►
From YouTube: July 28, 2021 City Administration Committee Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
We
have
all
of
our
committee
members
here
we
do
have
one
committee
member
who
is
not
able
to
be
with
us
tonight,
so
we're
just
at
four
voting
members
of
city
administration
today.
So
I
think
this
is
our
first
in-person
city
administration,
so
forgive
us
for
being
rusty
at
how
to
do
this
in
person.
But
here
we
are.
A
Are
we
good
okay,
great
denise
provided
fabulous
minutes
for
us
as
usual?
Does
someone
want
to
move
the
minutes?
Graham?
Is
there
a
second
george,
all
those
in
favor
of
our
june
minutes
and
that
carries
four
to
zero?
Thank
you,
and
so
we
are
going
to
do
public
comment.
We
have
several
cards.
Graham,
is
going
to
be
timing.
A
You
we
do
have
ask
you
to
keep
to
three
minutes.
We
have
new
microphones
now.
So
in
order
to
hear
you,
you
need
to
make
sure
that
the
button
is
pushed
and
the
green
light
is
on
so
you'll
able
be
able
to
be
heard
by
everyone.
So
the
first
speaker
that
I
have
is
faye
gucakas
and
after
faye
will
be
carmel.
Rome.
C
A
A
A
B
Well,
my
name
is:
I
live
in
the
city
of
ithaca,
specifically,
I'm
not
gonna
belabor
this
issue
because
I
spoke
about
it
twice
this
month,
and
that
is
the
rules
of
speaking,
which
I
believe
should
not
be
changed.
People
that
come
in
person
should
be
the
first
ones
to
speak,
and
if
you
want
to
do
a
hybrid
system,
people
who
who
call
in
or
do
the
zoom
thing
should
should
go
after
people
that
are
physically
here.
Otherwise,
it's
unfair
and
undemocratic.
B
The
second
thing
is
rules
on
the
commons
that
I
have
spoken
about
before
and
to
to
no
limit
I've
called
my
council
people.
So
many
times
we
were
on
the
phone
a
couple
weeks
ago,
almost
two
hours,
a
piece
one
hour,
a
piece,
and
there
are
rules
on
the
commons
that
are
not
being
enforced.
B
We
have
aggressive
panhandling,
we
have
harassment,
we
have
loud,
music
amplified
music
without
permits.
This
has
been
going
on
for
two
years.
The
harassment
and
aggressive
panel
handling
has
been
going
on,
I
think
for
six
years,
and
it's
there's
no
end
to
it
and
there's
no
one
to
turn
to
I've
exhausted
every
every
every.
Every
everybody
and
people
point
fingers
at
at
each
other,
each
group
so
that
that
has
to
be
dealt
with
and
my
council
people
are
very
aware-
and
you
could
speak
on
that,
because
I
only
have
three
minutes.
B
I
don't
know,
what's
happening
with
the
construction.
I
live
in
center
ithaca.
I
came
out
today
and
I
couldn't
go
through
the
cinemapolis
area
to
get
to
the
other
side.
Nobody
knows
I
call
city
clerk,
I
call
the
downtown
partnership,
nobody
knows
the
schedules
and
I
think
it's
it's
it's
it's
incredibly
unfair
and
and
just
in
terms
of
operating
in
the
city
that
that
nobody
knows
what's
going
on
this
stuff
should
not
just
be
on
the
internet.
It
should
be
posted,
it
should
be
put
in
people's
buildings.
B
There's
there's
got
to
be
an
effort
to
reach
people
also
who
don't
have
technologies.
The
other
thing
is
the
lime
bikes.
I
beg
you
not
to
bring
back
a
similar
company
like
that,
because
I'm
totally
opposed
to
what
lime
has
done
to
ithaca.
B
There's
plenty
other
rental
pla,
bicycle
companies
that
do
not
operate
the
way
lyme
does
and
and
similar
like
lyme,
and
also
the
police
department,
as
well
as
changing
how
the
city
itself
is
working,
I
think,
should
be
coming
up
to
a
vote.
Should
it.
B
A
E
Hi,
my
name
is
carmel
rome.
I
live
in
ithaca
for
almost
15
years.
I
raised
still
raising
two
kids
here.
One
is
still
in
a
school
district,
so
I
cannot
believe
you
are
suggesting
that
50
feet
is
safe
distance
for
cell
antennas
to
be
from
homes.
I
want
to
see
at
least
1500
feet
like
other
towns
have
done,
and
I
want
to
see
you
add
schools
and
day
care
centers
to
the
limit.
E
E
E
E
E
If,
but
if
we
don't
need
them,
why
would
we
be
okay,
putting
them
up
all
over
the
city
plus,
if
you
really
want
5g
verizon
is
already
putting
5g
antennas
on
macro
towers.
So
why
do
we
need
these
small
cell
antennas?
This
is
unclear,
put
it
where
we
are
already
have
towers,
if
you
have
to,
which
is
also
unclear.
Why
we
have
to,
and
the
technology
is
consistently
changing,
so
there
can
be
greater
distance
between
antennas.
I
am
urging.
C
E
A
Thank
you
sounds
like
our
microphones
are
working
now,
so
whoever
fixed
that,
thank
you
very
much
grin
magical.
Thank
you
is
it
maytell
metalli
see.
I
need
to
hold
this
further
away
to
read
it.
Allison
is
up
next
allison
disarno.
So
three
minutes.
F
F
I
admittedly
don't
know
a
huge
amount
about
this
issue,
but
it's
it's
concerning
enough
for
me
to
want
to
want
to
have
proof
that
this
is
actually
safe.
I
personally
do
have
not
heard
that
it
is
so
I
really
want
to
be
shown
evidence
that
this
will
not
cause
any
harm,
especially
to
children
with
you
know,
they're
just
developing
developing
brains,
so
I
had
heard
that
they,
these
small
antennas,
can
admit
as
emit
as
much
radiation
as
a
large
cell
phone
tower.
F
G
G
However,
I
am
disappointed,
as
other
people
are
saying,
to
see
that
you're
suggesting
it's
okay
to
have
cell
antennas
50
feet
from
homes.
I
would
love
to
hear
what
the
rationale
was
for
this
change
from
the
1500
feet.
That
was
suggested
at
the
last
meeting,
especially
considering
the
technological
upgrades
in
the
distance
5g
can
travel.
G
This
proposed
distance
seems
way
too
close.
Also,
the
telecom
companies
should
not
be
allowed
to
police
themselves
when
it
comes
to
radio
frequency
radiation
inspections.
This
radiation
testing
should
be
done
by
the
city
and
paid
for
by
the
telecom
company.
While
the
companies
like
to
say
that
they
are
investing
in
our
community.
G
They
are
only
here
to
make
money
if
they
are
making
money
off
of
our
community,
they
can
afford
to
pay
for
testing
that
will
keep
the
people
living
here
safe
from
radiation
exposure.
Lastly,
campanelli
clearly
stated
that
the
bare
minimum
for
establishing
a
significant
gap
in
service
should
be
both
dropped,
calls
and
drive-by
tests.
He
is
the
expert
in
advising
communities
on
their
rights
in
this
matter,
and
I
think
we
should
be
taking
his
advice.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
april
and
then
arena.
H
H
At
the
last
meeting
of
this
committee,
I
thought
that
the
distance
of
1500
feet
from
homes
had
been
the
agreed
upon
distance.
Also,
this
distance
should
be
used
for
schools
and
day
care.
Centers
children
should
not
be
exposed
to
this
radiation
in
2018,
verizon
ceos
said
designing
neck.
There
designing
networks
to
work
at
a
two
thousand
foot
distance,
so
fifteen
hundred
feet
is
less
than
that,
and
one
of
the
telecom
companies
called
qualcomm
says
that
the
networks
can
now
work
up
to
three
miles.
H
Telecom
companies
can
also
put
antennas
on
already
existing
cell
phone
towers,
so
they
have
lots
of
options
and
there's
no
reason
to
force
us
to
make
it
any
closer,
and
the
other
point
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
that
the
companies
cannot
be
trusted
to
test
themselves
in
terms
of
the
radiation
emitted
by
these
cell
towers.
The
radiation
levels
should
be
tested
by
the
city.
The
telecom
companies
have
been
known
to
lower
the
power
levels
before
they
do
their
testing.
I
Concerned
that
the
new
codes
that
are
being
drafted
to
protect
ithaca
from
5g
are
not
completely
following
campanelli's
advice
and
have
too
many
loopholes
for
the
telecoms
specifically
there's
a
new
section
in
the
codes
allowing
variances
which
could
be
used
by
telecoms
as
a
way
to
get
around
other
codes.
I
Also,
the
codes
currently
allow
telecoms
to
either
either
provide
drive
test
data
or
draft
call
records
to
prove
a
gap
in
coverage,
but
the
codes
should
require
both
sets
of
data
from
telecoms,
especially
since
telecoms
are
known,
to
regularly
falsify
data
to
claim
a
gap
in
coverage.
That
does
not
exist,
so
we
need
both
the
drive
test
data
and
the
dropped
call
records,
and
I
have
a
a
question
for
mr
campanelli
actually
that
some
people
seem
to
be
falsely
equating
prohibiting
small
cell
antennas
near
homes
with
prohibiting
5g.
I
But
now
we
know,
as
other
people
have
spoken
to,
that,
5g
antennas
can
exist.
On
macro
towers,
a
great
distance
away
from
homes,
so
if
this
is
true,
and
as
long
as
there's
no
gap
in
service,
we
can
legally
keep
small
cell
antennas
away
from
residences,
and
and
this
doing
this
way,
having
it
on
on
macro
towers.
I
So
we
need
to
protect
our
city
from
telecoms,
and
I
don't
understand
why
we
wouldn't
adopt
the
strictest
codes,
possibly
possible,
like
other
cities
and
municipalities
are
doing
and
there's
no
reason
to
allow
the
telecoms
to
trample
over
our
city's
rights,
and
I
urge
you
to
tighten
up
the
codes
like
other
cities
have
done.
