on this one from the committee before we open up to public?
[Paul Mochi]: I just want to, same thing with me, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to approve this because of the height either. Okay.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Can I just be clear? You're not approving it for health and safety reasons. Is that what's being said? There is no 33 foot height minimum health and safety standard. We talked about that the last time. an actual requirement for wireless facilities or for small cells?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Well, it is for me.
[Tim McGivern]: Well, I know that we did talk about this before. The 10 meters did come from somewhere and I don't know specifically where it came from. And I know that policy is 10 feet. And I agree that I think the movement was the changes to 10 meters, but that's not what it says now. And anyway, so I'm not sure we can, I'm not sure what the grounds would be if we were to- They can file an objection if they'd like,
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: Well, I can clarify a bit if you if you would like.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, if you can clarify a bit. Yeah. And then we'll move to public comment.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: And then, okay, so I believe that this figure is coming from the FCC guidance for local governments.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Exactly. Right.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: So there is this reference to 10 meters. And I'm just looking it up now. It's, there's some, unfortunately some very bad wording in the document they talk about categorically excluding certain equipment. And what I would mean by that is absolutely this is excluded and what they mean by it is something is excluded from further consideration, if it falls into a certain category. that the thing that delineates that is the 10 meters. So things above 10 meters are categorically excluded, meaning you don't even have to consider them. And what that means is that things below 10 meters are still okay. It's just that they need to be discussed more thoroughly. That's what the guidance is saying.
[Paul Mochi]: So the 10 meters is an FCC recommendation, is that correct?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_12]: It's a distance above which you don't even have to think about the equipment. That's what they're saying.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay. So I think if we're discussing earlier FCC standards, why they're safe to go in, I think we have just as much right to discuss FCC standards for why we don't want to approve any of these specific sites.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we would just if, if the committee votes to deny it, we have to have a specific reason to deny it. And we have to, we have to know what that reason is. So I don't.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm going by the guidelines for what they recommend for local municipalities, and that's all we have to go on, we don't have another leg to stand on at this point. So, for any of this so it makes all of this really frustrating but so the guidelines, the guidelines that they put out, at least we can adhere to that. And hopefully in the future amend policy that typo to to reflect the 10 meters as opposed to the 10 feet.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, so for now, I'm going to go with the guidelines that we have because it's all we have, we don't have any other, you know, these meetings make you really frustrated because there's nothing really that, you know, we, you know, just throwing it out there but we could condition it to be 33 feet high so like a pole extension or something like that. Well, we'll take it for a vote and see where it lands.
[Nina Nazarian]: Before the committee votes, perhaps the committee could ask council to provide some guidance or provide some input.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, we can do that. Should we hear the public first, if there's anyone from the public, and then we'll dive into that to see if there's public that wanna speak on this one. Anna, we have any public?
[SPEAKER_08]: No, I don't see any comments.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Mr. Chair, I'd love to hear what your counsel says, and I'd also like a chance to address it after she's spoken. Sure, absolutely. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Yep, totally cool. All right, so Robin, could you give us an opinion regarding the 10 meter offset, if you have that, and the guidance, if you have one on that?
[Robin Stein]: Sure, so let me just unmute myself there. Again, and I think Tim already said this, to the extent that, well, first of all, you know, we've already discussed the general concept that you can't apply local regulations to materially prohibit the services. But in addition to the extent that you were to deny them based on some ground, it would need to be found within your local policy. And I'm looking at the aesthetic requirement antenna section of your local policy that does say that, it needs to be at least 10 feet above ground level at its lowest point. And this is on page three of the policy. So, you know, obviously I can't predict what would ultimately happen in a court, but it at least sounds as though you are contemplating denying this for a reason that's not stated in your local policy.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Right, and that local policy is a typo that we've been asking to be corrected, and needs to be corrected and obviously wasn't done in time for these applications, but 10 feet makes absolutely no sense. And we all know that so it should be 10 meters in that policy. And it's not so I agree with that and we're at this point where our hands are probably tied but that needs to be addressed and addressed. Now, so.
