Legal & Legislative Committee — 2022-03-07
Attendance
Christopher Cinella ; Jen Grigoraitis ; Maya Jamaleddine ; Manjula Karamcheti ; Leila Migliorelli ; Robb Stewart
Agenda
- Call to Order
- Public Comment
- Orders
- ORDER-2022-66 : An Order Relative to Property Tax Relief for Active Duty Members of the National Guard (Item # 9604)
- Ordinances
- ORDNC-2022-1 : Amending Article I, Chapter 152-10, Licenses and Permits, General Provisions of the City of Melrose Code of Ordinances
- ORDNC-2022-2 : An Ordinance Relative to Small Wireless Facilities Installation in the Public Right Of Way
- Adjournment
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE LEGAL & LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE CALENDAR● MARCH 7, 2022 Web-based remote meeting Committee Meeting 7:03 PM , Melrose, MA 02176 The public should take notice that the Melrose City Council may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the City Council consisting of both voting and non-voting members. Members attending this duly posted meeting are participating and deliberating only in conjunction with the business of the standing committee. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Leila Migliorelli Chair Present Maya Jamaleddine Vice Chair Present Jen Grigoraitis Present Robb Stewart Present Manjula Karamcheti Present Christopher Cinella President, ex oficio Present Non voting members present include: Councilor Eccles, Councilor Garipay, Councilor MacMaster, Councilor Obremski and Councilor Williams.
ORDER-2022-66 Accepting Act of Legislature/Local Option An Order Relative to Property Tax Relief for Active Duty Members of the National Guard (Item # 9604) Hold
ORDNC-2022-1 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Article I, Chapter 152-10, Licenses and Permits, General Provisions of the City of Melrose Code of Ordinances Ought to Pass
ORDNC-2022-2 Ordinance An Ordinance Relative to Small Wireless Facilities Installation in the Public Right Of Way Ought to Pass City of Melrose Page 1 3/10/2022 12:42 PM
Transcript
▶ 0:02 Leila Migliorelli: 2022. This is a meeting of the Legal and Legislative Committee, and I'm Chairwoman Lila Migliorelli, and joining me tonight are Vice Chair Maya Jamaleddine, voting members, Councillors Stewart, Karamcheti, and Grigoraitis, and President Cinella Ex Officio. In lieu of roll call vote, this serves as notice of a quorum for the record. Also joining us tonight are non-voting members, Councillors Garipay, Councillors Obremski, Williams, and McMaster. Pursuant to an act extending certain COVID-19 measures signed by Governor Baker on June 16th, 2021, that extended the remote meeting provisions of his March 12th executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, this meeting of the legal and legislative committee will be conducted via remote participation. We will post a comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Melrose website and on MMTV3.org.
▶ 1:00 Leila Migliorelli: Now, I will motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. This is the portion of the meeting where anyone can speak on any of the items on our agenda tonight. Seeing no objection, we are now open for public comment. Mr. Clerk, is there anyone in queue? Just to for the public, if you wish to speak, please raise your digital hand. I believe there's some folks here ready to speak, but I'm not seeing any digital hands going up. Andrew, you're on mute. Are you talking Ms. Gonzalez? Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. No problem. Um, so I just wanted to thank you for your time. Um, I wanted to speak about the ordinance related to the small wireless facilities that are being installed around the city.
▶ 2:09 My husband and I did submit public comment, which you have record of in your agenda. um so i don't want to repeat what i've said in that comment however um what we wanted to share with you this evening is more about how um the ordinance as it's written doesn't necessarily apply to the um the antennas that are already up in the city so uh we do now have a wireless antenna right in front of our home and in just driving around the city you know i've seen some near the skate park on Tremont Street immediately behind the high school middle school complex and so as this bureaucratic process unfolds as it needs to um Verizon is acting really quickly to install these in our city and it's just concerning that they may act a little bit
▶ 2:58 faster than the city does in terms of addressing not only the new towers but the ones that are in place so I strongly encourage you if you have the chance to make some amendments to the ordinance it says it's written to take some consideration for the ones that are already up, because these are ones that do concern us as citizens, as residents of Melrose. And as I said in my comment, while you're acting and we appreciate that, it may be a little too late for some of us who are already now living, working, learning underneath some of these antennas. So thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez. Mr. Clerk, is there anyone else? There is. I am... I'm meeting melody. Can you hear us? Yes, can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you very much. Council.
▶ 3:57 I'm here tonight to discuss the small cell antenna. Ordinance as written overall, I'm very disappointed in the fact of the lack of transparency. I became aware of this subject myself as a new resident to the community two and a half years ago, notified the mayor's office and my local ward three at two and a half years ago that polls were being scouted and they were unaware of Verizon being even able to do that. Even just using public sidewalks and rights of way to measure and do some scouting. So that led us to contact the DPW, et cetera. But I have basically three main concerns about the existing ordinance as written. I think it's a rush right now. I think we can put a halt on things until we have the necessary items in place.
▶ 4:56 And we can leverage some of the wonderful language that's been included in California, Medford, I love theirs. And I've spoken to Shannon directly. The 1st thing is the approval process and the checks and balances necessary in the current ordinance. The language only includes the sole discretion of the city engineer. To approve these as well, just notification to the butters and notification to the ward counselor. I don't think that's enough. I can cite other towns. So the example I will use is the town of Medford. I can use others. They created this ad hoc small cell committee. That's a subcommittee that consists of multiple departments. So their checks and balances at the mayor's office receives the application, 12 copies.