5G
is
a
dangerous
untested
technology
that
our
city
does
not
need,
and
I
appreciate
your
close
attention
to
this.
Thank
you.
A
K
I
appreciate
some
of
the
code
changes
that
the
staff
made,
especially
the
pollution
exclusion
clause,
but
I'm
also
disappointed
and
I'm
going
to
echo
some
of
what
the
other
speakers
have
have
them
have
said
that,
after
you
said,
you
wanted
antennas
1500
feet
from
homes.
At
the
last
meeting,
you
changed
the
code
so
that
cell
antennas
can
be
50
feet
from
homes.
K
It's
unbelievable
to
me
that
we
in
ithaca
would
be
okay
with
us.
We
know
that
these
antennas
so
close
to
residences
present
a
danger,
especially
to
children.
I
worked
with
children
and
this
is
very
important
to
me
and
we
should
add
schools,
both
public
and
private
and
day
care
centers
to
this
standard,
I'm
a
registered
nurse
and
infant
care
specialist,
and
this
is
probably
the
most
important
thing
in
all
of
the
codes
given
that
the
fda
safety
guidelines
are
out
of
date.
K
Ithaca
should
follow
their
lead
and
the
lead
of
other
u.s
cities
stand
proudly
with
them
and
increase
the
distance
between
antennas
and
schools
and
daycares
to
1500
feet
set
the
bar
high.
There
is
no
reason
they
need
to
be
closer
than
that.
It
has
long
been
common
knowledge
that
the
fcc,
with
its
more
than
25
years
of
outdated
safety
standards,
ignores
numerous
submissions
detailing
injuries
and
rapidly
growing
illnesses
from
radio
frequency
radiation.
K
K
A
L
That's
because
the
existing
cell
services
here
are
more
than
adequate
for
the
vast
majority
of
population.
So
what
problem
is
this
new
role
out
solving?
What
major
need
is
this
fulfilling,
or
are
we
just
giving
in
to
the
empty
hype
of
the
telecom
marketing
machine?
Much
as
americans
did
for
decades
with
cigarettes?
L
L
L
C
L
As
a
council
member
recently
noted,
we
live
in
an
age
where
technologies
are
changing
at
mind-boggling
speeds,
6g
is
already
being
designed,
and
even
though
I
don't
like
it,
there
are
plans
to
use
satellites
to
beam
wireless
signals.
So
while
we
litter
our
beautiful
downtown
with
antennas
that
may
very
well
be
obsolete
in
a
very
short
time,
telecoms
have
dumped
billions
into
slick
ads
to
convince
us
of
a
need
that
we
do
not
have.
But
these
companies
are
not
public
utilities,
they
are
private
companies
out
to
maximize
their
profits,
not
maximize
our
community
well-being.
L
M
L
N
Good
evening,
it's
good
to
see
you
guys
in
person,
as
opposed
to
on
zoom.
I
too
was
surprised
to
see
the
changes
from
last
meeting
draft
codes
to
this
meeting,
and
so
I'm
curious
to
hear
the
rationale.
N
What
happened
sort
of
behind
the
scenes
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
that,
particularly
as
others
have
said,
and
I
don't
have
to
reiterate
the
whole
thing-
the
it
was
a
bit
shocking
to
see
that
at
the
last
meeting
it
was
proposed
that
we
had
1500
feet
between
antennas
and
residences
and
somehow
in
there
it
got
changed
to
50.
N
In
fact
it
was.
I
actually
thought
it
was
a
typo
when
I
read
it,
our
suggestion
of
1500
feet
was
based
on
data.
It
was
based
on
the
new
hampshire
commission
on
5g
that
lists
17
studies
showing
that
safe
setbacks
should
be
500
meters,
which
is
actually
1640
feet,
but
for
those
of
you
who
are
risk-averse,
we've
also
wanted
to
show
the
precedent
of
cities
who
have
already
set
1500
setbacks.
N
1500
feet
setbacks
without
issue,
so
I
just
want
to
hear
your
rationale
and
scientific
basis
for
coming
up
with
the
50
feet.
What
was
what
was
behind
that,
because
it
was
a
big
shift.
The
appeals
in
the
variant
section
was
actually
the
most
challenging
for
me
and
it
I
might
be
totally
wrong.
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
I
might
be
misreading
it,
but
when
I
read
it,
it
essentially
sounds
like
these
are
our
codes
but
they're
all
essentially
negotiable,
so
again,
not
being
privy
to
the
behind
the
scenes.
Conversation.
N
N
You
know
this
is
trying
to
thread
the
needle
here,
looking
at
all
the
needs
and
all
the
preferences
of
people
here,
and
so
this
is
what
I
propose:
keep
the
5
1500
feet
setbacks
in
place,
but
we
allow
a
variance
on
the
setback
distance
only
in
order
to
fill
a
gap
in
service
which
is
legal
and
then
second,
we
allow
applicants
to
appeal
the
gap
in
service
code,
but
only
for
co-locations
on
existing
towers
that
meet
the
setback
distances.
N
This
is
a
way
I
see
we
can
take
a
stand
for
constituents,
the
biggest
concerns
that
most
people
have,
while
ensuring
that
the
code
does
not
effectively
prohibit
5g.
Also,
there's
lots
of
other
ways
that
we
can
have
5g
here
and
not
effectively
prohibit
and
still
not
have
this
densification
of
small
cell
antennas
in
the
downtown
area.
So
you
know,
one
of
the
interesting
things
I
came
across
is
that
the
even
the
cfo
of
crown
castle,
which
is
basically
a
tower
small
cell
sighting
company,
has
said
that
towers,
not
small.
N
Most
efficient
way
to
deploy
spectrum
and
cover
a
larger
area,
and
so
I
know
that
being
mindful
of
our
energy
and
power
uses
is
important
to
us.
So
I'm
trying
to
thread
the
needle
here,
but
mostly
I
want
to
see
codes
that
prioritize
citizen
safety
over
the
applicant's
needs.
O
O
O
I
just
don't
see
why
we
wouldn't
use
the
farthest
distance
possible
that
we
could
and
then,
if
they
wanted
to
apply
for
a
variance
or
an
appeal,
then
they
could
see
if
there
was
a
gap
in
coverage
and
then
do
both
the
drop,
calls
and
the
drive-by
test
and
see
if
that
would
work.
But
I
just
I
don't
even
see
that
that's
gonna
happen.
I
feel
like
the
1500
feet
would
be
sufficient.
O
G
A
J
M
So
I'm
sure
everybody's
heard
the
story
of
the
trojan
horse
where
something
that's
presented
as
a
gift
turns
out
to
be
a
method
of
gaining
entry
to
set
up
structures
of
control
in
order
to
rule
over
the
land.
Yes,
surely
we're
also
aware
history
repeats
itself,
while
there
is
ample
evidence
that
5g
is
in
no
way
safe?
I
understand
that
these
truths
have
been
reformed
as
lies
reframed,
as
lies
by
those
who
stand
to
fulfill
their
secret
agendas
via
dominating
the
media.
M
I
hate
to
think
regardless.
The
carelessness
with
which
this
rollout
is
being
executed
calls
into
question
the
competence
of
this
council.
Forgive
me
I
don't
know
who
is
in
the
way,
but
it
absolutely
does
and
any
who
are
involved
while
50
feet
of
distance
between
the
antennas
is
a
small
step
up
from
eight
it's
astounding
anybody
could
consider
that
progress.
M
Correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
the
goal
of
the
telecom
companies
is
absolutely
apparent.
They
seek
to
grow
their
profits,
not
to
be
of
service
to
the
world.
There
are
already
billion
dollar
private
companies,
which
are
basically
completely
unregulated.
In
fact,
the
radiation
levels
measured
in
proximity
to
5g
towers,
exceed
fcc
regulations
for
safe
levels.
By
times,
thousands
everybody
in
support
of
it
has
either
been
bought
off
and
oh
I'll
just
skip
that.
I
was
angry.
It
was
essential,
be
essentially
impossible
for
the
f's
for
the
fcc
to
backtrack
on
their
regulations.
M
If
you
think
about
it,
because
radiation
isn't
getting
any
safer,
so
they're
just
being
steamrolled
by
private
interests,
if
the
antennas
can
communicate
at
greater
distance,
what's
the
logic
in
placing
them.
So
close,
it's
unnecessary,
wasteful
ugly,
redundant
and
arrogant
to
gamble
with
innocent
lives
for
faster
internet.
M
This
is
not
an
advancement
worthy
of
exaltation
and
you
will
not
be
forgotten
when
lives
are
damaged
by
irresponsible
inaction
and
this
apparent
ignorance
of
the
cellular
manipulation
caused
by
radiation.
The
karma
will
not
forget
you.
Above
all,
mr
campanelli
made
clear
that
the
telecom
companies
regularly
falsify
data
to
show
a
coverage
gap.
He
said
that
dropped,
call,
data
and
drive
test
data
is
the
minimum.
We
should
ask
for.
Also
the
radiation
testing
should
obviously
be
done
at
random
and
done
by
the
city,
not
the
telecom
company.
Q
I
live
out
in
the
teeburg
farm
country
and
on
the
way
here,
I
passed
by
rachel
carson
way
and
I
said
a
little
prayer
for
rachel,
because
I
owe
my
life
to
her,
because
when
I
was
a
young
man
and
read
about
her
work,
I
was
convinced
that
it's
poison
that
causes
most
of
our
health
problems,
not
germs
and
not
bugs,
and
that
kind
of
thing,
and
when
I
got
40
to
40
years
old,
struggling
with
bad
health.
Q
For
many
years
I
found
out
about
fasting
and
natural
hygiene
and
twice
I
fasted
with
doctors
for
30
days
no
food,
just
distilled
water
and
saw
amazing
cures
happening.