[Robin Stein]: The other comment I was going to make is perhaps it's worth a discussion of the chairman suggested about whether or not it's possible to get a little bit of extra height on this poll, because it does seem like it's pretty close. I think that's a good suggestion to discuss.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, and so that is my suggestion to deal with this one. But Mr. I'm all my saying that right.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah. Yeah, thank you for that. Yes, and I'm looking at this local officials guide to RF and I do agree with Dr Swanson, that it's poorly written in a sense and it's, you know, it probably is to somebody who's not in this field. could be read in a lot of different ways. But what this is talking about is whether a tower, it's page six to seven of this document, which was published, I guess, republished in June 2nd, 2000. And it's pages six to seven of this document. And what it's talking about is what facilities are required to conduct a federal environmental assessment, an EA under the federal NEPA statute. And as Dr. Swanson talked about it, it uses the terms categorically excluded. So what it talks about is the exclusion is for facilities that by their nature are highly unlikely to exceed the guidance, the guideline limits, the FCC standards. And they have a few different categories of things that are categorically excluded. The first one, which is in the middle page seven, it says if all the channels operated by the licensee at a site is 1000 watts or less. I think we heard Dr. Swanson say that a small cell like this is something like 20 or 30 watts. I'll let him correct me if that's wrong. But the threshold here for the first category of exclusion is 1000 watts or less. If you are not excluded on that basis, in other words, if you're 1000 feet or more, then it says, in addition, a cellular facility is categorically excluded regardless of power if it is not on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters above ground level. So it would only be if you had a thousand watts or more that you'd need to worry about whether you were categorically excluded because you weren't 10 meters above the ground. If you were under a thousand meters, a thousand watts, you never get to that question because you're categorically excluded anyway. That's how that structure is set up. So, I wonder, I don't know what Verizon's thought is about about extending the poll. If they're willing to do that, I guess that resolves the problem. If not, I guess I have another suggestion, which is maybe if you went past this one for the time being and moved on to some others, and then if we're able to close things out tonight. you could come back to it, but if there's going to be a continuation, which I hope there won't be, you know, this would be one to continue so we can, you know, give you more information on this if need be. But if the pull top works for Verizon, the pull extension, maybe that's the way to resolve this.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, thank you. So yeah, I would ask that question to Verizon if it's possible to extend it up to at least 33.3 feet, which is 10 meters.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Hey Tim, it's John. Yes, as a condition of approval, we would mount a pole top extension here if required, requested of us.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. So, With that said, we gave the public an opportunity. We received a response that a condition to say at least 33.33 feet or 10 meters is acceptable to Verizon. So any motions that the committee brings up, just please include that with our standard conditions. And with that said, we can have this one open for a motion.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'll put forward a motion to accept with the pole extension to above 33 feet.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, do we hear a second? And also, sorry, Marianne, and the standard conditions as well? Yes, and the standard conditions as well.
[Paul Mochi]: Okay. Marianne, that's a minimum of 33 feet, so the specific condition you're adding to this site, correct? Minimum 33? Correct.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Is that a second, Paul?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll second it.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Alicia seconds, okay. And we'll call vote. Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim? Yes. Approved with standard conditions plus a condition that sets a minimum height of 33.33 feet, which is equivalent to 10 meters above grade. Okay, the next one is Gorley Road, application number 58, utility pole 1799, 33.4 feet to the top of the pole. Base concrete is missing, cleanup, expansion joint. One city street sign, the Gorley Road street sign is on it. That's right, that one in the corner. It appears to me to 88 clearances and more than 75 feet to dwellings and 35 feet to the edge of the tennis court. Some approximate measurements there. So discussion by the committee.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll move approval with our standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, just hold on. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to comment on this one here?
[SPEAKER_08]: I don't see any raised hands or comments and there are no comments over email.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, I'll open the floor to a motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: We hear a second? I'll second.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Oh, go ahead.
[Tim McGivern]: I'll give it to Paul.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: I'll beat you, Miriam.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That's fine.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so bring it to a vote, Alicia?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I am a yes. That one passes, Gorley Road, application 58 with standard conditions. Next one is Fleming Street, 18 Fleming Street, application number 59. All right, so this one, utility pole 2726, 29.5 feet to the top of the pole. So Marianne, that one's under the 33.3. And then this one, I field checked this one, because it wasn't clear if it was ADA accessible, the passing around it. And it is actually not. So if you show the bottom there, Alicia, to the bottom of the pole. The pole is actually in the ADA walkway of the driveway apron. So the pole is actually an obstruction to ADA clearances for the sidewalk. So this is not ADA compliant, this one.
[Paul Mochi]: How far are they off, Tim? Do you know roughly?
[Tim McGivern]: Well, yes, it's about 16 inches of clear path that's less than 2% by the pole. So at a pinch point, it's supposed to be 36 inches. So basically, it's kind of hard to tell, but you can see where the driveway slopes down. That's more than 2%. So the three to four feet of sidewalk that is the walkway goes from the back of the walk to where that warp begins to slope down to the street. So this pole in and of itself would be considered and classified as an obstruction to the accessible route over this driveway apron. So this pole doesn't meet the standards of the policy. There's three city signs on it and one city light, and it's about 20 feet from existing dwellings right there. It's about equally spaced between those. Actually, it might have been close to a little bit. One of them in those buildings are two stories in height.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right. I guess I feel like we need to ask Verizon to consider another poll. That one looks like it's on Tufts property. It's not obstructing an ADA. And I definitely have a problem with a pole that is an obstruction to the sidewalk that is a problem for us. We would prefer to have, we would like to have that pole moved. I see, I understand the wires. It's not gonna be easy for anybody to move that pole because look at all, not impossible though, but.