▶ 5:47 They're circulated to the building commissioner, the engineer, the director of office community and development, the board of health, and any other department that the mayor determines in their sole discretion. I think that that type of language and that type of approval process, and I was asked how this approval process is determined, and it was kind of not really stated. The other checks and balances is that there's language that once there's a public hearing in Medford, that the ad hoc small cell committee can grant with conditions or deny any application at any point in time for inadequate capacity, structure, safety concerns, reliability, engineering standards, size, visibility, and et cetera, et cetera, residential
▶ 6:38 concerns and aesthetic considerations. I'm just wanted, I have this language. It's in the Medford. I'm happy to share it with you, but I think it, again, leaves us open as residents and as a town to address public concern and the city of Medford also which our ordinance is very lacking and specifications of the actual technology itself the size on the ground the size in the air and there's it basically has carte blanche that you can change at any point in time from time to time they can make aesthetic standards change pertaining to the size the equipment box the cabling any kind aesthetic from matching the color camouflage of the equipment on the ground etc that we are missing so that's my summary of um what i would say check and balances the next one i had was
▶ 7:31 setbacks the current language indicates that the antenna shall be placed no less than 20 feet from a residence window door or porch i just want the the counselors to all be aware that this is basically no setback because the antennas themselves average size is 20 to 60 feet so any antenna can be placed anywhere without any setbacks i think we need to discuss where this you meet an open meeting session need to discuss and clarify why 20 feet um just to give you an example i've seen many ranges between 300 feet from a residential 1,500 feet from a school. New Hampshire state law is proposing 1,600 feet from a private dwelling, 20 feet, which is nothing. As I mentioned, the setback is clearly nothing. If a pole is 20
▶ 8:26 feet, the antenna is going to be above the pole. So I think that our current language is not defined properly and locations should be prioritized. We don't have prioritization. we have some restriction language in there but first and foremost private dwellings should be not prioritized they should begin they have to prioritize a way you know that that's my other concern now the third and last final one is the community planning and develop of this type of scope of project as you're aware there's other projects that melrose has done they install 17 pole mounted uh ev car charters this is a huge undertaking we're not considering the amount that each carrier requires the location and the reservations that melrose needs for future
▶ 9:17 for use by the government and or other public sector into entities for the safety purposes and so i think we know we need to allow more prudent planning for our future needs of the town And then one other consideration that I apologize, I just missed. We shouldn't allow, we should need to put restrictions on renting, leasing, subletting, or signing any of these permits or applications by the applicant. I apologize, that should be under my section number two, clarification and termination of setbacks. Oh, and also one more thing, distance between the antennas. Most towns have a distance between the antennas. These antennas range approximately, from what I've read, 1,000 feet. We should have restrictions
▶ 10:00 Jen Grigoraitis: against the distance between them. And that's all I have to share. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, is there anyone else? We have one more speaker that I'm unmuting now. Great. Ms. Katie Welsh, do you hear us? Yeah, hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Good evening, everybody. Thank you so much for allowing public comment on this really important issue i'm logging in tonight as a mother of two little girls in the city and someone who cares really deeply about this community i strongly support the 5g ordinance as a means of regaining some local control over this unbelievable proliferation of 5g antennas across our city and in support of citizens who do not want and do not consent to these antennas being placed
▶ 10:51 Jen Grigoraitis: outside their bedroom windows and their children's schools i think whether you're concerned about antennas impacting property value which p.s they do the growing evidence of health and environmental concerns or just don't want a really ugly antenna blocking your view of the neighborhood i think we can all agree that melrose deserves more control over where these are installed you know we got a lot of pushback from the mayor's office and from the city that the telecommunications act of 1996 really prohibits or limits the actions of local governments, but that is actually not the case. There are a lot of things that our government can do to protect its citizens. In regards to the specifics of this ordinance, I would like to see this temporarily approved while we work on
▶ 11:38 Jen Grigoraitis: more comprehensive language that would take into consideration the proximity of these antennas to schools and homes. I also agree with the earlier speaker, I think it was Melody, that a cease and assist order to Verizon, which would not be the first one they've received in response to these 5G antennas would give Melrose more time to create an even more robust ordinance and process. We do also have access to nonprofit experts like those at the Americans for Responsible Technology who are working on this issue at a national level. And I would encourage the City Council to take advantage of these resources in continuing to refine the ordinance. Thank you so much for your attention to this really important issue we really really appreciate it thank you miss welch
▶ 12:25 we also have one more speaker all right uh miss richmond can you hear us i can hear you thank you um i'm beth ritzman here um i did provide public comments on i guess a public comment that was written i just want to echo some of the concerns of the other participants and public comments and just say how much i really appreciate you guys focusing on this because i'm also a mother of to just like the last speaker i'm new to melrose and bought a house and was really shocked when i found out like how easily um new technology like this could be installed with no oversight and really no real transparency so i think it's just critical that you establish a transparent process where residents really understand what's being installed really clear safety oversight how you
▶ 13:13 know compliance is going to be overseen by the city because there are federal safety standards but if if the companies don't think anyone's ever checking at their installation or when they're operating then that's a real problem and a real disservice to the citizens of melrose so i just want to say thank you so much for focusing on this um it seems melrose is a little late versus other places but you know it's not too late to get it right as other people have brought up so let's even if you pass this temporarily but work on something more comprehensive i think there's a lot of lessons learned from other communities about how to do this well so again thank you and please do move forward with this thank you thank you do we have anyone else in queue
▶ 13:56 Leila Migliorelli: this time i do not see anyone with their digital hand raised all right um so if there's an objection i'd like to close public comment seeing none public public comment is now closed um just to start off since we have some members of the administration here to join us tonight um i'd I'd like to motion by unanimous consent to suspend the rules before we proceed seeing no objection. The rules are now suspended. Is order 2022 dash 66 in order relative to property tax relief for active duty members of the National Guard item number 9604 sponsored by counselors, McMaster and Karen shady. I will let 1 of the 2 counselors speak about this order counselor McMaster. Thank you, Madam chair. Yeah, we just lost you a little bit, but go ahead.
▶ 14:53 Shawn M. MacMaster: Now, we can't hear you. Yes, you have to get really close. As you know, I'm an unvoting member of this committee. The sponsor. In order to. Did you lose me? Yeah, you're still glitching a little bit. Is that any better? I feel like I'm very close to the end. That's very much better, but yes, you are close. It's fine. Go ahead. As under Rule 20, as you know, Madam Chair, even though I'm a non-voting member of the committee, I am able to introduce the order. I'm going to stop short of completely introducing it and just for the record, make sure that the committee understands that Consular Karmashadi and I are in ongoing discussions with the administration over this order. What we have learned is that there is an ordinance that was accepted in 2012 that conflicts somewhat
▶ 15:54 Shawn M. MacMaster: with this order and it would cap the percentage of the abatement that Council of Commerce Shady and I are seeking. In talking with the administration, I think we can work around that, but we'd like a little bit more time, Madam Chair, in order to talk with the assessor and have some continued conversations with the city solicitor. So I would defer Madam Chair to Councilor Karamcheti to make that motion. Thank you. Yes. Based on this information that we have, I'd like to make a motion to hold in committee while we continue our conversations on how to move forward in the best way possible. Motion to hold in committee made by Councilor Karamcheti, seconded by President Cinella. Mr. Clerk, can you call the roll, please?
▶ 16:45 Leila Migliorelli: Certainly. demolition councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor stewart yes councillor karen shady yes president sanella yes and chair migliorelli yes that's unanimous all right thank you much this order will be held in committee um next on our agenda tonight is ordinance 2022-1 amending article 1 chapter 152-10 licenses and permits general provisions of the city of melrose court of code of ordinances um mr clark can you bring in city solicitor phillips i see her there and um i'll just briefly lead off saying that i had sponsored this ordinance change upon recommendation of the city solicitor who had done some research on our ordinances and noticed that in 1996 the board of aldermen then had accepted massachusetts general law chapter 40 section 57 but did not
▶ 17:54 formally adopt it in the form of an ordinance so the goal tonight is to make sure that our ordinances reflect um that we did accept the statute so i will turn it over to city solicitor phillips and let her um describe this in more detail uh you need to unmute miss i apologize I forgot I was automatically muted. Um, so through the chair, uh, yes, that's correct. So 40 section 57 MGL. So that was accepted. By the board of algebra of Melrose back in, um, 1996, I believe as chairman literally represented. Um, that statute has an input, it requires an implementation ordinance. So if you read the language that was attached to this item on the agenda. This statute allows for cities or towns, which accept its provisions to adopt an ordinance. It appears that there was every intention at the time to make this part of the ordinances, but there was never any actual ordinance that was ever adopted.