My
body
had
been
covered
with
boils
for
20
years
and
they
all
disappeared.
Warts
disappeared,
athlete's
foot
I
had
for
25
years,
disappeared.
Arthritis
in
my
thumbs
disappeared
in
just
one
18-day
fast.
That
was
my
first
one.
Q
I
could
taste
it
coming
out
of
me
and
the
doctor
told
me
this
is
not
uncommon
when
people
fast
that
drugs
and
poisons
they've
been
exposed
to
come
out
many
years
later.
But
when
I
came
back,
I
was
much
more
sensitive
to
things
like
I
used
to
like
the
smell
of
gasoline.
Now
I
couldn't
be
near
it.
I
had
to
have
my
arm
this
far
away
from
me
when
I
was
putting
gas
in
my
car.
Q
The
smell
was
so
toxic
to
me,
and
I
also
became
more
sensitive
to
nerve
problems
that
I
had,
which
I
wasn't
even
aware
of
and
when
I
moved
up
here,
I
they
started
to
come
back
more
intensely
and
I
finally
figured
out
that
they
were
due
to
the
fact
that
we
had
wi-fi,
because
my
wife
was
running
a
bed-and-breakfast
and
when
we
got
rid
of
the
wi-fi,
the
nerve
systems
nervous
system
problems
calmed
way
down.
So
the
sensitivity
I
have
toward
things
made
me.
Q
Carson
and
so
the
w
the
world
health
organization
iarc
director,
recommends
taking
measures
to
reduce
exposures
until
long-term
research
is
done,
and
so
it
seems
to
me
that
the
proof
is,
on
the
other
side,
that
the
people
there
should
be
some
kind
of
studies
to
prove
that
this
is
safe.
I
I
can't
imagine
it
is
when
something
like
wi-fi
is
driving
me
crazy,
that
this
more
intense
radiation
won't
drive
people
crazy,
it's
not
a
necessary
thing.
It's
not
needed.
Q
A
A
P
P
They're
correct
in
saying
that
we
set
a
fifteen
hundred
dollar
or
fifteen
fifteen
hundred
feet
requirement
at
our
last
meeting,
and
I
don't
know
why
that
was
changed
to
50
and
500..
P
It
wasn't
changed
by
the
committee,
so
we'll
find
that
out
this.
P
A
A
S
A
All
right,
so
I
think
what
we're
gonna
do.
I
don't
know
if
I
know
we
did
have
a
few
questions
submitted
from
council.
I
know
george
had
a
few.
Do
you
want
me
to
just
do
your
questions
first,
or
should
we
just
open
the
floor
or
ari?
Do
you
want
to
say
anything?
First?
Are
you
a
crin?
Do
you
want
to.
T
A
Okay,
great
so
the
first
questions
that
we
had
comment
on.
I
can't
touch
this
microphone
had
come
in.
Are
there
these
are
from
george?
Are
there
current
mainstream
medical
studies
that
delve
into
the
health
hazards,
or
lack
thereof,
of
human
exposure
to
radiation
stemming
from
5g
waves
and
infrastructure.
S
The
short
answer
is
yes,
so
the
first
thing
I
want
to
say
is:
I
want
to
qualify
this
by
saying,
as
you
most
likely
know,
to
the
extent
that
a
facility
or
a
proposed
facility
will
be
fcc
compliant,
meaning
that
when
installed
and
operated
the
levels
of
radiation,
which
it
will
expose
members,
the
general
public
to
are
within
the
general
population
exposure
limits,
you're
not
supposed
to
regulate
based
upon
health
concerns,
but
there
are
things
you
can
do
to
make
sure
that
they're
fcc
compliant
so
that
the
levels
of
radiation
are
not
illegally
excessive.
S
That
being
said,
there's
a
wealth
of
information
available
for
the
lack
of
information
and
information
showing
potential
adverse
health
impacts
from
5g
installations.
I
think
the
best
resource
I
can
give
you
is
a
phone
number
there's
a
woman
named
cecilia
dustet
from
I
believe
from
massachusetts.
She
has
a
wealth
of
information.
She
can
share
with
you
she's
kind
of
like
a
one-stop
shop.
If
you
go
to
her
she
can.
She
can
give
you
information
and
if
there's
anything
she
can't
answer,
she
can
tell
you
exactly
where
to
look
so
again.
S
Her
name
is
cc
ducette
and
that's
d-o-u-c-e-t-e
and
I'll
give
you
her
phone
number.
It
is
508
881
3878
and
she
would
be
willing
to
discuss
with
you
whatever
you
need
to
get
information
now
for
years.
I
would
amass
the
studies
and
all
the
information,
but
I'm
not
a
scientist.
I'm
not
a
doctor,
I'm
not
an
activist,
I'm
just
a
lawyer,
so
I've
kind
of
moved
away
and
let
the
experts
in
the
medical
fields
deal
with
that
and
I
handle
the
law.
S
Well:
okay,
that's
kind
of
a
mixed
question,
so
I
have
to
break
it
down
a
little
bit
as
you
may
or
may
not
know.
There
are
three
principal
types
of
wireless
facilities,
whether
it's
3g,
4g
or
5g.
S
The
largest
type
are
the
macro
facilities.
Those
are
your
standard
cell
towers,
which
typically
go
anywhere
from
60
feet
to
199
feet.
They
have
the
most
significant
power
output.
They
are
far
and
away
the
most
powerful,
a
good
rule
of
thumb
for
cell
towers.
As
far
as
minimum
safe
distance,
I
will
tell
you
other
countries
typically
banned
them
from
within
1500
feet
of
a
schoolyard
or
in
their
case
it's
meters,
but
a
good
rule
of
thumb
is
you
want
to
keep
them
1500
feet
away
from
places
where
you'd
want
to
protect
people?
S
The
non-health
concerned
ones
would
involve
things
like
structural
failures,
icefall
debris
fall
even
fire,
and
the
average
person
wouldn't
think
that
cell
towers
go
on
fire.
But
when
I
used
to
do
the
research
at
least
once
a
month,
one
of
these
things
go
up
in
flames
and
lay
over
in
a
flaming
heap.
If
you
want
to
check
for
yourself
go
into
youtube
and
do
a
search
for
cell
tower
burns
to
the
ground,
and
you
can
watch
that
so
just
as
a
general
rule,
a
1500
foot
setback
is
fine.
S
If
you
want
to
keep
away
from
schools
or
perhaps
residences,
that's
fine.
If
it's
going
to
be
less
than
that,
you
want
to
keep
an
eye
on
a
sufficient,
safe
zone
around
the
tower.
You
want
to
make
sure
a
tower
is
sufficiently
set
back
so
that
god
forbid
there
was
a
structural
failure
or
ice
fall
or
debris
fall.
No
would
be,
would
be
within
the
zone
of
danger.
S
There's
a
great
image
to
look
up
on.
Google
just
do
a
search
for
oswego
cell
tower
crushes
fire
chief's
vehicle
and
you'll
see
color
photographs
of
a
150
foot
tower
that
went
from
being
150
foot
tall
to
165
feet
long
in
less
than
three
seconds
and
crushed
the
fire
cheese
vehicle
in
the
meantime.
So,
if
you're
worried
about
potential
health,
even
though
you're
not
supposed
to
regulate
on
health,
many
governments
say
1500
feet
is
fine.
S
S
S
Those
setbacks
can
be
less
significant.
The
biggest
problem
with
those
within
the
context
of
the
5g
rollout
is
that
wireless
carriers
and
site
developers
are
going
in
and
installing
these
things
right
in
front
of
people's
front
doors,
eight
feet
from
someone's
bedroom
window
and
even
on
front
lawns
under
a
claim
of
an
easement.
S
So
the
setback
for
those
would
really
depend
upon
your
districts
and
what's
allowed
in
what
district,
but
at
a
minimum.
You
should
enable
property
owners
to
be
placed
on
notice
of
a
potential
installation
and
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
oppose
the
installation
if
it
would
be
installed
in
close
proximity
to
their
home.
S
One
installation
involves
multiple
nodes
which
work
together,
so
one
system
may
have
anywhere
from
eight
to
43
nodes
and
they
might
go
into
residential
neighborhood
and
seek
to
put
them
every
300
feet
once
again.
These
are
the
most
problematic
in
terms
of
people,
waking
up
or
coming
home
from
work
and
finding
one
of
these
on
their
front
lawn
outside
their
bedroom
window.
Things
like
that,
so
the
distance
you
would
want
depends
upon
the
type
of
facility
that
the
applicant
seeks
to
install.
A
S
Answer
yeah
to
the
extent
you're
capable
many
governments
want
to
set
a
setback
at
1500
feet
now
in
some
jurisdictions
that
would
wipe
out
almost
entire
towns.
They
wouldn't
have
any
place
to
put
them.
Any
setback
requirement
is
acceptable,
so
long
as
an
applicant
can
seek
relief.
S
You
may
have
many
types
of
limitations,
height
limitations,
setback
limitations
or
ordinary
zoning
applications,
and
typically,
under
every
zoning
code
across
the
united
states,
the
code
allows
applicants
to
seek
relief
by
obtaining
a
variance,
so
you
can
set
any
reasonable
setback
requirement.
You
want
so
long
as
there
is
some
provision
in
the
code
that
enables
an
applicant
to
seek
relief
if
they
prove
that
they
can't
meet
that
setback
requirement.
S
If,
for
example,
they
say,
okay,
your
setback
is
110
of
the
height
of
the
tower.
We
can
only
have
a
setback
of
30
30
feet
because
it
has
to
go
here
because
we
have
a
significant
gap
in
personal
wireless
services,
and
this
is
the
only
place
we
can
put
a
tower
to
remedy
the
gap.
Now
those
specific
issues
are
addressed
elsewhere.
In
the
draft
of
your
revised
code
provision.
A
P
I'm
sorry
I
I
listened
carefully,
but
I
I'm
still
confused
about
how
close
a
distributing
antenna
system
could
be
to
a
residence
and
and
be
safe
and
the
same
with
small
cell
facilities.