[Tim McGivern]: If you go down the street to the left of the screen to the next pole, The next pole represents what a typical ADA accessible pole or a non obstructed pole would be. So you can see between back of sidewalk and the pole is your minimum three foot clearance. That looks probably about closer to four or five. And then on our side, the camera side of the pole, it slopes down the driveway apron. So that's actually a better spot for a pole. It's not the greatest, but. No, but at least that one actually has a walkway past it that's ADA accessible.
[Alicia Hunt]: And that from the pole to that fence is three feet?
[Tim McGivern]: I didn't measure that one specifically, but just looking at it, it looks like it's probably about four or five feet, actually. Wow.
[Alicia Hunt]: Not a good judge of distance. Can we ask Verizon to reconsider which poll they're using on the street? Because I've heard in the past all the reasons they can't use a poll and this one, it doesn't have transformers on it, it doesn't have any of those other things that have been a problem for them.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Sean or Jason, do you know anything about this other poll?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Harmon Zuckerman, PB – Peter Vitale PB, He, Him, His): I don't know if you could take a look at that. Well, I think part of what our, our measurements in the field where we didn't calculate that downslope. So we thought that this one was in the middle of the sidewalk where that other one is to the side, leaving enough space for people to get by. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – Peter Vitale PB, He, Him, His.: : We could certainly look into this pole. Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Peter Vitale PB, Humane Solutions, City of Boulder
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I think it would have to be a different application and all that, but I think... It would be six to 12 months to come back for this location. We have to go through applications with the utilities and have to do their surveys and all that. So this one goes away, it goes away for a while so we can get it refiled with the utilities and then back into you guys.
[Tim McGivern]: Gotcha, gotcha. And I would say it does seem like a fine point, but ADA, there are no fine points. It's usually black and white. So, and it's definitely the poll you guys selected. Unfortunately, it is not in a spot that I can approve as far as ADA access goes. So anyway, with that said, is there anybody here from the public that would like to speak on this particular one?
[SPEAKER_08]: There is one comment from Cindy Simmons. And she said my thoughts exactly. If it's not good for Verizon, why is it good for people walking by? Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. So I think this one is easy in my mind. So I'll ask them.
[Alicia Hunt]: Would Verizon be willing to withdraw that one because it's not ADA compliant rather than making us vote it down?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I've got to ask Sean if that's OK, but I think so.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yes, that would be fine, Mike. Thank you.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Okay, there we go. So, Mr. Chairman, we request to withdraw this application so we can consider another poll.
[Tim McGivern]: Thanks. Thank you very much. Application withdrawn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, moving on to 24 Pearl Street, application number 60. So this is utility poll 6053. 34.7 feet to the top of the pole. The base of the pole needs to clean up from the install. Loam and seed needs to be freshened up or concrete with an expansion joint. Either one is fine for this one. It appears to meet 88 clearances and there is an existing city light and it's about 28 feet from existing dwelling. Just three stories, you can see it there. So with that said, discussion by the committee.
[Alicia Hunt]: Am I showing the right poll? I'm not sure that I am.
[Tim McGivern]: I believe you are. Yeah, that one looks correct. That does look like the correct poll. Yes, I can confirm that.
[Alicia Hunt]: I just see a fire hydrant in your images, and I'm not seeing that here. Oh, there it is. It's actually a matter of perspective and a chair.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: It's next to the chair.
[Tim McGivern]: That's a good looking hydrant right there.
[Alicia Hunt]: Nice and painted. So when we say this poll is 34, 35, 34.7 feet to the top.
[Tim McGivern]: And then, you know, that condition about cleaning up the base is going to apply for this one as well. So a lot of these, I think, you know, they put in new polls in anticipation of, of this, it's what it looks like anyway. So anyone from the public have a comment on this one?
[SPEAKER_08]: There is a public comment that was submitted through email on this from Claudette Callery at 217 Main Street, and she's opposed to the placement of equipment near her home.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Thank you very much, Anna. And then if there's no further discussion by the committee, I can await a motion.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve this with standard conditions.
[Alicia Hunt]: And they have to clean up the, or that's part of our standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, that's part of the standard.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're just making a special note on this one. Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. That was Alicia seconding and we'll take it for a roll call. Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I am a yes. Application number 6024 Pearl Street is approved with general conditions. Next application is 26 Royal Street. It's application number 61. It's on utility pole 4659, 35 feet to the top of the pole. There is a one-way sign in an existing city light. It appears to meet 88 clearances, about 30 feet to the closest dwelling. And it could use a new one-way sign. So my suggestion for condition is going to be a new one-way sign on this.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with our standard conditions and a new one-way sign on it.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, just hold on one second. Let's see if we have any people from the public who would like to speak on this one.
[SPEAKER_08]: We have one question submitted through email that I believe was already answered, but... Sorry, I lost it. Bonnie Wargo at 56 College said there's already a 5G poll. I'm George here on the corner. Why do we need another one so close by? But I believe that was already answered by Verizon.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Yeah, I would agree. Okay. I think Alicia, we're ready for your motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with the addition of our standard conditions and a new one-way sign on the poll.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Before we move forward, Verizon, any objections to a new one-way sign on the poll?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: We do not object to that condition.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. Do I have a second on that motion?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: No second. I beat you this time, Paul.