▶ 18:57 So, to correct this and make sure we're on clear legal footing moving forward, I drafted language of an ordinance to reflect the current state of law on this. And basically, this, this law allows generally for anyone owing money to the city that they would be denied a license or a permit from a city department prior to paying to the city. What is owed? So that's sort of a general representation. You can see the text of the actual section and if the ordinance that's presented to you tonight. Great, thank you. Do counselors have questions for solicitor Phillips? Councilor Gutierrez? Thank you, Chair Migliorelli. I just had one quick question. I believe one of the documents references that a list of those who have not paid taxes is supposed to be
▶ 19:49 Jen Grigoraitis: shared annually with the various departments that provide licenses. Is that a practice that has been going on in the city or is that something that would be new? I don't believe that that has been going on. I think there might be a plan to do that with the new electronic system that's being set up for the permitting process in the department but I don't know that that's been happening currently uh but adopting that I guess that would that would go into effect yes okay and would that go into it does this would go into effect immediately obviously it can't be retroactive yeah so I have to uh I'm sorry just give me one minute I just want to look at the language concerning the list so it says on an annual basis I just have to look at that piece
▶ 20:32 Leila Migliorelli: yeah um yeah so I I would work with you know the relative departments to make sure any language that's in this ordinance would go into effect upon passage okay thank you that was my only question thank you any other counselors from the committee any non-voting members with questions for solicitor phillips being none what is the will of the committee a motion to recommend for passage motion to recommend for passage made by councillor Grigoraitis seconded by president sanella mr clerk vice chair Jamaleddine yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor stewart yes councillor karen jd yes president sinella and chair Migliorelli yes unanimous vote Great, so this ordinance will be brought forward to the full council, not tonight, but at our following meeting with a recommendation for passage.
▶ 21:59 Leila Migliorelli: City Solicitor, you can stay on for the next item, which is ordinance 2022-2, an ordinance relative to small wireless facilities installation in the public right of way, sponsored by Councillor Rob Stewart. And I know DPW Director Elena Proakis-Ellis is here with us tonight, too, to answer questions, but while she logs in, I'll let Councillor Stewart lead off on this. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, through the Chair, I bring this ordinance to the Council for consideration based on feedback from multiple constituents, some of which you've heard from this evening. I've worked closely with the city solicitor, Ms. Phillips, and the head of the DPW, Ms. Farai-Cazales, to address the concerns that have been raised by these constituents.
▶ 22:50 Robb Stewart: As a little bit of background, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a far-reaching federal law and provides limited control by either state or municipalities, such as ourselves, To govern the installation of this wireless technology, there is room, however, for controls to be put in place, which will ensure adherence. To the requirements as permitted by this act, this ordinance provides guidance to the city and process for the telecommunications companies. And their contractors to abide by these regulations. Some examples include communication to the residents. the permitable distance, the required paperwork, insurance, which can be provided a little bit more in detail by the City Solicitor and Ms. Ferreira-Casales.
▶ 23:41 Robb Stewart: I do want to thank both Ms. Ferreira-Casales as well as Ms. Phillips. They have put a lot of work into this, spent a lot of time in both researching and with practical experience on both sides in suggesting upon how we construct this ordinance. I also do want to thank the residents who have provided a lot of input and data as well as expressing their concerns. It's helped quite a bit in having these constructive conversations, and I look forward to the feedback based on some of the input that we've received from both parties. And I ask for support of this ordinance and look forward to the input of the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Stewart, Solicitor Phillips or Director Ellis, which one of you would like to speak first?
▶ 24:35 The Chair, I'm happy to do that. So, thank you, Councillor Stewart. So, I can provide some additional background to the extent it might be helpful to some Councillors that may or may not be familiar with the small wireless world in the telecommunications industry. So, this ordinance, like many around the country and around the state of Massachusetts, stems from an FCC order that happened in September 2018. That was the subject of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was denied at the Supreme Court of the United States. The Ninth Circuit changed a few items of the order. So I'm going to outline just generally for all of you at the beginning what our limitations are, what that
▶ 25:16 order says, and why we drafted this ordinance in the way that we did. So generally in controlling access to right of ways municipalities are deemed to be acting in a regulatory capacity not as property owners so public rights of way and under public right-of-way infrastructure um those must be made available for wireless facility deployment so that's clear and that's what these orders are focused on is the public rights of way and you'll see that i do want to make note of that you'll see that in this ordinance that it's focused on public rights of way you'll see that it's not applicable to private property uh private ways um anything of that sort so that is that is specifically carved out and this is a public rights of way access ordinance specifically so i wanted to make that
▶ 25:57 clear from the outset um in with this order um and on the subsequent appeal uh local governments um are still able to institute uh impose reasonable aesthetic regulations and deny um applications that fail to meet um published published in advance aesthetic requirements put into place by municipalities so as a result of the appeal of the initial order um the standards that municipalities still must meet are that any standards they put in place must be reasonable so what does that mean so a reasonable aesthetic requirement is one that is technically feasible for the company so that is something that cities have to keep in mind when they are putting into place these standards is that whatever we're choosing has to be technically
▶ 26:43 feasible um and also reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying intangible public harm or unsightly developments so aesthetic concerns are are definitely okay for municipalities to regulate but it does come with those restrictions um the the restriction i'm sorry the regulations must be published in advance so that the providers are on notice of what is going to be required of them um i did take note in public comment and i know it has been an issue in other municipalities as well that we can't legally control those that are have already been installed i think uh Director Proakis-Ellis could more better address what has been happening since this formal ordinance is being put in place. But I will say putting in a formal ordinance at our earliest
▶ 27:28 convenience is definitely the best legal avenue for the city to take as what we have right now is not legally forcible or enforceable against these carriers. So as of this point, I understand we've had an informal process, which like I said, Director Ellis can elaborate more on. But I do think it's a great advantage for the city to have these standards published in advance that we can start immediately enforcing against these carriers that are requesting permits within our city. The aesthetic standards can be subjective as long as we can explain the purpose of the regulation and how it will prevent or mitigate small cell deployments that are unsightly or out of character in a given neighborhood.