S
Okay,
that's
a
good
question,
so
let
me
teach
you
a
little
bit
about
the
distributed
antenna
systems.
They
are
far
and
away
the
most
common
type
of
facility
being
installed
by
the
hundreds
of
thousands
in
the
context
of
the
5g
rollout.
S
Now,
if
you're
in
a
residential
neighborhood
with
two-story
homes
and
the
bedrooms,
are
on
the
second
story,
if
they
put
one
of
these
on
a
30-foot
utility
pole,
the
transmitter
is
getting
close
to
being
on
an
even
plane
with
the
people
who
sleep
in
their
beds
at
night
and
that
the
effect
of
that
is,
they
tend
to
get
the
maximum
level
of
radiation
exposure.
They
can
get
from
one
of
these
facilities,
so
for
starters,
most
local
governments
who
are
sophisticated
and
apply
their
code
to
protect
their
residents.
S
S
S
S
S
Many
local
governments
being
aware
that
the
fcc
doesn't
test
these
things.
They
adopt
testing
requirements.
Basically,
it
calls
for
random
testing
of
the
facilities
either.
The
local
government
pays
for
the
random
testing
or
the
owner
of
the
facility
pays
for
the
testing
or
in
some
jurisdictions,
one
of
which
was
being
the
city
of
calabasas,
which
I
advised
probably
15.
Years
ago.
S
P
No,
you
didn't
all
I
all
I'm
asking
is:
how
close
can
the
distributing
antenna
systems
be
to
a
house
or
a
school
and
still
be
safe
in
our
draft?
S
Well,
the
answer
is,
theoretically,
it
would
be
a
safe
distance
if
the
power
output
is
not
increased
to
a
point
where
the
50
distance
is
not
sufficient.
The
problem
is
no.
Once
a
facility
is
approved,
nobody
controls
the
facility,
so
they
traditionally
the
wireless
industry
will
power
up.
They
will
increase
the
power
output,
they
will
increase
the
height,
they
will
add
more
facilities.
S
The
only
way
to
say,
what's
safe
is
if
there's
some
way
to
monitor
the
power
output.
For
me,
I'd
love
to
say
you
can't
put
one
one
within
300
feet
of
a
residence.
That's
what
make
would
make
me
feel
comfortable,
300
feet.
That's
what
I'd
like
to
see.
T
Oh
yeah,
thank
you
and
thank
you
andrew.
I
appreciate
you're
joining
us
this
evening.
I
think
we
should
just
lay
pretty
bluntly
on
the
table
a
couple
choices
that
the
committee
should
be
making
and
then
the
committee
should
start
sorting
through
what
they
want
to
do
with
that,
and
I
think
that
andrew
campanelli
may
be
instrumental
in
helping
the
committee
make
some
of
those
choices.
So
I'd
like
to
highlight
some
of
those
choices
and
just
put
them
out
there.
T
This
is
not
about
the
staff,
so
with
that,
I
think
there
are
sort
of
two
key
issues.
I
believe
council's
pretty
well
aware
of
these
issues.
I'm
sure
there
are
a
number
of
other
issues
as
well,
but
two
key
ones
that
I'd
like
to
highlight
for
the
committee
up
front
are
first,
the
setbacks
that
we've
been
talking
about.
T
Those
are,
of
course
not
up
to
staff
in
the
end.
They're
up
to
council
and
council
should
go
ahead
and
vote
and
set
those
at
whatever
number
they
would
like
those
to
be,
and
the
second
issue,
which
was
also
flagged
this
evening,
is
the
question
of
the
variance
process.
So
when
you
think
about
the
variance
process-
and
let's
just
be
totally
blunt
about
this
up
front-
there
are
two
ways
to
structure
this.
T
At
least
as
I
see
it,
and
perhaps
more
one
is
to
as
a
number
of
the
speakers
this
evening
would
like
to
have
it
to
require
that
no
5g
installation
can
be
installed
unless
an
applicant
first
shows
a
gap
in
cell
coverage,
not
5g
coverage,
but
cell
coverage.
For
that
justifies
that
installation
and
then,
and
that
absence
satisfying
that
standard
there
simply
would
not
be
a
5g
installation
in
the
vast
majority
of
instances.
That's
one
way
to
do
it
and
it
might
result
in
little.
T
If
any
5g
installations
in
ithaca,
though
I
expect
andrew
campanelli,
can
share
some
additional
thoughts
on
that.
Another
approach
is
to
set
a
variety
of
other
criteria,
including
setbacks
from
residences
distances
between
polls
areas
where
new
polls
are
not
allowed
all
the
other
things
that
were
in
the
design
guidelines
that
the
city
brought
forward
long
ago
decide
and
then
instruct
that
applicants
must
meet
all
of
those
other
criteria,
and
if
they
do,
then
they
don't
have
to
show
a
gap
in
coverage.
T
If
they're
installing
a
5g
installation
that
the
city
wants-
and
I
hear
a
lot
of
public
saying-
we
don't
want
5g-
that
is
entirely
up
to
the
common
council
not
up
to
me,
but
if
they
do,
then
one
approach
would
be
to
say:
okay,
if
this
is
a
5g
installation
that
we
want
and
I'm
going
to
put
that
word
in
quotes,
I
realize
lots
of
people,
don't
want
5g.
That's
fine,
I'm
not
expressing
any
view
on
that.
T
Then
the
gap
in
cell
coverage,
not
5g
coverage
but
cell
coverage
would
not
need
to
be
established
and
in
contrast,
if
it
if,
if
the
design
guidelines
were
not
met
and
the
application
were
therefore
denied,
then
the
variance
process
could
kick
in
and
say,
and
the
applicant
could
say,
but
look
there's
a
gap
in
coverage
gap
in
cell
coverage.
You
have
to
let
me
do
it
and
then
you'd
come
in
and
do
it?
That's
the
alternative
approach.
T
T
And
I'll
add
andrew,
if
you
have
any
particular
initial
gloss
from
a
legal
angle
on
the
issues
that
I
just
obviously
you
already
just
spoke
to
the
setback.
So
I
don't
think
you
need
to
speak
any
further
to
that,
but
on
the
variance
front,
if
you
or
of
course
crin
if
you'd
like
to
speak
to
anything,
have
anything
further
that
you'd
like
to
sort
of
put
in
council's
ears
before
they
start
weighing
in
on
that
on
their
choice
of
approach,
we'd
be
interested
to
hear,
I
suspect.
T
I
apologize
can
authors
hear
me:
okay,
yeah,
oh.
U
Yes,
ari
was
deciding
that
the
the
way
that
the
the
ordinance
is
structured
now
is
that
if,
if
an
applicant
is
able
to
meet
whatever
guidelines
common
councils
selected
this
through
this
legislation,
then
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
show
the
significant
gap
in
coverage.
But
if
they
seek
any
kind
of
variance
or
they
are
seeking
to
appeal
any
of
those
guidelines,
then
they
have
to
go
to
our
border
zoning
appeals
and
show
significant
gap
in
coverage
in
order
to
establish
entitlement
to
the
variance.
G
U
They're
seeking
and
and
then
with
that
we've
baked
in
the
criteria
that
you
hopefully
provided
us
in
your
first
memo.
S
Okay,
so
first,
I
think
that
is
a
logical
approach.
That's
okay
and
I'll!
Tell
you
why
what
I
do
is
I
I
guide
local
governments
to
adopt
what
I
call
smart
planning
provisions:
smart
planning
provisions,
which
are
designed
to
achieve
three
objectives:
they're
designed
to
enable
carriers
to
provide
wireless
coverage.
Let's
face
it,
everybody
loves
their
smartphone,
everyone
loves
their
ipad
and
in
the
current
state
of
technology
you
need
wireless
towers
or
facilities
to
enable
people
to
use
it.
S
S
And
if
you
proceed
in
the
manner
you
describe
you're,
taking
a
step
in
that
direction,
very
often
I'll
see
where
there's
a
small
town
somewhere
and
you
can
cover
the
whole
town
with
coverage
by
putting
up
three
cell
towers
and
you
put
one
in
the
woods
and
one
in
a
landfill
and
one
in
the
junkyard,
and
that
covers
the
whole
town.
You
don't
need
to
put
them
right
next
to
people's
homes,
with
the
rollout
of
5g
now
and
capacity
issues,
it's
a
little
more
difficult,
but
the
way
you're
structuring
this
is
to
say.
S
S
It's
perfectly
logical
to
agree
to
not
make
them
prove
significant
gap
or
least
intrusive
means.
Why?
Because
it's
consistent
with
smart
planning,
especially
if
they're
strategically
placed
so
you
place,
you
build
the
minimum
number
of
facilities,
you
need
to
provide
the
coverage,
and
then
you
only
have
to
force
them
to
or
require
them
to
prove
significant
gap
least
intrusive
means
where
their
proposed
installations
you
deem
to
be
irresponsible
or
out
of
or
inconsistent
with
your
smart
planning
provisions.
So,
theoretically,
it's
fine
and
again
I've
read
your
draft
code.
It's
actually
very
good.
S
It's
very
good,
it's
better
than
far
most
most
of
the
case,
most
of
the
codes
I've
reviewed.
So
it
is
a
legitimate
approach
as
long
as
you're
comfortable,
the
only
question
would
be,
should
you
or
should
you
not
have
some
type
of
notice
provision
to
property
owners
within
a
certain
distance?
S
I
often
recommend
to
local
governments,
even
if
they're
going
to
put
a
dos
note
up.
If
it's
going
to
be
less
than
300
feet
into
somebody's
house,
they
should
get
noticed
before
it's
approved
and
the
type
of
approval
which
doesn't
involve
a
permit
applying
for
a
permit
for
a
planning
board
or
zba.
It's
basically
administrative
process.
Someone
can
grant
an
approval
without
a
public
hearing
or
going
for
the
planning
board.