[Tim McGivern]: Quicker to the punch there. Marianne second and roll call vote. Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul? Yes. Marianne? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. All right, so 26 Royal Street, application 61 is approved with conditions, standard conditions, plus a new one-way sign to be secured to the pole. Okay, next one is 40 Ashland Street, application number 63, utility pole 189, 39 feet to the top of the pole. There's an existing permit parking sign and an existing city light. Base concrete is missing, panel is cracked. Replace panel and expansion joint for the pole. Any discussion by the committee?
[Alicia Hunt]: It looks like this was taken during, is this the pole?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, it's in transition.
[Alicia Hunt]: Is it a double poll? This photo is from November 2020.
[Tim McGivern]: It's the same condition that's in the application. So this is a poll in transition. You can see that the old poll is on some brick pedestal there. And it looks like the communications companies still got to maybe do their transition. Looks like power is done. This would be that double pole condition. So it's prohibited in the policy and we have a condition for it. So they would have to have this completely transitioned to a single pole and the double pole removed before they can put up the 5G equipment. So that is covered in one of our standard conditions.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And when it's replaced, it would be the same height as it is now or?
[Tim McGivern]: They'd have to do it to the application, which is 39 feet to the top of the pole. So the new pole, Marianne, is the tall one, and the old pole with the X on it is the one that they are phasing away. Okay, thank you. Yep.
[Alicia Hunt]: Marianne may be viewing these on her phone.
[Tim McGivern]: I am.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so let's see if there's any public comment for this one.
[SPEAKER_08]: There's one comment submitted through email from Tom Fitzpatrick at 38 Ashland Street. He's opposed to 5G open being placed near his home.
[Tim McGivern]: Thank you. And I think folks can see there's a one-way sign and there's a no parking sign. Those would go back the way they are, which is OK by me. This one, the quality of the sign is not poor like that other one. So I have no issues. So I'm just waiting on a motion.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve this with the standing conditions.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second. and that includes the pole, obviously. Right.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, the standard conditions require the double pole to be completely transitioned away before installation.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And I agree too.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. And all right, roll call vote.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Alicia? Yes. Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And me, yes. So application number 63, 40 Ashton Street is approved with standard conditions. Next one is 23 Woodrow Avenue, number 65, application 65, utility pole 1554, 38.8 feet to the top of the pole. There's an existing city light, 20 feet to the closest structure, appears to meet 88 clearances.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: That I believe is the one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I can see the poll number.
[Alicia Hunt]: All right, I don't see any. I have no concerns.
[Tim McGivern]: Any other discussion points from the committee? No. We'll go to public. Any public comments on this one?
[SPEAKER_08]: There are no public comments on this one.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so just a weight of motion.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with their standard conditions.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Can we hear a second?
[Nina Nazarian]: Second. Second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: I put a P. Second. All right, roll call vote. Alicia? Yes. Paul?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Mary Ann? Yes. And yes, application number 6523 Woodrow Avenue is approved with standard conditions. Next application is 163 Forest Street, application 66. Utility pole number is 4167, 33.4 feet to the top of the pole. There's a street sign, the faded seal. I'm gonna recommend that that be replaced. The base is a mess from the auger. Appears to meet ADA offset clearances, 38 feet to the closest structure.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Go ahead, Alicia. I'm sorry.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was just going to say, this is the most congested pole I've ever seen the mask for so far. It doesn't look that congested. Is this it? Is this the right one?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: poles across the street, Alicia.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. I was going to say, it doesn't match exactly. Thank you. This looks more like a pole they would choose.
[Tim McGivern]: That's the one.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Tim, did you say the base was a mess?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, this is Tillings from the augering there. So, but they have to restore the base as a general condition.
[Alicia Hunt]: You mean the ground, not the poles base, not the bottom part portion of the pole. You mean the ground around the pole?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, exactly. Yep. Yep. You can see the results of the augering there. So, but that's, again, that's a standard condition for them to restore that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Needs somebody to adopt that storm drain there.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Yeah, and if you could see the street sign there, see that white circle? That's Medford's seal, so that one's faded. So I was suggesting if Verizon opened to it to replace that sign with a new one without a faded seal. Would you guys have any objection to that?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: We can do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so with that said, do we have public comment on this?