▶ 28:06 So, that being said, the burden, there was an initial burden posed that these cannot be discriminatory. So we can't impose restrictions on these that we would not impose on different types of telecom equipment. That was struck down by the Ninth Circuit, and it was qualified in that we can impose types of restrictions. They must be the same for functionally equivalent structures. that are similar in terms of structure placement and impact so to me that really says we are allowed to design these aesthetic regulations for this 5g type of equipment as opposed to other telecom type equipment this regulation also put into place shot clocks so what that is is at the time a company submits an application um we have 60 days for co-location applications which are
▶ 29:00 infrastructure that's currently existing so a telecom company that wants to come and put something on an existing poll the city or town has 60 days from the submission of that application to make a decision yes or no um so as you can imagine this order was designed to streamline the process for telecom companies and it came about as a result of a lot of a lot of cities and towns around the country trying to put a moratorium on these installations and that's that brings me to my other point um and it's something that's been brought up i believe it was brought up in public comment on a cease and desist or a moratorium on these types of installations that was also specifically addressed in fcc order an outright moratorium uh indefinitely delaying the citing
▶ 29:40 or permitting or approval of these applications is not allowed um so i i believe the law is very clear on that i don't think we would be successful on that in a legal challenge um the last piece is well i'll address just two more pieces briefly safety and health so the FCC specifically prohibits municipalities from regulating the safety and health of these devices. We are limited to the FCC emission standards, and we can require these companies to submit affidavits, which you'll see our ordinance does. Our ordinance requires them to submit an affidavit from a radio frequency engineer that the emission standards meet the FCC required limits. We've also gone a step further, which we believe is the furthest the municipality
▶ 30:29 can go in this area, in that if there's two devices on one pole, the combined emissions cannot be greater than what the emission standards are. We've also included a piece for spot checking equipment at the city's discretion that we would hire an expert that would go out and check the emission standards safety features for these devices and make sure they were in the limits. So the City feels that this ordinance addresses, I'm sorry, myself and Ms. Perogas-Ellis that drafted this, we try to address those health and safety concerns to the extent we are allowed to by the law. The other piece of it is the fees that have been established. So the fees, the order also addressed fees that can be established for
▶ 31:12 right-of-way access or permitting for these types of devices. Those numbers are spelled out in the ordinance that we've drafted um so i believe the fees that have been declared presumptively reasonable are 500 for non-recurring fees so that's a single front-up application that would include five um up to five installations i believe right now in our ordinance we have a hundred dollars per application so we could go up on that to the 500 if the council wish to um everything else is in keeping with these presumptively reasonable fees if we wanted to go above the presumptively reasonable fees um dpw would have to articulate um a reasonable approximation of costs uh that the costs themselves are reasonable and not
▶ 31:58 discriminatory for other telecom against other telecom installations so um the city would have more of a burden at that point um in deciding on what the additional fees might be and the reason for those so for right now we have kept in place the presumptively reasonable fees within this ordinance as a lot of other communities have done um in massachusetts um you'll also see in the ordinance itself and i do agree other communities have gone about this process differently um in this ordinance i've worked with director prowicus ellis on designing the process that i believe we thought would work best for melrose given the current state of permitting um and how things are reviewed within the city um it does include notice to a butters as you will
▶ 32:45 see which a lot of other communities do not address that piece uh it includes notice to the ward city councillor where these uh polls will be installed um does not include a public hearing which some communities do do that um if there's going to be a granted location it will still include um they will still have to go through that process before they do this permanent application um so with that i think i've addressed most of the the legal aspects that i was hoping to get out and I can turn it over to Director Atlas to talk more about the technical design standards. Thank you. So I think there were some questions on the background of the process that we've been following to date, which I think might be helpful to understand. So previously we've had these
▶ 33:35 applications before for 3G and 4G small cell antennas and for some 5G antennas to date. And our process has been. Early on, we had a couple of the companies come and give sort of a courtesy presentation to the council to the board of Alderman at the time. Um, just to explain what the installations were. I believe that was when we were doing 3 G, small cell. Um, and then after that, we got into a sort of standard process that all the companies abided by. That was not formal in any way, but everybody agreed to do it. And I believe we had installations from sprint. Mobility and Verizon at different points in time, and what they would do is they would submit an application to the city clerk's office. That was similar to.
▶ 34:30 A grant of location application, but rather than going through the formal grant of location hearing process. Uh, the applications would be provided to the counselors and provided to the engineering division of, and then the engineering division would review the locations in the field. Go back and forth with the applicants if they had questions and. Then ultimately issue an approval. We didn't even really call it an approval per se, because it was there was no legally binding approval process, but it was. We would issue conditions, and they would include things like. You can't put these on a double pole. If there's a double pole there, you have to remove the double pole before you put your installation on.
▶ 35:18 Um, if if we just deem that, it's just not an acceptable location and we, we had sort of vague parameters, but nothing in writing. um we would encourage the companies to try to find another site and they typically would work with us um to the extent that they could and then if the conclusion was there was no good alternative and they really needed this site then they would just proceed with that site um most recently verizon submitted a number of applications in 2021 and we acted on 35 of them that we felt the locations were um completely acceptable and that they would have met the standards of at the time we had a draft ordinance in the works and so um we gave authorization for those to move forward
▶ 36:06 we did stipulate with verizon that we wanted them to still meet the reporting and fee requirements of the forthcoming ordinance and they they didn't uh uh indicate any resistance to that and then they have proceeded with their app with those locations that we gave them the approvals on so um we are expecting that the annual fees and the annual um submission of their map that shows all their locations and all of that will encompass any existing um small cell antennas as well that they would they would pay those annual fees they would include them on the maps And any spot checking that we do for emission standards, we would include them in those spot checks. So, with that, I will turn it over to if anybody has any questions.
▶ 37:03 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, um, I didn't see anyone with their hands raised, but. Councilor Grigoraitis. Councillor Williams. All right, let's start with Councillor Grigoraitis. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Shannon and Alina for being here and for that background info. I had some question on just the language of the proposed ordinance itself and then a question on fees. My question around the language is that in parts of the ordinance we're really specific where we enumerate a position, the city clerk, the city council, the city engineer, and then there's a whole section where just talk about the city um that the city will make a determination and i i guess um i recognize that could be intentional but could be like it also feels like that leaves room for some lack
▶ 37:55 Jen Grigoraitis: of clarity around who is the city is that the department of public works is that the mayor's office is that all of you working in concert i just i mean as was mentioned in public comment um there are some communities that are doing this as a more collaborative approach across departments is there how do you see that working in in um practice when the city is making a decision and do you want me to take that one sure okay uh so the process to date has has gone through the city clerk's office um particularly because a lot of it ties into the grant of location process even though this is a different process and doesn't require the hearing in the abutters list well it does require the abutters now but um traditionally it didn't in our informal
▶ 38:48 process and so our intention with um you know being a city response is that the the clerk's office would still coordinate um the taking in of the application the sending out to the counselor and to the dpw and the dpw would circle back with our comments through the clerk's office And then the clerk's office would issue the, the final determination mainly so that the applications. Are tracked in a similar fashion, um, all the documentation tracks, similarly to the grants of location and stored in the same way. Um. So, I think that's why we would why we described it more as the city responding. Um, but the review process is clearly spelled out in our, um. Both in the ordinance and internally that it's the engineering division who goes out and conducts the review and reviews the application to make sure it's complete.
▶ 39:52 Jen Grigoraitis: I think it actually says the city engineer, and that was just 1 other. Question or suggestion is, should that say the city engineer or their designee? I know there have been if we're not talking about a department, but a specific. Title if that person, you know, we had gaps in having that position filled again. I don't know. I mean. My experience is more with legislation at the state level, but I thought that's often standard language just to make it clear that that person can authorize someone else. Thank you for that. Explanation and my question on the fees is where will those go just directly into the general city. Coffers, or will they be will there be some designated fund? I believe our intention is for them just to go into the general city coffers because we haven't.