S
T
No,
I
I
think
that
unless
council
has
specific
questions,
I
I
think
that
was
a
useful
answer
for
the
committee
I'm
guessing
and
that
the
committee
should
start
discussing
what
they'd
like.
I
think
that's
thank
you.
J
U
C
So
andrew,
thank
you
for
your
comments
there.
So
you
you've
seen
our
current
version.
Is
there
a
need?
I
mean
you
mentioned
these
different
kind
of
systems
there,
including
the
distributed
antenna
system.
C
We
can
have
legislation
that
minimizes
the
impact
and-
and
I
think
there's
been
some
misunderstanding-
I
mean
I
appreciate
the
public's
comments,
but
some
of
the
changes
between
the
two
versions
have
perhaps
been
misunderstood
and
we
can
talk
about
those,
for
instance,
the
setback
I
mean.
I
think,
we've
increased,
that
from
eight
feet
to
fifty
feet
in
terms.
S
Of
well
as
it's
drafted,
it
actually
would
cover
5g
installations.
Okay,
the
thing
about
5g
is
that
the
technology
travels
the
shortest
distance,
so
these
facilities
would
have
to
be
installed
closer
together.
Now,
5g
is
not
actually
necessary.
If
you've
got
4g,
then
the
company
has
personal
wireless
services.
The
fact
that
they
want
something
doesn't
mean
they're
automatically
entitled
to
it.
S
So
I've
heard
site
developers
say
they
want
to
go
into
neighborhoods
and
put
them
no
farther
than
every
300
feet
in
a
residential
neighborhood,
and
from
my
perspective,
you
don't
have
to
agree
to
that.
If
it
doesn't
meet
your
criteria,
then
you
have,
you
can
require
them
to
go
for
a
permit
before
the
planning
board.
S
Now
when
they
come
in
and
say
well,
you
have
to
give
us
this
application,
so
they
put
an
application
in
to
put
43
nodes
in
a
residential
neighborhood
and
say
we
have
a
significant
gap
in
service,
and
this
is
the
least
intrusive
means
of
remedying
that
gap.
So
you
must,
let
us
have
it
because
saying
no
would
materially
inhibit
us
from
providing
personal
wireless
services
which
would
violate
telecommunications
act.
S
They
don't
get
to
tell
your
board
that
they
have
a
significant
gap
or
that
the
proposed
installation
of
any
type
is
the
least
intrusive
means
of
remitting
it.
They
can
claim
it,
but
it's
up
to
your
board
and
your
board
alone,
who
gets
to
determine
if
they've
proven
both
of
those
things.
Now
your
code
as
drafted
now
is
amended.
S
S
Every
single
time,
a
municipality,
turns
down
an
application
for
a
wireless
facility
and
they
get
sued
in
federal
court
and
lose
it's
because
of
one
of
two
things
number
one.
They
didn't
make
a
factual
determination
which
they
were
required
to
make
or
two
they
blew
the
shot
clock
now,
there's
no
excuse
for
blowing
the
shot
clock.
This
is
a
pretty
simple
issue,
but
the
factual
determinations.
S
You
must
provide
your
board
with
procedural
guidelines
to
say
when
you've
got
an
application
of
this
type.
You
must
make
these
factual
determinations
and
there's
two
types.
There's
factual
determinations
under
your
code
and
then
there's
factual
determinations
on
the
telecommunications
act
so
long
as
your
board
makes
each
of
those
factual
determinations
and
it
cites
the
evidence
in
the
record
based
upon
which
they
made
them.
The
truth
is
your
pro
could
probably
turn
down
90
to
95
percent
of
the
applications
for
5g
facilities.
C
C
V
I
think
I'm
largely
agnostic
to
the
two
options
that
already
laid
out,
but
the
crux
of
my
concern
is
that
is
the
gap
in
coverage
standard,
so
drop
calls
seems
to
me
an
antiquated
measure
that
does
not
reflect
the
way
most
people
use
their
phones
these
days.
So
I'm
curious
if,
if
you
have
or
have
any
recommendations
for
setting
gap
and
coverage
standards
that
relate
to
you
know,
minimum
data
transfer
speeds
or
capacity
for
a
certain
like
number
of
users.
S
Okay,
so
there
are
two
types
of
deficiencies
which
necessitate
the
installation
of
a
new
wireless
facility.
The
first
is
when
there's
a
physical
gap
in
coverage
and,
more
specifically,
a
significant
gap
in
coverage.
Basically,
a
significant
gap
in
coverage
is
most
often
evidenced
by
an
area
where
you
don't
have
coverage,
meaning
if
you
are
in
this
physical
area,
you
cannot
initiate,
maintain
and
conclude
a
sell
phone
call
without
failure,
or
if
you
drive
through
it,
you
may
be
on
the
phone
and
you
drive
through
it.
The
phone
drops
the
call
drops
the
call
fails.
S
Okay,
that's
where
you
have
a
physical
gap
in
coverage.
Now
under
the
telecommunications
act
as
it's
been
adopted
as
it's
been
interpreted
by
federal
courts
since
1998,
an
effective
prohibition
of
wireless
services
occurs,
meaning
that
a
local
government
violates
a
site,
developer
and
applicant's
right
to
provide
wireless
coverage
if
they
file
an
application
for
a
wireless
facility
and
it
gets
denied
if
they
have
proven
two
things
number
one.
There's
a
significant
gap
in
personal
wireless
services
and
number
two
there's
proposed
installation
is
the
least
intrusive
means
of
remembering
that
gap.
S
Now,
how
does
a
sophisticated
government
ascertain
where
there's
a
given
coverage
for
years?
The
answer
was
getting
hard
data
now
for
a
gap
in
service.
What
they
would
do
for
years
is
to
do
a
drive
test.
They
would
get
a
recording
device,
they
attach
it
to
a
telephone
and
they
drive
through
the
area
where
they
claim.
There's
a
gap
in
coverage
that
recording
device
on
a
two-hour
drive
will
record
the
actual
signal
strength
every
few
milliseconds.
S
So
on
a
two-hour
drive,
you
might
get
several
hundred
thousand
recordings.
Those
recordings.
If
you
get
the
actual
data,
we'll
show
you
the
actual
signal,
strength
and
you'll
know
where
the
signal
strength
is
strong
enough
to
maintain
a
call
and
where
it
is
not
the
the
most
in
the
most
important
part
is
the
data
will
show
you
three
things
number
one:
the
existence
or
absence
of
gaps
number
two
where
they
are
and
number
three
where
their
geographic
boundaries
are.
S
The
biggest
problem
is
that
when
it's
a
site
developer,
they
don't
care
about
picking
the
least
intrusive
spot
they
care
about
finding
the
cheapest
spot.
So
they
will
find
a
location
where
they
want
to
put
it
because
it's
the
cheapest
spot,
then
they
will
reverse
engineer
propagation
maps
to
make
it
look
like
it
has
to
go
there
now.
How
do
they
do
that?
S
They
will
take
whatever
data
they
have
and
use
software
propagation
modeling
software
like
an
atoll.
The
software
itself
is
very
good.
In
fact,
it's
too
good.
It
enables
them
to
put
in
variables
and
say,
look
this.
This
five
lock
area,
the
city
of
ithaca,
has
has
very
bad
tech,
topography,
there's
hills
and
and
valleys,
and
there's
a
ledge
and
there's
heavy
foliage.
S
So
they
can
add
these
things
as
blockage
areas
and
basically
say.
Okay.
The
signal
was
this
strength,
but
we
have
to
account
for
the
loss
and
signal
strength
when
it
goes
to
these
other
places.
So
they
will
manipulate
the
actual
data
to
show
whatever
they
wanted
to
show,
no
matter
how
accurate
or
it
more
or
more
accurately
how
inaccurate
it
is.
They'll
show
you
a
map
which
is
no
probit
of
value.
S
It's
gotten
so
bad
that,
even
in
august
of
last
year,
the
fcc
itself
says
we
don't
want
these
pro
public,
these
propagation
maps
alone
anymore.
You
want
to
give
us
a
propagation
map.
You
wireless
companies,
you
have
to
give
us
drive
test
data
as
well.
That
way,
they
can't
shall
we
say,
manipulate
the
boards,
and
I
will
tell
you
right
now
in
ninety
five
percent
of
the
applications
I've
seen
for
permits.
S
Ninety
five
percent
of
the
applications
contain
false
information.
Ninety
five
percent
of
them
now
the
other
type
of
deficiency
is
a
capacity
deficiency.
This
occurs
where
you've
got
plenty
of
coverage.
The
whole
city
is
covered,
but
the
system
is
maxed
out
so
that
at
peak
times,
when
you've
got
bumper-to-bumper
traffic,
the
system
can
handle
the
volume
and
when
that
exists,
you
get
dropped
calls
even
though
there's
coverage
in
the
area.
S
Now,
if
they
come
in
and
they
say
we
need
this
for
a
capacity
issue
once
again,
you
can
ask
for
hard
data
and
it's
extremely
easy.
Every
carrier
has
denial
of
service
records
and
drop
call
records.
If
they
say
we
have
a
capacity
deficiency
on
smith
street,
any
carrier
can
go
to
their
computer
punch
in
a
few
keystrokes
and
give
you
a
list
of
all
drop
calls
for
any
geographic
area
for
any
chronological
period
in
time.
S
So
you
can
say
show
me
every
dropped
call
for
the
month
of
march
on
smith
street,
and
they
can
give
it
to
you.
I
would
ask
for
probative
data
if,
and
only
if
you
get
that
data,
would
the
planning
board
then
be
in
a
position
to
determine
if
they've
proven
they
have
a
significant
gap
or
capacity
deficiency?
V
But
so
you're
still
talking
about
two
two
measures,
signal
strength
and
drop
calls,
and
what
I'm
saying
is
that
they
are
not
relevant
to
the
data
download,
speed
or
upload
speed
that
a
data
user
will
get
on
their
phone,
and
so
I'm
more
asking
more
of.