[SPEAKER_08]: Sorry, yes, there are a few public comments on this that came through email. We have three comments opposing replacement of the 5G tower near people's homes. Arianna Chappin from 67 Clifton Street, Joseph Twomey from 67 Clifton Street, and Jim and Anne Girolamo from Grover Circle.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you, Anna. Anybody here wish to speak? Any hands up? No, okay. All right, with that said, unless there's further discussion, the floor is open for a motion from the committee. And I would say in the motion, please reference standard conditions plus condition specific to replace the street sign with a new one, the Forest Street sign.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'd like to acknowledge that we hear that the residents don't want it, but there are no grounds for us to deny this location regardless. Yes. Make a motion to approve it with the condition of replacing the forest street nine with a new, new one. Um, and our standard conditions.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll second that motion.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Thank you, Paul. And roll call vote, Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann? Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And me, yes. So 163 Forest Street, application 66 passes with conditions, standard conditions, plus a new Forest Street sign with a seal, city seal, okay. Next one is 199 Forest Street, application number 67. The pole is actually on Valley Street, right around the corner. It's utility pole 1834. The top of the pole is reported at 34.8 feet. There's no signs, but there is a light on this one. And the base needs an expansion joint. There's no expansion joint. And that one actually, we should zoom in on it to see, yeah. So that one, the concrete looks fine, but there's no expansion joint. So I'm gonna suggest that as a condition that an expansion joint be installed. And that's to protect the rest of the concrete panel around it if it shifts, which they do. So that's gonna be my suggestion for this one. Do we have any other discussion from the committee?
[Alicia Hunt]: I assume there's no problem with the ADA compliance. It's right at the car also, but it's not obstructing it in any way. Is that correct?
[Tim McGivern]: That is correct. Yeah, it's not obstructing the passageway of the walkway. 34.8. Any comments from the public?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, there's one from Carol Gordonstein at 6 Cook Circle, who's opposed to being placed on this particular utility pole because it is close to her driveway and has lots of electrical wiring that could come down in a storm.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't think any more than any other pole necessarily.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I would actually say that this is a lower amount of wiring, usually, than you see in the poll. Anyway, the comment is heard, for sure.
[Alicia Hunt]: Move approval with our standard conditions, plus the emphasis of needing to put the expansion joint on this one.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, OK.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so that's a second from Marianne. And just to clarify, Alicia, that condition was to install an expansion joint, is that correct? All right, do I hear a... I should have asked Verizon if they're okay with that, but they have to be, it's a standard thing. So the poles need expansion joints to protect our sidewalk, so should be there anyway. All right, so we'll take it to a vote. Roll call, Alicia.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And me? Yes. So 199 Forest Street, application 67 is approved with standard conditions plus one special condition to install an expansion joint at the base. All right, next application is 12 Fulton Street. Application number 68, utility pole number 156. The top of the pole is at 34 feet above grade. No city assets on this one, no signs, no lights. Appears to meet ADA offsets. The base of the pole, let me read my own writing. Base of the pole needs concrete cut out with expansion joint. If existing adjacent panels are cracked, they should be replaced. Okay. So I want to look at this one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry.
[Alicia Hunt]: This is what you're looking at. Oh, this image is split. Sorry. Oh yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Okay. So this, yeah. So this one, it's got just a messy bottom. So I just want to read our condition.
[Alicia Hunt]: And is that enough space? Is it clear?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: So our condition says that the ground surface at the base of the pole must be in or restored to good condition. This includes repairing concrete sidewalk to city standards. So I would say for this one, that would include the whole panel because the panel is cracked and they would need to cut out for an expansion joint anyway. So that panel would need to be replaced. So I think from a condition standpoint, we can just specifically say that the panel needs to be replaced that it's in. Unless Verizon has any objections. Any public wanna speak for this one? Oh, I'm sorry. This one is closer to that structure than some of the other ones. It's 15 feet basically from that structure. count the entryway there from the home, 15 feet for what it's worth. So anyone from the public on this one, Anna?
[SPEAKER_08]: There are no public comments on this one.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so with that said, any further discussion from the committee or?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: It's above the height of the residence. And okay, this is gonna be a really silly thing, but the metal pole that doesn't,
[Tim McGivern]: That the riser?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yeah. That doesn't qualify it as like a double pull or anything, right? No.
[Tim McGivern]: No, that brings things up and down from the pole. So when you see risers like that, it's either bringing a service down to a home or a business, or it's transitioning from underground mains to overhead mains. So this one probably is a service or something. We'll actually know that. So I'm not exactly sure what it is, but they're pretty standard features on poles.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. Cause it looks like speed up a little bit. Yeah. I mean, we could have a, that could be a condition to clean up the riser as well.
[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, the image here is so bad. I was trying to get one that didn't involve the double it making it look like the plate Paul was split.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. You go to the other side of it.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's the side you want to see with the riser that makes it look like it's a ghost.
[Tim McGivern]: What if you go one step that way?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So the base needs to be addressed then, right? Exactly, too, right?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm suggesting, that the base be restored, including the panel that it's in. So that's a good example of risers that we'd want to clean up. This one is kind of borderline. It looks like a functional riser.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: I could share a picture if you want that's not split. Okay, yeah, if you want to share a picture, that'd be great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, stop share for a sec. There you go. Let's see.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Can you guys see the picture?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes. Much better, thank you.