▶ 40:38 I think we'd have to. Vote to have a dedicated fund. And, um, I didn't, I didn't anticipate that. Um, I thought it would be similar to other fees that we take in to just go into the general fund. Okay, and then can you just walk us through the decision around why these fees? I believe there are other municipalities and I think Shannon, you referenced that that charge higher amounts how we landed on these numbers. Sure, through the chair, I'd be happy to do that. So these numbers so specifically, like I said, we're a little under the numbers I'm about to give you, but there's numbers that are deemed to be presumptively reasonable. Uh, by the FCC, so if you charge those numbers, you're likely to not be subject to litigation or subject to challenge from these telecom companies, they've been deemed presumptively reasonable.
▶ 41:30 So, those are 500 dollars for non recurring fees. So that's a single upfront application that includes up to 5 wireless facilities with an additional 100 dollars for each small wireless installation beyond 5, or 1000 dollars for non recurring fees for a new poll. So, that would be for a grant to location that involved installation on these devices and 270, which you'll see in our ordinance per small wireless facility per year. So, that's a recurring fee per year, an annual fee per year. They'll have to be charged for every 1 of these installations for the access to the right of way. So, for. Being within the right of way, that would be the fees. They, they're charged on an annual basis. Any amount above those.
▶ 42:13 Municipalities have to justify, and it must reflect and equal the actual costs that are incurred by the state and local government for having these installations on these polls. So it's a little. Bit more difficult to quantify. Um, so I think, um, presumptively we. We said, let's put these in here, um, for now and I, I did have that discussion with Elaine. I don't know. She could elaborate more on that. Whether she feels like, it's necessary to go higher than these presumptively reasonable amounts. Um, but there is room for variance and costs, uh, depending on the municipality and how you conduct the analysis. So. If we wanted to do that, we would have to have a reasonable approximation of costs. The cost themselves cannot be discriminatory. So, among other telecom installations, we couldn't be charging much higher amounts. We have to really defend any numbers. We're going to charge over these presumptive amounts.
▶ 43:05 Yeah, and I don't see a reason to charge higher amounts in terms of. We've, we've just recently adjusted our fees for other types of engineering division permits and we're looking at a 100 dollars for. For other permit applications and inspections. So, I think it would be potentially considered discriminatory if we went above those, those present presumptive. Values Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Thank you Councilor Grigoraitis. I did see Councilor Stewart’s hand up as well and being on the committee. I'm going to have him go and then Councilor Williams. Thank you. Thank you Madam chair. I just wanted to. Offer, uh, is practice Allison Phillips the opportunity to answer a couple of questions that came up.
▶ 43:59 Robb Stewart: During public comment that I don't think were addressed the 1st was. Uh, the setbacks, this might be, um, I'm not sure who wants to take this, but the question was, uh, why 20 feet? Uh, how, how did that come about? And. Um, is there any way to adjust that? I can take that 1, so if you don't mind, I can just start out with the legal and then you can say technically why we chose the 20 feet. But I forgot to mention in my initial background of the law on this is we can't materially prohibit these these telecom companies from coming into the city. So. we can't have standards that are going to make it impossible for them to install their devices on the pole in other words um so given that that's how a lot of these designs
▶ 44:47 and aesthetic standards were were framed with that in mind uh so with that elaine i can turn it over to you thank you um so we we originally had uh drafted an ordinance with 20 feet thinking that was an appropriate um distance and we actually discussed it with one of the telecom companies and they were strongly against the 20 feet because they felt that it was that in the more densely populated neighborhoods of melrose um especially certain areas where a lot of houses are have small front yards and are close to the street that that 20 feet may effectively prohibit the um the installation of any small cell technology in those neighborhoods which would then as shannon said would not be legal for us because it would be an effective
▶ 45:39 prohibition um they were asking us to go down to 15 feet um i think 20 feet we stuck with the 20 feet despite those concerns of theirs because i think 20 feet is justifiable we did put in language about the potential for a waiver um if they felt that there was no alternative and you know if there's a neighborhood where all the houses are within 20 feet of the of the street and they have difficulty finding a pole location that's not within 25 20 feet of a structure then they could request a waiver so we're trying to walk that line between um a distance that we feel is reasonable from an aesthetic perspective and a distance that the telecom companies are going to deem um to prohibit them to effectively prohibit them altogether and then challenge legally um
▶ 46:34 and so so 20 seemed to me to be a good um a good distance to walk that line thank you miss burke my second question is related to the distance between the antenna that was raised as well is there any uh stipulation of distance between antenna or has that been left open they do need to indicate when they apply i believe it's within 500 feet they need to show any other antennas that are within those 500 feet and so that um allows us to review if they seem to be putting in an excessive number or if we have you know multiple carriers coming forward with this technology then if if it's getting to be where you know every other pole has an antenna on it um that would be called out with that analysis of the 500 feet and then we could act on the applications
▶ 47:26 accordingly if we felt that it was um it was you know too many in one area by whatever uh whatever standard we would have of what we feel is too many in one area Great. Thank you. Last question quickly on the ad hoc testing that has been drafted. Can you talk a little bit about that, how it's conducted, who pays for it, what are the results, how that gets communicated? The ordinance does indicate that the telecom company needs to pay for it. And that would be performed by someone who is an expert in testing for RF emissions and possesses the required equipment i know when 3g and 4g small cell antennas were going up we had a couple of requests for city staff to go into somebody's home and test to see what
▶ 48:23 the rf emissions were within the home and we had to tell residents that we neither have the equipment nor the qualifications to perform that testing in-house it's just not something that um that we're comfortable doing when uh you know we have two professional engineers on our staff me and our city engineer bonnie reese and when you um sign your professional engineer uh statement when you renew your license every other year you need to sign that you are not going to perform engineering work that is beyond your uh direct area of expertise and this absolutely falls into that category where we could say yes we are professional engineers and we're going to go in and test rf emissions but there is nobody in the city staff who who possesses the qualifications
▶ 49:13 Robb Stewart: to accurately test for rf emissions so the intent would be to hire an expert bring them in have them spot check particular locations and do that with some frequency whether it be annually or you know whatever we determine is the appropriate frequency frequency based on the number of installations we have at any given time. And how is that initiated? Do you initiate that or is it done based on request or is it done based on, how is that initiated? You could initiate that with an outside company, hire them to come in and do it. Let me rephrase. How is the process initiated? Not how do you actually get the work going, but But, um, what, what is the decision point that says, oh, we need to test now.
▶ 50:00 Is it is it a resident asking for it? Is it driven by you? Is it driven by the telecom company? How is that? It would be driven by the city staff. And, you know, I, I would, I don't want to imply that. Every time a resident calls and asks, we're going to bring in in our. Emissions expert, I think the, when they apply when the telecom companies apply the 1st time around. They need to certify that that their installation. Um, meets the FCC requirements. And that has to be certified by a qualified professional on their end. So. I think we need to trust to some degree as we do with. with any private company installation of anything, that they are meeting the requirements as set forth to them. We will test in some periodic fashion,
▶ 50:54 a random selection of locations. I would anticipate if we find that they all meet the standards, then that would make us comfortable with annual testing or semi-annual testing or the like. If we find that some locations are above the requirements others are below that would be a whole different case where we would probably test more often and more locations um so you know i think some of it is going to depend on our discretion as to how comfortable we feel with the results we find initially okay great great thank you thank you for everything thank you um miss phillips uh uh before councillor williams speaks i just want to make everyone aware that we have about five minutes um until eight o'clock when we have to adjourn for um each health education welfare
▶ 51:44 Leila Migliorelli: committee um so uh council williams i don't know if you have enough if that's enough time for you to ask your questions or if we should adjourn now and then uh come back for to finish up the questioning i think you should probably adjourn all right um so i will entertain a motion to adjourn for to recess are we going to thank you for sending it um motion to recess someone want to make that motion motion to recess second motion to recess made by councillor Grigoraitis seconded by councillor Jamaleddine mr clerk vice chair Jamaleddine Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Karimshadi? Yes. President Cinella? Yes. And Chair Migliorelli? Yes. Unanimous. All right, so we are now recessed.