If,
if
we
decided
to
set
a
different
standard
for
for
a
gap
in
coverage,
how
would
what
advice
would
you
give
our
staff
for
for
creating
the
language
for
setting.
S
If
you
want
to
try
to
set
a
different
standard,
it's
nearly
impossible
to
ascertain
if
they're,
giving
you
honest
data,
that's
the
problem.
I've
seen
local
governments
say
we
want
to
limit
the
power
output
of
these
facilities.
Well,
how
would
you
enforce
it
you're,
never
going
to
know
if
they're
exceeding
the
power
limits.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
data
download
speed,
they
can
provide
an
expert
report
to
say
anything.
S
They
want
so
it'll
come
back
to
the
fact
that
site
developers
right
now
in
the
5g
rollout
they
want
to
build
as
many
facilities
they
can
anywhere.
That
is
cheap
and
if
you
try
to
set
different
standards,
which
I
applaud,
the
concern
you
have
and
how
you're
trying
to
take
a
logical
approach
to
this.
The
problem
is:
how
would
you
be
able
to
ascertain
how
would
your
planning
board
be
able
to
ascertain
if
whatever
data
or
reports
they
give
you
on
download
speed
is
accurate
and
the
answer
is
you
can't.
C
J
C
Ever
follow
up
on
that
because
in
in
the
current
code,
as
I
understand
it
and
ari
can
correct
me,
but
we
have
required
testing
30
days
after
installation
in
annual
testing,
and
certainly
my
thought
is
that
we
would
perhaps
put
together
a
list
of
independent
contractors
or
testing
experts
that
could
give
us
the
results.
And
presumably
we
could
also
find
independent
people
that
could
give
us
as
part
of
the
variance
process,
if
they
needed
to
to
give
us
third-party
results.
Is
that
something
that
other
communities
have
done?
S
I
don't
know
if
you
could
find
a
list.
I
will
tell
you
many
of
the
good
rf
engineers
obviously
work
for
the
wireless
industry,
but
you
can
find
rf
engineers
who
will
do
the
testing
and
I
always
recommend
getting
an
rf
engineer
as
opposed
to
a
town
employee,
because
they
know
how
to
conduct
the
tests
they're.
Actually
not
that
expensive.
I
mean
I've
seen
them
as
cheap
as
400.
S
They
know
how
to
prepare
a
report
to
show
that
the
signal
strengths
were
not
taken
as
a
snapshot.
They
were
averaged
over
a
period
of
time,
which
is
the
proper
way
to
test
in
the
report.
They'll
describe
the
type
of
equipment
they've
used
and
how
the
equipment
was
calibrated
and
they'll
prepare
a
report
that
has
credibility.
S
It's
a
little
harder
to
do
now,
because
in
the
5g
realm
there
are
far
fewer
testers,
it's
much
easier
to
find
someone
to
test
3g
or
4g,
but
they're
out
there
and
the
demand
for
them
is
growing.
So
I
think,
as
more
and
more
college
graduates
come
out
and
they're
familiar
with
this
stuff,
you
will
find
the
number
of
available
testers
to
probably
increase
dramatically
over
the
next
three
or
four
years.
S
P
S
That's
a
very
good
question
and
I
I
really
can't
tell
you
that
I
know
definitively
the
answer,
especially
because
every
engineer
I
talked
to
tells
me
the
5z
signal
strength
does
not
travel
as
far
and
far
and
away
the
vast
majority
of
5c
facilities
are
nodes
and
small
cells.
Now
I
don't
know
if
that's
solely
because
it's
the
site
developers
who
want
as
many
facilities
as
possible
or
perhaps
because
you've
already
got
most
of
the
easiest
sites
for
cell
towers
already
taken
by
4g
towers.
S
You
know
it
it's.
I
can't
impress
upon
local
governments
enough
in
this.
In
the
realm
of
site
development
companies,
they
get
paid
once
a
wireless
facility
gets
up
and
it
doesn't
matter
what
type
it
is
once
the
facility
goes
up
from
that
day
forward
month
after
month
forever
they
get
a
monthly
check,
and
so
if
they
can
build
one
cell
tower
or
43
nodes,
they
can
get
one
check
a
month
when
they
get
43
checks
a
month.
So
for
the
vast
majority
of
5g
rollout
take
a
guess
what
type
of
facilities
they're
installing.
S
R
R
But
then
I
thought
you
said
that
if
a
company
meets
our
stated
city
guidelines,
then
there
would
be
no
variance
request
going
to
the
bza
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
questions
is
it
possible
for
a
resident
to
ask?
Where
do
they
have
a
right,
especially
if
a
carrier
is
meeting
the
stated
guidelines.
S
Okay,
well,
it
depends
upon
the
where
the
person's
home
situated
in
terms
of
a
public
right-of-way,
I've
had
cell
towers,
I've,
seen
cell
towers
installed
literally
on
people's
front
lawns,
and
I'm
not
talking
about
six
inches
onto
a
front
lawn.
I
had
a
case
in
mount
sinai
new
york,
where
a
site
developer
put
a
cell
tower
16
feet
on
to
someone's
front
lawn
and
their
claim
of
right
to
do
so
was
because
there
was
a
public
right-of-way
across
their
front
lawn.
S
So
the
site
developers
like
to
portray
themselves
as
public
utilities
and
claim
rights
not
only
on
public
rights
away,
but
also
on
easements
and
very
often
they'll,
say.
Okay,
you
can
put
them
in
rights
of
way
which
includes
utility,
easements
and
sometimes
someone's
house
is
situated
close
so
closely
to
a
street
that,
if
they
put
on
a
utility
pole,
it
just
so
happens
that
it's
actually
on
their
side
lawn
or
again,
ridiculously
close
to
their
window
and
in
those
rare
cases.
S
A
I'm
going
to
try
to
maybe
bring
us
to
a.
I
don't
know
if
I
can
bring
us
to
a
close
by
7
30,
but
we'll
see
if
we
can
already
put
a
number
of
different
questions
in
front
of
us.
I
think
council
needs
to
start
making
a
decision
on
what
direction
we're
comfortable
with.
I
do
also
know
just
to
let
some
of
the
members
of
the
public
also
know
that
some.
J
A
This
was
discussed
in
an
executive
session
because
of
the
possibility
of
pending
litigation.
So
if
there
might
have
been
some
confusion
around
what
was
said
at
a
meeting,
we
did
also
host
an
executive
session
to
discuss
spending
litigation.
So
I
just
want
to
caution
us
before
we
start
to
have
a
discussion.
A
If
some
of
your
questions
might
enter
that
arena,
we
also
should
propose
an
executive
session
as
well
with
our
city
attorneys,
just
just
in
case,
so
I'm
just
putting
that
caveat
before
we
start
to
have
a
discussion
on
the
floor
here
and
I
don't
know
exactly
how
we
want
to
proceed.
We
would
like
to
try
to
bring
these
guidelines
back
next
month.
A
A
T
T
Yep
yep
and
two
yeah
thank
you
and
and
to
the
question
of
notice.
That
was
just
on
your
list
deb,
it's
worth
noting
for
anyone
who
wants
to
look
at
it
that
that's
at
the
bottom
of
page
23
of
the
pdf
and
what
we
have
right
now
in
the
draft
ordinance
has
that
at
all
properties
within
300
feet
of
the
proposed
site
is
the
baseline
plus
for
a
new
version.
T
I
said
all
properties
within
300
feet
would
receive
notice
under
325
29
15
b,
sub
v.
A
There
is
still,
I
think,
a
question
about
thinking
about
if
we
wanted
testing
or
requiring
some.
J
D
What
might
that
look
like?
Okay,
thank
you
and
ari.
When
you
told
us,
we
had
two
choices
about
when
a
variance
might
be
granted,
I
might
be
granted.
One
was
only
if
they
can
show
a
gap
in
coverage,
but
when
was
the
other.
T
Yeah
sure
thanks,
so
I
think,
there's
two
ways
to
go
about
it.
One
is
to
require
applicants
to
show
a
gap
in
cell
coverage,
not
5g
coverage,
but
cell
coverage
before
they
would
be
able
to
install
anything
and
and
the
other,
which
is
clearly
the
more
restrictive
approach
to
be
to
be
blunt
about
it
right.
T
The
other
is
to
tell
them
that
they
need
to
show
that
they
meet
all
the
other
criteria,
we're
setting
for
an
installation,
the
ie
that
they're
the
right
setback
from
many
residents,
residences
and
and
that
they're
the
right
distance
between
poles
and
that
they're
not
putting
up
a
new
pole
in
an
area
that
we've
undergrounded
all
the
utilities
and
don't
want
poles
all
those
things
and
that
if
they
meet
all
those
other
criteria
that
we
have
set
out,
that
they
don't
have
to
show
a
gap
in
coverage.
T
Those
are
two
very
different
ways
to
go
about
it.
And
then
you
can
have
variance
appeals
up
from
well
from
either
really
and
it.
And
it's
a
it's
a
policy
choice
that
council
needs
to
make.
If
one
one
is
likely
to
end
up
with
more
and
or
better
which
again
I'll
put
in
quotes,
5g.
S
S
S
They
have
no
idea
which
unit
you're
going
to
test
as
long
as
you
have
some
type
of
repercussion,
if
it
showed
that
they're,
exposing
your
citizens
to
radiation
levels
exceed
the
levels
deemed
safe
by
the
fcc,
but
you
have
to
figure
out
what
happens
if
you
kept
them
violating
those
limits,
you
could
set
a
fine.
Theoretically,
they
will
say
you
can't
do
that.
It's
up
to
the
fcc
to
find
them.
That's
that's
something!
Industry,
council,
the
thing!
Theoretically,
you
put
them
on
notice.