[Tim McGivern]: Any idea what that the black capped thing is next to the riser? I'm not sure to be honest with you.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Okay, me neither. Well, I think for communications, but we can look into what the capped
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I was gonna say, I'll suggest not only the panel replacement, but for this one to determine if that's something abandoned and if it is, it should be removed. So unless there are any objections, I think that's pretty simple. If there's a use for it, I'd like to know what it is, but more importantly, if it's abandoned, it should be removed off the ball. I don't even know what to call it. That black thing that's next to the riser. Whatever it is messy. Yeah. So, so we get. So my suggestion for motion. I'm sorry, special condition would be. A clarification that the panel sidewalk panel should be replaced. This is basically a clarification on one of our conditions that exists for surface restoration. And then if the black capped riser, if it's abandoned or not in use, it should be removed. All right, so do we have any public comments on this one?
[SPEAKER_08]: No, we do not.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so with that said, the floor is open for motion.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve this with the standard conditions plus also that the panel, sidewalk panel be replaced and the black cap rises to be investigated and if it is not active or in use that be removed. Okay. How about everything with that, Tim?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, could we ask for a clarification that we'll remove it if we're allowed to do so, if it's ours or something we have permission to remove?
[Tim McGivern]: Yes, that's a good point. And if allowed to move. Thank you. You wouldn't be able to do it if you're not allowed. Okay. And when it's investigated, I'm sure you'll find out who owns it. So we'll at least have that information. Okay. All right. Do I have a second on that?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: A second. Oh, there you go, Alicia.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Okay. And roll call vote. Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Me. Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, 12 Fulton Street, application number 68 is approved with standard conditions, plus two specific conditions. One, to clarify that the surface restoration will include a new panel because the existing one is cracked. And if the black capped riser should be investigated and if horizon is allowed and it is inactive or abandoned, it should be removed. All right, next one is, 123 Grant Avenue, application number 71. This is a utility pole 1487. Top of the pole is at 37.8 feet above grade. I'm going to suggest that the slow children sign that's on it be replaced. The city has one light on it, appears to meet ADA offsets and it's about 30 feet to the closest home.
[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, maybe, I mean, I'm just not seeing a sign, a poll with slow children on it.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I think that's one of them. It's not, so in the application package, the sign is there, but on Google Street View, it is not. It is on the next poll down. So I don't know what happened.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, interesting.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: And do we have updated, like, MuttTV or whatever it is, have something that's better than slow children, like careful children or children at play?
[Tim McGivern]: Um, I don't know.
[Alicia Hunt]: I've always disliked slow children.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: You can, you know what I say to my son sometimes, son sometimes is you should raise the kids in this neighborhood because you'll win because it's slow.
[Alicia Hunt]: but you know that's a good this actually shows it says caution children oh caution children i'm much more comfortable with caution it's a little thing but i agree to replace it it is funny wording so slow children careful
[Tim McGivern]: I agree, but it's not on the, it is in the application. Is that the right poll? I do want to go by the application. I believe it is the right poll. Yeah, but something happened in between or I don't know. It's hard to know what happened, but the application shows the sign. So I want to go with what the application shows.
[Alicia Hunt]: And this poll number, we can see the poll 1487 here on the poll. So we know that that's the one.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, so I'm just going to pull the application.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: And the height on this one again, I'm sorry. Yep.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: The height is, uh, 37.8. Yep.
[Tim McGivern]: It's, I mean, it's also the right pole, um, here in the application package and it has the caution children sign on it. So.
[Alicia Hunt]: Somebody moved the sign.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it may have just been moved to a different poll. OK. So I mean, I don't know if there's supposed to be two out there or what, but I do want to go by what the application shows if it was moved. So that's my two cents on it.
[Alicia Hunt]: So we're asking for a new caution children sign. Yeah.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Mr. Chairman, can we say if it's supposed to be on the poll, we'll replace it?
[Tim McGivern]: We can do that. And I think I'm not sure how I've been thinking about that. I'm like, I'm not sure how to do that. So we can investigate through either the police or the traffic division. to see if they have knowledge of the sign. We don't have a per sign inventory in the city, so we can't look it up. So, but yeah, I would agree. Yeah, if it's supposed to be there, we can use that language.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I'm looking, you know, I am looking at these diagrams and it actually looks like the equipment is located where the sign was. And I wonder if the sign was moved in connection with that. I don't know, maybe Sean knows. In other words, the proposed equipment appears to be on the side where the sign is now.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, maybe it was pulled off of there in anticipation or something. I don't know. Yeah, hopefully not.
[Alicia Hunt]: I feel like that's why it would be nice to put one on this pole, because obviously the people in this neighborhood had one there. And usually people would not ask to have a cautioned children's sign. In fact, I'm looking at the, they've put their own little cautioned children's sign out in the road.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Robin Stein]: Tim, do you want to say that they'll replace it if feasible, and if required by the city's traffic. Not sure the right I think we did this last time on a couple of signs we defer to the was it the traffic coordinator or.