▶ 1:05:35 Ryan Williams: All right, back in legal and ledge. I will pick up where we left off. Councilor Williams? Oh, wait a second. I don't know if DP. Yes. Okay. Here. I just want to make sure. Solicitor Phillips and director have time to get back on and here we are. All right. Go ahead. Okay. And thank you. Madam chair, thank you to the city staff who are, um. Doing me the service of hanging on for a little bit longer to answer a couple of questions. I appreciate it. Very much, um, I'm not a voting member of the legal and legislative committee, but obviously it'll go before the full council. And so I thought it would be good to share some of my thoughts tonight while we're all together. And while the public has joined us to to think about this ordinance.
▶ 1:06:21 Ryan Williams: So, I've given a lot of thought to the ordinance, and I have a couple of questions that I want to toss at the representatives from the city. Before I do that, I feel compelled to speak a little bit on behalf of science generally. We know that there's a group of folks who are mostly concerned about this because of the understanding that wireless installations can have public health impacts. I completely understand and resonate with this. um as a parent of two small children myself i have great concerns about their proximity to vehicles especially large trucks which we know are likely to kill kids about them being around gas stations i even like didn't sign for an apartment once because it was too close to a
▶ 1:07:09 Ryan Williams: gas station because i know that benzene exposure causes cancer um and certainly you know when you live as close to the streets as we all do air quality is a constant threat so i really appreciate and understand folks seeing this technology and thinking about it critically and wanting to do something to keep their families safe. With that in mind, I also want to reflect a little bit on the role of science in policy because it's something that I've worked closely on in my entire career and it's something that's really near and dear to my heart. And I just feel that we need to acknowledge the fact that there are lots of different sides to a scientific argument and we can't let ourselves be led down the path of always looking for the science that confirms
▶ 1:07:55 Ryan Williams: the opinion that we have and the best example i can give of this is that over 30 000 climate scientists believe that climate change is fake 30 000 scientists phd scientists believe that climate change is fake although that's a large number and if they all showed up at melrose city hall we would come away feeling like wow this is this there's no way this could be happening the truth is that 97 to 99 of all scientific papers agree that climate change is actually caused by human beings and the emissions that we create um and i want to throw a couple of data points out there with regard to the fear of wireless transmissions and how they might affect human health that we should consider that i would like the audience to consider my doors always open
▶ 1:08:42 Ryan Williams: My phone number's on the website, city council website, so you call me up, we could talk about this anytime. But I want to throw two data points at you guys. The first is that cancer rates in America have been stable or declining over the last 10 years. And specifically, in the Boston area, both new cases and deaths tied to cancer had a significant decline between 1999 and 2013. we all know what happened between 1999 and 2013 cell phones happened right and they happened fast and they were everywhere the iphone came out in 2007 five years later what we found what we found was that new cancer cases had dropped by 11 and it's important to consider this observation when we think about scientific studies that for instance might relate to putting a rat in a metal
▶ 1:09:31 Ryan Williams: box and pumping it full of wireless radiation until it gets a brain tumor the second study that that I wanna point out is that the World Health Organization had a study that spanned about a decade and it took them almost four years to publish the results. It had 48 authors. What they found was that the people who use their cell phones the most had the highest rate of brain cancer. And then they found that the second highest users had the lowest rate of brain cancer. That's a statement that doesn't make sense if the hypothesis is supported that more exposure equals more health risk. So, again, I, I really appreciate people looking out for their kids. I really appreciate people having healthy skepticism about the role of technology in our communities.
▶ 1:10:16 Ryan Williams: But I want to just put a statement out there that encourages all of us to think about the underlying science that we're considering and be open about how we feel about that science when we're making policy because. Policy that's based on either bad science or ignoring science. Um, or pretending that we don't have an opinion on the science can lead to. To bad outcomes, so that was a bit of a soapbox statement and I appreciate everybody giving me a few minutes to make it with regard to this specific ordinance. I had a couple of questions for Director Proekes-Ellis, primarily around this idea of discriminatory regulations. So, I talked to a man named Lindsey DeRoach, who's the Director of the State Department
▶ 1:11:02 Ryan Williams: that oversees a lot of the regulations for telecommunications, and I asked him this question about what would be considered a discriminatory practice, because I noticed that we have a couple of things in here, and I want to ask – I want to file them off, and then I want ask whether these are required of other utility providers as well and i'm thinking of things like gas lines uh you know the the ev charging stations that are pole mounted i just want to know whether we're doing this for everybody or whether it's just in this ordinance so first of all um we have insurance requirements right it's like five hundred thousand dollars here a million five million it's quite a bit of money um so i want to know whether or not we have those same insurance
▶ 1:11:41 Ryan Williams: requirements for all the utilities that run under our streets and in the public right-of-way the second uh the second requirement is the certified mail requirement do we require all utilities to provide certified mail to abutters within 500 feet when there's a new installation of something that could be potentially hazardous like a natural gas pipeline um or a high you know high voltage electricity line or or a camera that might use machine learning to to track people or vehicles And then my, you know, I'm going to pause right there, because that's, that's, that's where it comes. That's where I'm coming from with the idea of the regulations. Do we have the same insurance requirement for other pole mounted and utility providers and do we have the same certified mail requirement?
▶ 1:12:26 So, uh, with regard to insurance requirements. We, the majority of utilities underneath our streets are. City owned utilities, but we do not require. A long term insurance for gas main installation, let's say, but I think a more comparable. Equivalent is that our street lights, which are also mounted on these same polls. We, uh, we are required by national grid to maintain a 5Million dollar. We actually negotiated down to a 2Million dollar insurance policy for our street lights to be mounted on national grids polls. So, I think that is more of the comparable situation to the insurance requirements that we are putting. On these installations that they should need to carry insurance and I would suspect that national grid is requiring the same if not more for these installations going on the polls at all.
▶ 1:13:31 um in which case presumably the city just becomes an additional insured named insured on the insurance certificate um i can't say for sure that that's how the companies would opt to do it but um i think that's the comparable situation and i think that is i think it's a fair requirement in that regard um and and frankly with respect to requiring insurance for underground utilities it's really something that hasn't come up in the time that I've worked in public work. So if there's some precedent for that or reason that we should be considering it, I know that's not what you're suggesting, but maybe we should be thinking along those lines for underground utilities as well. And sorry, your second question?