S
You
have
a
hearing
say:
look
if
you
violate
the
fcc
general
population
exposure
limits
and
thereby
the
facility's
not
fcc,
compliant
and
you're,
exposing
our
people
to
dangerous
levels
of
rf
radiation,
we're
going
to
set
a
hearing.
You've
got
30
days
to
show
cause
why
we
shouldn't
revoke
the
permit
and
basically
force
you
to
rip
the
facility
down.
Maybe
that's
the
way,
the
point
being
as
long
as
they
know.
If
they
get
caught
exceeding
the
fcc's
limits.
There
are
ramifications
you
take
away
the
incentive
for
them
to
exceed
the
fcc's
limits.
S
The
only
reason
they'd
want
to
exceed
the
fcc's
limits
is
it
gives
them
better
coverage.
If
you
have
a
dos
node
system,
each
dos
node
covers
a
certain
area
and
the
the
oh
the
areas
each
doctor,
they
overlap
the
greater
the
overlap
between
the
dust
nodes,
the
greater
the
capacity
you
can
handle
more
volume.
So
that's
why
they
might
increase
the
power
output.
S
So
as
long
as
they
know
at
any
time,
any
facility
could
be
tested
and
there
are
real
ramifications.
If
they're
caught
exceeding
the
fcc's
limits
that
might
suffice
to
protect
your
residents,
you
don't
have
to
test
400
facilities
every
year
the
cost
would
get
a
little
crazy
and
and
the
physical
testing
would
get
a
little
crazy.
T
And
what
we've
heard
from
the
public
from
a
number
of
members
of
the
public
tonight
is
that
they
are
asking
that
that
testing
be
conducted
by
a
contractor
who
contracts
with
the
city
by
an
rf
engineer
contracted
by
the
city
and
the
question
becomes
one
of
staffing
and
there's
a
real
staffing
concern
frankly,
would
likely
be
a
member
of
our
planning
department
and
our
planning
director
has
said
clearly-
and
I
I
I
share
her
concern-
that
the
responsibility
of
overseeing
all
of
that
testing
should
there
be
a
substantial
5g.
T
Rollout
in
ithaca
could
be
a
substantial
additional
staff
burden.
So
that's
another
question
that
council
needs
to
navigate.
If
you
wanted
to
consider
changing
it
right
now,
the
ordinance
is
driven
so
that
the
entire
administrative
burden
of
arranging
the
rf
engineer
and
conducting
that
testing
is
on
the
applicant,
and
some
members
of
the
public
are
asking
that
that
administrative
burden
be
put
on
the
city.
The
cost
burden
would
be
on
the
applicant,
but
the
administrative
burden
would
be
on
the
city,
and
that
is
again
I
just
I
wanted
the
questions.
T
V
Can
someone
remind
me
what
the
other
I'm
fine
with
notification,
but
I
think
it
should
be
consistent
with,
like
the
other
notification
standards
like
bza,
which
I
think
is
200
feet
or
something
and
as
to
the
as
to
these
questions,
I
really
think
because
we
don't
really
agree,
there
should
just
be
a
vote-a-rama
there's,
no
way
to
converse
our
way
through
resolution
on
these.
V
V
P
P
Full
council
is
getting
a
good
look
at
the
situation,
so
I
I
think,
if
we're
going
to
have
a
vote,
we
should
start
here.
A
Then
the
other
way
to
go
is
to
either
leave
it
the
way
that
it's
written
and
then,
when
we
bring
it
to
a
vote.
I
guess
we
just
need
to
discuss
so
the
public
hearing,
there's
a
public
hearing
and
then
remind
me
of
the
process
after
there's
a
public
hearing,
we
can
still
make
changes
to
the
guidelines.
T
T
W
We'll
circulate
it
we'll
advertise
the
public
hearing
for
next
month.
If
there
are
a
lot
of
comments
and
if
they
are
substantive,
then
it
doesn't
go
to
counsel
those
you'll
vote
on
whether
or
not
to
incorporate
comments
both
because
you'll
get
a
lot
of
written
comments
and
you've
got
the
comments
at
the
public
hearing,
and
it
will
be
your
decision
whether
to
incorporate
those
comments
or
not.
W
A
A
P
Yeah,
but
I
I'm
thinking
we're
fairly
close
doug
mentioned
that
he's
agnostic
about
the
setback
distances
and
I
really
like
ari's
suggestion
about
who's
responsible
for
the
testing
that
you
answered.
Graham's
questions
with
that
wouldn't
would
not
burden
the
planning
department
but
would
be
independent
of
of
the.
T
That's
what's
in
the
draft
right
now,
and
I
think
basically
somebody
has
to
hire
the
rf
engineer
to
do
the
testing
and
it
can
either
be
the
city
hiring
them
using
the
cell
company's
money
which
will
create
an
administrative
additional
set
of
work
for
the
city
staff
to
do,
or
it
will
be,
the
cell
company
hiring
the
rf
engineer
either
way
the
r
the
rf
engineers
bill
will
be
paid
by
the
cell
company.
But
the
question
is:
who
is
doing
the
paperwork
and
oversight
to
hire
the
engineer
in
the
first
place.
S
No,
the
the
if
you
go
on
the
fcc's
website
and
simply
look
there's
question
and
answers,
and
one
of
the
questions
is:
does
the
fcc
routinely
test
wireless
facilities
to
make
sure
they're
fcc
compliant
and
their
answer
is?
No?
We
don't
have
the
resources
to
do
that.
S
So
unless
someone
actually
calls
the
fcc
and
says
I
just
tested
a
facility-
and
I
found
the
radiation
levels
exceeding
the
general
population
exposure
limits,
they
will
never
test
the
facilities
and
even
when
someone
does
that,
you
have
to
call
them
three
or
four
or
five
times
before
they
do
anything.
So
the
reality
is
in
the
current
state
of
things.
You
and
you
alone-
are
your
constituents
first
and
only
line
of
defense
against
being
exposed
to
illegally
excessive
levels
of
rf
radiation,
and
it's
not
that
hard
to
protect
them,
just
random
testing
it.
S
It
doesn't
have
to
be
that
expensive.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
every
facility
every
year,
but
as
long
as
the
cat,
the
site,
developer
or
carrier
knows
they're
going
to
be
tested
and
they
don't
know
in
advance.
That's
the
key.
If
they're,
given
a
heads
up,
they
can
power
the
facility
down,
it
has
to
be
random
and
unannounced,
and
you
have
to
have
teeth.
You
have
to
have
some
provision
which
says
if
our
rf
engineer
certifies
that
you're
exceeding
the
fcc's
general
population
exposure
limits,
there's
a
significant
price
to
be
paid.
A
A
A
A
A
S
Okay,
there's
there's
a
difference
between
placing
the
cost
as
the
response
of
the
owner
and
having
the
owner
do
the
testing,
because,
again
from
experience
in
ninety
percent
of
the
cases,
when
I
look
at
new
applications,
I
see
them
file
false
information.
I
see
rf
engineers
file,
false
information,
false
fcc
compliance
reports,
how,
if
they're
willing
to
submit
false
fcc
compliance
reports
at
the
time
of
the
original
filing?
S
What
makes
you
think
they'd
be
any
less
inclined
to
submit
a
false
compliance
report
a
year
down
the
road,
so
many
local
governments
say
and
the
first
governments
to
do
it
were
in
california,
I
believe,
was
the
cities
of
burbank
berkeley
and
davies.
They
adopted
random
testing
requirements.
They
require
the
owner
of
the
facility
to
pay
for
it,
but
it
was
the
cities
who
chose
and
hired
the
engineers
who
did
the
testing.
S
D
S
It
means
a
gap
in
service
by
that
particular
carrier.
So
just
so,
the
record
is
clear:
if
at
t
comes
in
and
has
perfect
coverage
in
the
city
of
ithaca
and
covers
every
single
square
foot
that
is
irrelevant
for
purpose
of
reviewing
an
application
for
verizon
or
t-mobile
or
somebody
else,
every
carrier
has
a
right
to
saturate
the
city
with
coverage,
which
is
why
you
have
to
be
careful
and
fight
against
redundant
infrastructure.
C
Right
so
this
isn't
a
question
for
andrew.
So
I'm
wondering
I
mean
there's
some
things
I
would
like
to
discuss,
but
it's
more
like
feedback
for
staff
and-
and
so
I'm
wondering,
if
do
we
want
andrew
to
stay
on
or
what's
the
best
way
to
do
this,
because
I
didn't
have
any
particular
more
questions
for
andrew.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
checking
in
on
that.
G
W
W
S
I
do
it
I
for
for
the
first
10
or
12
years.
I
wouldn't
do
it,
but
municipalities
have
been
asking
me
for
so
long
that
I
finally
said
yes,
so
I
just
started
accepting
cases
where
I
will
do
the
review
and
I
charge
a
ridiculously
reduced
rate
for
them.
It's
very
cheap
and
so
they'll
send
me
the
application
I'll
review
it
I'll
tell
them
what's
missing
what
they
need
to
add
why
this
propagation
map
is
bogus.
S
So
I
do
it
and
one
of
the
reasons
I
do
it
is
because
there's
nobody
else.
I
trust
to
do
it.
I
I
doing
this
for
so
long.
I
got
sick
and
tired
of
watching
local
governments,
deceive
local
planning,
board
members
and
then
walk
out
and
laugh
about
how
gullible
the
planning
board
members
were.
That
ticks
me
off
to
no
end,
and
so
I
finally
started
about
a
year
ago
after
28
years
of
actually
now
doing
it
for
the
local
government.
W
S
As
far
as
I
know,
I
don't
know
of
any
carrier
that
is
currently
trying
to
roll
out
5g
in
the
city
of
ithaca.
I
don't
know
of
any,
and
I've
heard
a
lot
of
representations
that
it's
not
here
yet,
which
is
why,
when
the
site
developers
come
in,
it's
going
to
be
very
hard
for
them
to
prove
entitlement.