[Tim McGivern]: Traffic director of traffic and transportation. So we can do that. We could just defer to him on that. Cause there is another, I don't know if they relocated that or there is another one on the next poll. So, but if it's supposed to be there and the residents wanted it there and the city put it there, then it should go back there. So.
[Robin Stein]: Do you want to say feasible and required by the traffic?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I like that. If feasible and. About deemed appropriate.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, all right.
[Tim McGivern]: If appropriate, and per direction of the director of traffic and transportation. There might be an email file somewhere that says, that has a resident requesting it, that happened somewhat recently. I don't know. So let's have that loop closed before, before Verizon does anything. So I think that makes sense. If appropriate and per the direction of the director of traffic and transportation.
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: How does that sound? I think that's fine with Verizon. I just, I wanted to point out this Google street view is from November, 2020. It's quite possible that those pictures on the application predate November, 2020.
[Tim McGivern]: Gotcha, gotcha. Okay, well, I think regardless, I think we've worded this to see if we can suss it out, figure out what's supposed to be there and get it there if we need it, so. Okay. All right, with that said, there's no more discussion, public comment?
[SPEAKER_08]: There is no public comment.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, so with that said, any more discussion from the committee or open to a motion? And if you would like to include that condition in the motion, it's if the caution children sign is appropriate at this location and per the direction of the director of traffic and transportation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Alicia, so moved. Okay.
[Tim McGivern]: So we'll hear a second. And that's that motion included the standard conditions as well?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. Thank you. Just clarifying. We'll hear a second.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Marianne seconds that motion and roll call vote. Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Marianne?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Tim, yes. All right, so 123 Grand Avenue, application 71 is approved with conditions, standard conditions, plus one special condition that the caution children's sign be replaced if it's appropriate per the direction of the director of traffic and transportation for the city. Next one is Logan Avenue, no address. and it's application number 73, utility pole 4307. The top of the pole above grade is 33.5 feet. No signs, but there's a city light to remain. It appears to meet ADA offsets and it is next to a park and a playground. Logan Park right there. So it's actually the park. There's a tree there, kind of in the middle of the park. It's obscured by the tree there, so.
[Alicia Hunt]: Wait. It appears to be obscured by a fingerprint. So it's not that one.
[Tim McGivern]: There. I believe it's this one here. This one? I believe it's that one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, OK.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah. Let's double check.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I kicked my paperwork too, sorry.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, that's the one. That's the poll right there. So any discussion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's tall, it's far from houses.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's in a green space, so it's not blocking anything.
[Tim McGivern]: Any public comment, Anna?
[SPEAKER_08]: There are no public comments on this one.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. So the floor is open for any more discussion or a motion.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve with standard conditions. Do we have a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll second. Sorry.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Roll call vote, Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: And me, Tim? Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, Logan Avenue, number 73, application number 73 is approved with standard conditions. Next one is 83 Washington Street, application number 75. There's one more after this one. Let's check the time, nine o'clock, we're almost nine, so we're in good shape. Let's see, this is utility pole 3697, it's actually on Park Street. And it's the top of the pole is 33.8 feet above ground level. No signs, no city assets. It appears to meet ADA offsets, clearances. This is the one I did a while ago. And closest building is about 43 feet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, that's not it.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I don't know if you caught it, Alicia, but it's actually on Park Street. It's around the corner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So this is Park Street.
[Tim McGivern]: Oh, yeah, OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And it's not that one. So how far down is it?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Turn around.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Turn around.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: Yeah. Here? Yep, it's that first one right there. Oh.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's Washington Street. All right. It's. It's the red house.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: You don't have the pole in the picture. Now, let's see if it's right, right here across. There you go. That pole right in front of it. It's in front of the fence near the pseudo bridge.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This one?
[Tim McGivern]: There's a PVC fence on Park Street. There. So it's this one? Yeah, there you go.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, OK. So it's really that far down Park Street.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah.
[Paul Mochi]: So that is the pole right There, yep. And that looks a little tight, but you're okay with the ADA clearance on that?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it's right up against that. I didn't field check this one because it's right up against the back of the guardrail. And between the guardrail and the pass looks about five feet or so. Okay, that should be okay.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: It looks tight, but okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, they look tight. It's deceiving. But if you look at thousands of them, you start to, I walked down the street and I know for over 2% and we don't have that three foot clearance. So this one is good. And I should clarify too, when I do this, it's, you know, I say the word appear because, you know, You know, it's the proponent's job to confirm and make sure that all those 88 clearances are there. What I'm looking at, does it appear to meet those clearances, is really what I'm looking at. And I field check if I have a question.
[Alicia Hunt]: I think actually we're not showing their application on the screen, but the image in there is taken from a better angle that when you look at that angle with the person in there, it's clearly enough space.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. All right, so public comment on this one. Well, actually, I mean, there's more discussion, but Anna, if you want to check with this public comment, we can continue the discussion if needed.
[SPEAKER_08]: There is no public comment at this time.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, so with that said, we can continue discussion and the floor is open for a motion.