▶ 1:14:29 What was the sort of the, the certified mail requirement that is on the company? Yeah. Yes. Yes. So. Certain applications within the city do require certified notices. And others do not. So, when we, um. When we allow trying to think of an example of an engineering division permit, sometimes with our engineering division permits, like, let's say a gas replacement project, we will require. The gas company to notify the butters, we also require them to hold a neighborhood meeting. For those, um, for, you know, a gas main replacement project. We require national grid to conduct a neighborhood meeting. Um. The state wetlands protection act requires. A certified mail a butter's notice for any applications for a notice of intent.
▶ 1:15:22 So that's, you know, another, um. City permit city issued permit through the conservation commission. It does require certified mail for the butter's notice. It requires them to provide the. The green stubs, the white sheets showing that they nailed it certified mail and the green stub showing who responded by certified mail. So, I would say there is precedent. It's not across the board by any means. It's not that for all permits in the city, we require certified mail. But it's also not without precedent with our city. I appreciate that. Thank you. You know, this stuff is. Is new to me, but that's a, it's a thing that comes up a lot when we're when I, when the work that I do about how to kind of fight certain things without appearing to fight them is that you put a lot of requirements on it.
▶ 1:16:15 Maya Jamaleddine: And, um, I, I don't mean to pass judgment on whether the requirements are fair or not only to point out that they could be considered unfair. And it sounds like from what you're saying that we have those requirements for other providers. So, I think that's a, that's a non issue from my perspective. Um, my 2nd set of comments is more focused. Sorry to interrupt. I just want to be respectful of time. I know that counselor, um, vice chairman has a question and I know you. Oh, according to our rules, 10 minutes of talking, so I just want to let councilor and ask her question. Come back. Thank you. Thank you chair. Um, um. I, I just want to thank you all for this discussion that helps us, but I understand this ordinance. I also wanted to say that I cannot argue with scientists, nor the studies, but also, I cannot ignore all the concerns and the fear that I.
▶ 1:17:11 Maya Jamaleddine: uh felt during um many of the constituent constituents uh comments and um concerns that were shared over the past couple of weeks um i wanted to uh commend uh councillor stewart for following up on this uh issue and also wanted to ask a couple of questions um and follow-up questions. You mentioned about the 20 feet. What made you decide the 20 feet rather than 50 feet, knowing that many neighboring communities had considered over 50 feet? I'm actually not aware of communities that have specified 50 feet or even close to that. Shannon, you reviewed a lot of other communities. Did you come across any that were that far? I have not through the chair, Councillor Jamaleddine, just to interject here somewhat. So that requirement, like others within a city's ordinance concerning small wireless installation, it's going to depend on the city and town that these are happening in.
▶ 1:18:27 So, for example, if every single pole in the town is within 15 feet, you would be effectively prohibiting these installations if you said every installation has to be 20 feet from a residence, if that makes sense. So, it's possible, like you said, I'm not aware of any that have 50 feet, but it's possible, for example, somewhere like Western Mass where polls might be more spread out than they are in an urban environment that they might have a longer distance that they're saying these things have to be from buildings or residences. But I think, you know, in in the 20 feet, I know Elena did look at the GIS system and was trying to figure out the distance polls are from houses, um, or from any buildings within Melrose and 20 feet seem to be about, um, the distance Elena if I'm, if I'm misspeaking, just correct me.
▶ 1:19:15 Um, but, you know, obviously, honestly, like, in looking at that, if we were to say 30 feet, we would in our view, we would be effectively prohibiting them. We wouldn't have a great argument against that. Uh, we would have to deny every 1 of these applications for not meeting our standards. Got it. Thank you. Do we have any information about what neighboring communities have for measurements? Is it similar? 20 or less or more? I know Somerville is either 20 or 15. it might be 15 actually. We could get, they're all published online so we could definitely get that for you Councillor Dimaluddin. But most communities have this distance referenced, um, within their ordinance or within their standards. So that's something we could get to the committee.
▶ 1:20:06 Maya Jamaleddine: If that's your way, thank you. Thank you. My last question is, um, you've mentioned about the fee. Um, that we are, um, actually, we, you know, the fee that is required is very competitive to other, um, communities. Um. Do you think this would play a factor on attracting. More of those antennas, since we are not. On the higher fees. Comparing to others higher rates, I, I personally think that the telecom companies who've come forward with these applications over the last several years, they're acting based on. Predominantly based on coverage network gaps. And these antennas only serve a very small area the way they're designed. They're supposed to have a lot of them and and, um. They only cover a small area, so.
▶ 1:21:08 I don't really envision a scenario where. You know, a town with lower fees ends up with more. installations and a city or town with higher fees ends up with fewer installations because that's really not solving their network gap issues they're very specific to they want more of these you know immediately near train stations where a lot of people are standing and using their cell phones at the same time or near parks where a lot of people are congregating and you know say parents are congregating while their kids are playing sports and they're all on their cell phones at the same time those are the types of decisions in the past that have driven the locations that they've been pushing for and so um i don't think it really
▶ 1:21:59 Shawn M. MacMaster: is practical for them to say we're going to put more in this town or fewer in this town based on on a monetary consideration okay thank you my last question i'm sorry if i'm taking um Um, you know, more time, um, do we have a cap on how many antenna can we have in the city? There is no cap. Okay. No, okay, thank you. Thank you. Council. I'm counselor. McMaster. Thank you manager. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. This has definitely been a learning experience for me, but 1 of the things that. I heard tonight, which concerns me is that historically. It seems like we've been leaving it to the telecommunication providers. To make sure that they are complying with regulations. So, with that in mind, my question for the city solicitor.
▶ 1:22:56 Shawn M. MacMaster: Is, um, are there. Is there anything legally that would prevent the city council. from establishing quality control standards that govern policies and practices um for rf emissions um specifically as it relates to hot checks that would be initiated by the city so i think i'd have to think more about what you mean by quality control standards i think we're we're sort of delving into a dangerous area when we talk about getting into the rf emission standards um business with these with these companies my only concern would be i mean like so we so we put that piece in there about spot checking for rf emission standards that's possible we could get some pushback for that but i think if you're talking about
▶ 1:23:55 Shawn M. MacMaster: levels of emissions or different levels that we deem appropriate as a city that would be completely off limits in my opinion so i don't know i would have to see what council would be be proposing in order to see whether it would be legal or not. But I can't envision something like that. Yeah, it's not challenged by a provider. Yeah, understood. It certainly wouldn't be that it would be more a minimum number of spot checks required over over a period of time, something to that effect, rather than simply leaving it to the engineering department to determine um when if the council saw fit to want to go down that that route would we have the legal ability to set quality control standards as it relates to those types of policies
▶ 1:24:43 and practices that govern how the city responds um and initiates those spot checks since we are you know through the chair since we are adopting these processes in this ordinance I think that would be the place for Council to do it if you did want to prescribe a certain number of spot checks. I think that the danger in doing that is we don't really know, since this is sort of a new field, how many might be appropriate or legally feasible to do. We don't know what the pushback will be from telecom companies on this piece, and I don't know of other neighboring communities that have done this yet. So that would be my only pullback on that. I wouldn't have advice at this time as to how many Might be legally tenable, but that's something we could always amend.