[Paul Mochi]: That looks like it's got plenty of clearance. I'll make a motion to, unless there's any other concerns by the committee, I'll make a motion to approve this with the standing conditions.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Was the base okay, Tim and you?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, it would fall under the standard condition of basic restoration. This one's a little patch of green space, so I'll probably need to brush it up a little bit.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Okay, so that's standard conditions, all right, okay.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, yeah, it's a general restoration of the surface. So if it's something like this, then that might, you may hit it with a rake or something, remove any of the large pebbles and cobbles Okay. All right, so we got a motion on the cable from Paul. Did we get a second?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'll second.
[Tim McGivern]: All right, Marianne seconds that motion. Roll call vote, Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Paul? Yes. Marianne?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I'm a yes as well. So 83 Washington Street, application number 75, approved with conditions, standard conditions. Okay, last one on the agenda for tonight. 59 Jerome Street, application number 82. The poll is number 872. The top of the poll is 34.1 feet above grade level, ground level. I did this one a while ago. It says there's an old Slow Children's sign on it. that we may want to replace. It appears to meet ADA offsets. Closest building is about 20 feet. I don't remember this one.
[Alicia Hunt]: I'm just triangulating here. I'll compare it to my paper notes. I had a non, not really a material question, but I was sort of curious why this one outlier way on the other side of Medford from all the others. I assume that means more will be coming over here, but it seemed odd.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree. That is a good question. Someone from Verizon want to address that, why this is an outlier in the West Medford area. Do you have a reason for that?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: Sean, do you know?
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_15]: No, I mean, we've filed applications with the utility companies and they work through them based on how we file. This one might've just got in front of some other applications. So we, you know, once we got our licenses, we're ready to move and get these things built.
[Tim McGivern]: Gotcha. So it could be a little bit of a foreshadowing for the next round. So, okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: So the base of that, is that what you would call an expansion joint, the way we're looking at it there?
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can we request that the slow children's sign be replaced with a caution children's sign? That does look like it's from the 1970s.
[Tim McGivern]: I agree with that suggestion. So when the motion comes up, include that. Does Verizon have any objections to that?
[MCM00001483_SPEAKER_22]: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay, thank you. So caution children. All right, so, when it comes time for a motion, I'll remind us of that. And do we have any public comment on this one? And discussion can continue, but any public? No? Okay. All right, so either continue the discussion or the floor is open to a motion and I would recommend that motion include the standard conditions plus a condition that says replace the older slow children's sign with a newer caution children's sign.
[Paul Mochi]: I'll make a motion to approve it.
[Alicia Hunt]: with the condition that they replace the slow children's sign with a modern new caution children's sign. And our standard conditions.
[Tim McGivern]: All right. Do I hear a second? Paul, you want to second that one? Yes, I do. I'll second it. All right. Wonder who got the most seconds tonight. Tally it up. All right. Roll call vote. Alicia? Paul?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Mary Ann?
[Paul Mochi]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: Amy, yes. So 59 Jerome Street, application number 82 is approved with standard conditions and one site-specific condition to replace the old existing slow children's sign with a new caution children's sign. And then the next item would be adjournment.
[Robin Stein]: Tim, before we adjourn, I don't know that it's necessary, but do you wanna just do entertain a motion to have the board authorize you to write up the decisions, consult with council if necessary and file them on behalf of the board?
[Tim McGivern]: That is a very good idea, thank you. And that is definitely something I'd like to, someone else would need to make that motion. But yeah, if committee members heard that and understood it, I would definitely entertain a motion like that, basically giving me the authority as the chair to write up these decisions and issue them without further committee involvement. So basically as an administrative task.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's how we did it last time.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah. All right, do we have a second?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Second.
[Tim McGivern]: Okay. And take a roll call vote. Alicia?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Mary Ann?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Amy? Yes. So just catching up with myself, writing down votes.
[Nina Nazarian]: And while you're writing, Tim, could Verizon please send us a copy of the presentation that was utilized today?
[Tim McGivern]: I'll make sure that happens.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you very much.
[Tim McGivern]: You're welcome. Awesome. And I think everybody knows too that this was recorded. So I need to go back for reference at all. And then, so, okay, so that passed. So I'll take care of the administrative task of issuing the decisions. All right. And the next item is adjournment. So I will entertain a motion for adjournment.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Motion to adjourn.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: All right, Marianne. Adjourn. Do we hear a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I second. We vote.
[Tim McGivern]: A second there. I like it. I like it. The double second. I'm going to note that down as Paul. I heard his voice first. And roll call vote.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Alicia?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001482_SPEAKER_19]: Paul? Yes. Marianne?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Yes.
[Tim McGivern]: And I will say yes as well. Thank you very much, everybody. It's 910. So I think much different than last time. I want to thank everybody for their patience. And yeah, the next phase is getting those decisions out. Thank you, Verizon. And thank you to members of the public who hung on