▶ 1:25:30 Ryan Williams: At a later date, once that's researched a little further. Thank you. Okay. I know Councilor Williams has 1 more question left. I'm wanting to see if anyone else has a question for the 1st time. All right, Councilor Williams. Thank you. And I apologize for exceeding my time. I appreciate you. Cutting me off so that other people could have a chance to speak. I get carried away sometimes. My final question is around public process. It's it's an open question to the, um. To the folks who are are revising the ordinance, we're considering putting it before the city council. Um, I'm, I'm a little disappointed that there's no. Um, typical zoning style process here for public notice. I note that there is a special legislated word counselor notification. I'm not clear that that kind of notification appears anywhere else in our city's code.
▶ 1:26:30 Ryan Williams: To have the word counselor be specially notified when a antenna installation goes up feels to me like it bridges a little close to playing politics with the location of these devices. I can imagine a scenario in which a person who had special access to a city counselor might. Um, have a better relationship with that person and maybe, um, might be more able to block the installation of an antenna and that antenna then may go up closer to a population of folks who don't have as much political power. I think if we're going to have these meetings where we're notifying people, where we're discussing whether or not we want to have these in our community, that these should be open meetings. They should be open public processes where everyone is allowed an equal opportunity to speak, including the neighborhood, including the city counselor, including city staff, including the wireless provider.
▶ 1:27:22 Ryan Williams: Um, I, it makes me very uncomfortable that we have a special call out to board counselors in here, uh, to be notified because it also creates potentially an expectation that the word counselor will have some influence or authority, which they should not have outside of the context of regular city planning processes. And also, in the spirit of public transparency, I think it would be great if we put some of this stuff on our to note where we had special pull mounted. Um, um, infrastructure, like, you know, it could be as easy chargers, it could be wireless antennas really could be anything so that we have an authoritative listing of where they are in the city and can refer to that, um, through an independent source.
▶ 1:28:03 That's not brought to us by. Outside folks, we want to see it from the city. I think that's entirely feasible for us to have a map. Once the telecom companies are providing us with a map with all of their installations. Um, especially where small cell does predate. Um, it, it. Certainly predates me in my present role, but I think there it's possible that there are small cell installations that predate my employment here. From 2015, so. Once we have this process in place, it will make it a little easier for us to gather that information from the companies as they come forward with applications. So, that end of it, I think is entirely feasible because we're going to be collecting this information and it's very easy for us to put it on a map.
▶ 1:28:55 With regard to the word counselor notification, so that that comes about really because historically. When these applications came forward before. The, the residents who had comments. Reached out to the word counselors and. Not necessarily that the word counselors, they provided feedback to the city and the city did consider that feedback in our conversations back and forth with the utility companies. Um, but in this instance, it. A large part of the reason why I thought it was important to have it in there is because we are requiring requiring the telecom companies to provide this a butter's notice to the residents. And a lot of times the residents will contact their counselors. And for the residents to get noticed before you do seemed.
▶ 1:29:54 Like, poor process, because I know. For instance, as a city employee, if someone sends out a notice. That mentioned the and forgets to give certain. People who answer the phones at the DPW, a copy of said notice when the residents call, and they want to discuss the contents of the notice. It can be fairly embarrassing for the person answering the phone when they have no idea. What what it is that the person's referring to? So I saw it more as a courtesy. In fact, we Shannon and I. Um, spent quite a bit of time adjusting the time frames and the. um the order in which the notifications go out to ensure that the counselors would get the notice before the residents do um just to be sure that you're not blindsided or caught in that position
▶ 1:30:44 where it appears that you don't know what's going on in your ward um you know if there's strong opposition to that uh that practice we could reconsider it but i think that's how it's historically been done with these same applications and it's worked well and so personally i didn't see any reason to change that and that's why we put it in there thank you very much i appreciate that i have nothing further thank you um councillor stewart just wanted to be mindful of he had submitted um amendments to this order i wanted to give him the opportunity to uh review those amendments at this time thank you madam chair yes um and at this point i would like to motion to make uh the following amendment to the order 2022-2 um so
▶ 1:31:39 Robb Stewart: that and this is based on constituent feedback and my reaching out to uh ms perica salas and ms phillips to um see if it made sense uh it was their uh combined decision that it did make sense to amend based on this feedback these amendments consist of the following um amending uh section 183-1 a purpose is shown by deleting the second sentence it's in in in its entirety which mentions only utility poles and adding a sentence to the end of the section 83-1 the purpose section making clear the applicability of the ordinance excuse me to all wireless installations within the rights of way regardless of what they're attached to um this is done to address the concern that the ordinance did not apply to the strand mounted devices which could be a little bit of a loophole so we close that
▶ 1:32:33 Leila Migliorelli: the second portion of this amendment is to amend section 183-4 application and approval process as shown delete the language the polls or other structures to be utilized and replaced with the proposed language the intended placement of the small wireless facility that is that is uh the nature of my uh motion second all right uh motion was made by counselor stewart to amend the ordinance um as described i can briefly go over that that's uh to amend 183-1 delete the second sentence in that paragraph and add the sentence at the end of the paragraph as stated in the attached and then um section 183-4 um section c delete the language as described and uh replace it with other language and that was seconded by president sanella
▶ 1:33:36 Leila Migliorelli: right um on discussion just one uh point of clarification this was provided uh as attachment um to the order as a as the amendment thank you um and i just to speak briefly on discussion myself i just wanted to address um a question from the the public that had um someone had asked if we can temporarily accept this these this ordinance and just want to clarify that we can always amend ordinances after the fact um and it seems like in the absence of having anything right now um this is a great next step um and uh you know having the amendments from councillor stewart will help strengthen that but it doesn't it it makes sense to if you want it now adopt it now and then amend later um so mr clark please call the role certainly vice chair Jamaleddine yes
▶ 1:34:32 counselor Grigoraitis yes counselor stewart yes counselor carm shady Yes, President Sinella? Yes. And Chair Migliorelli? Yes. unanimous. Madam Chair, at this point I'd like to make a motion to recommend to the full council order 2022-2. Second. Councillor Stewart is making a motion to recommend to the full council, seconded by President Sinella. On discussion? Seeing none. Mr. Clerk? Vice Chair Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Karim Shady? Yes. President Cinella? Yes. And Chair Migliorelli? Yes. Unanimous. Great. So this ordinance will be brought to the full council with a recommendation for passage um at the next the following city council meeting not the one that we just adjourned from
▶ 1:35:45 or going back to um so at this time i'd like to make a motion to adjourn second you can't do that okay councillor Stewart’s making a motion to adjourn who wants to second that second seconded by councillor Grigoraitis matt mr clerk vice chair Jamaleddine yes councillor Grigoraitis yes Councillor Stewart yes Councillor Crimeshady yes President Sinella yes and Chair Migliorelli yes Steve Animas thank you thank you all and thank you uh Director Correa-Casellas and uh Solicitor Phillips for joining us for this long night thank you thank you back to you Mr. President Thank you. Do you guys need to take a couple of minutes? Pretty good. Yes. Yes. You need a minute. Are you good? Yeah, let's sit. Let's come back at, uh, like, 8.