To
put
one
of
these
things
in
what
I'm
watching
is
the
largest
site
developers
are
going
into
the
most
affluent
areas.
S
First,
for
whatever
reason
saddle
river
new
jersey
places
like
that
and
then
they're
racing
with
each
other
they're
trying
to
build
as
many
facilities
as
they
can
as
cheaply
as
they
can
so
to
the
extent
that
a
local
government
adopts
a
really
good,
sophisticated
wireless
ordinance
like
what
you're
proposing
very
often
it's
like
the
path
of
least
resistance.
S
Now,
if
for
argument's
sake,
they
don't
hit
ithaca
for
two
years
and
you've
got
this
in
place
and
maybe
the
technology
changes
you
may
never
have
dos
nodes
in
ithaca.
I
don't
know
where
it's
going.
You
know.
There's
all
this
talk
about
all
these
satellites
going
up.
The
technology
is
evolving
so
fast.
I
can't
keep
up
with
it,
but
I
can
guide
municipalities
now
and
I
will
tell
you,
when
municipalities
draft
sophisticated
local
zoning
provisions
which
give
them
the
maximum
power
to
prevent
the
irresponsible
placement
of
wireless
facilities,
site
developers
tend
to
avoid
them.
D
S
Well,
whenever
the
site
developer
is
going
to
come
in
they're,
going
to
claim
right
now,
what
they're
doing
is
they're
filing
applications,
claiming
that
they're
not
for
5g
they're
for
4g
and
then
what
I
do
is
I
go
to
the
carriers
database
and
I
look
and
the
carriers
database
shows
there's
no
gap
in
service.
They
have
perfect
coverage
in
the
precise
area
where
they
want
to
put
the
facility,
which
tells
me
that
it's
really
a
5g
facility.
A
U
If
we
were
to
to
hire
someone
to
review
applications,
is
that
an
appropriate
chargeback
to
the
applicant.
P
S
R
No,
I
just
wanted
to
say
if
I
may,
thanks
to
mr
campanelli,
but
also
thanks
to
city
staff,
who
have
been
working
on
this,
putting
in
an
awful
lot
of
time
expertise.
So
thank
you
to
city
staff
too.
T
A
You
so
my
7
30
deadline
didn't
work.
Let's
have
about
an
eight
o'clock
deadline.
I
I
guess
I
just
need
to
get
some
guidance
from
you
on.
Are
you?
Are
you
comfortable
leaving
them
the
way
they
are?
Do
we
want
numbers?
We
want
to
change.
We
have
a
lot
of
our
council
that
in
here
ducks
in
and
then
george
and
then
graham.
V
First,
I
agree
with
laura.
I
mean
this
could
have
been
should
have
been
done
last
year,
but
here
we
are
so.
The
reason
why
I
was
agnostic
between
the
two
options
was
was
that
I
mean
we
live
in
a
city,
so
even
the
most,
even
the
small
setbacks
that
we're
discussing
would,
you
know,
create
a
de
facto
ban
on
a
new
wireless
infrastructure.
There's
a
utility
pole
right
in
front
of
my
house.
It's
22
feet
away,
there's
no
way
they
can
comply
with
even
the
smallest
numbers
we've
been
discussing.
V
T
T
I
do
believe
that
if
you
used
a
50-foot
setback
from
residences
that
might
my
and
again
I
think
joanne
has
a
more
refined
understanding
of
our
layout
of
our
city
than
I
do
in
some
senses,
but
but
I
do
believe
there
would
be
some
locations
that
would
some
a
reasonable
number
of
locations
that
would
qualify
if
you
used
a
50-foot
setback
and
500
feet
between
temples.
That
is
my
baseline
assumption.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
other
views
on
that.
W
W
P
P
Yeah
I
I
appreciate
what
staff
has
done
and
I
I
took
note
of
the
fact
that
mr
campanelli
thought
that
what
our
attorney's
office
put
together
is
pretty
strong.
P
I
appreciate
that
I
again
I'm
not
an
expert
on
5g,
but
one
thing
I
read
in
the
article
that
you
gave
to
council
was
that
the
antennas
are
evolving
and
getting
stronger
and
so
that
I'm
thinking
is
going
to
make
the
need
for
as
many
reduce
in
the
near
future.
P
To
be
an
antenna
on
that
utility
pole,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
we
came
up
with
50
feet.
I
assume
that's
for
the
distributing
antenna
systems,
the
small
antennas.
T
W
P
T
No
and
again,
this
is
not
about
staff,
so,
let's
not
go
down
that
line
of
questioning
what
we
are
looking
for
is
council's
objective
and
let's
also
be
clear
about
what
did
change.
It
went
from
eight
feet,
which
was
in
the
prior
legislation
to
50
feet,
and
what
we
heard
from
council
was
a
diversity
of
views
as
to
what
they
wanted.
T
P
Was
1500
feet
and
and
and
at
the
meeting
you're
speaking
about
nobody
talked
about
distances.
There
was
a
couple
people
who
who
were
surprised
at
what
we'd
come
up
with
in
this
in
this
committee,
yeah.
T
P
And
I
would
like
to
learn
more
about
the
distancing
from
the
the
small
antennas.
T
P
T
T
C
It
says
between
small
cell
wireless
facilities,.
T
So
any
of
these
between
any
two
of
them,
you
can't
have
two
poles,
so
to
speak,
full
of
small
cells
that
are
closer
than
500
feet
to
each
other
is
what
this
draft
says
right
now,
but
again,
it's
not
about
this
draft,
it's
about
what
council
wants
to
do
and
we're
simply
looking
for
guidance
as
to
what
to
do
with
that.
So.
T
W
A
C
G
C
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
mr
campanelli
certainly
recognized
the
improvements
that
we've
made
and
also
that
we
could
reject
as
and
I'm
quoting
90
to
95
of
applications
based
on
the
code
that
we
have.
So
I
think
he's
probably
basing
that
on
previous
applications
doesn't
mean
that
we'll
get
those,
but
you
know
I
think
he
has
more
experience
about
these.
So
I
think
we've
we've
made
some
good
progress
for
me.
C
These
distances
I
mean
all
along.
I
mean
I
don't
see
a
strong
case
for
5g
I
mean
I
haven't
heard
any
constituents
saying
cell
phone
coverage
in
this
country
in
this
city
is
terrible
and
I'm
I'm
moving
out.
What
I
have
heard
is
they
want
broadband
coverage.
You
know
so
that
they
can
work
at
home,
and
I
know
that's
not
the
issue,
but
that's
just
my
kind
of
background
to
to
this
kind
of
discussion.
C
Having
said
that,
I
would
want
as
much
as
possible
to
minimize
the
impact
of
5g,
I
think,
to
answer
some
of
ahri's
questions.
I
think
if
we
have
these
guidelines
in
place,
I
personally
don't
need
to
see
a
gap
in
coverage
as
long
as
I
feel
that
these
are
protecting
and
are
strong
enough
to
enforce,
and
this
is
where
I
think
some
of
these
distances
are
to
a
certain
extent.
I
mean
they
seem
reasonable.
Mr
campanelli
said
yeah
that
sounds
reasonable,
but
the
condition
is
the
testing.
C
The
cell
phone
providers
know
that
that's
a
possibility
and
that
we
can
control
that
basically
and
then
we
can
decide,
you
know
what
is
within
the
staff's
capacity.
What
can
the
city
manage?
Maybe
we
do
it?
Every
couple
of
years,
maybe
so
that's
what
the
beauty
of
random
is
the
selco,
and
I-
and
I
appreciate
mr
campanelli's
comment-
that
in
the
legislation
we
need
to
say
well.
C
C
If
we
have
that
in
place,
then
to
me
these
numbers
are
kind
of
there's
the
rationale
for
that
I
mean
a
couple
of
comments
said
well,
what's
the
rationale
for
this
I
mean
some
of
the
numbers
that
we
had
previously
discussed
were,
and
we
were
informed
in
that
it
basically
effectively
prohibited
5g
within
the
city
and
that's
what
we
I
think
want.
C
I
certainly
don't
want
to
do
that,
but
I
do
want
these
figures
and
then
the
and
the
guidelines
to
basically
ensure
that
we've
done
as
much
as
we
can
to
minimize
the
impact
on
that.
So
to
me
the
the
crucial
part
there
is
this
testing
and
I
would
like
to
see
that
changed
from
what
we
have
right
now
in
in
the
current
code,
to
something
that.
J
A
C
P
A
A
C
Yeah-
and
I
just
want
to
for
the
record
state
that
again,
we
don't
think
there's
a
gap
in
coverage
in
in
ithaca.
So
again
that
that's,
if
you
put
that
first
and
we
had
a
long
discussion
about
this,
it
effectively
prohibits
5g,
which
you
know
I
mean.
I
think
that
wasn't
my
intent.
I
know
there's
several
members
of
the
public
that
that
would
like
that.
But
that's
not
how
I
feel
that
we
should
move
ahead,
but
that
was
the
reason
for
kind
of
making
that.
D
T
T
U
A
V
I
think
dude,
if
you're
talking
about
like
a
brand
new
carrier
coming
because
of
consolidation
industry,
there's
only
three
so
even
though,
like
you
can
get
service
from
a
variety
of
different
companies,
they
all
buy
their
coverage
from
three
major
ones
and
they're
already
all
in
it
anyway,
and
I
don't
see
again
because
they're
all
titans,
I
don't
see
like
a
little
brand
new
wireless
provider
spending
billions
of
dollars
to
put
in
new
stuff.
You.
J
A
A
Right
so
we
actually
have
some
agenda
items
that
we
need
to
vote
on
this
evening,
although
I'm
not
trying
to
diminish
the
importance
of
this,
I'm
I'm
glad
that
we're
making
progress
and
moving
forward
and
finding
consensus
and-
and
I
do
think
it
was
very
helpful
to
have
this
discussion
this
evening
before
we
move
on.
I
just
want
to
ask
ari
and
karen
and
joanne.
W
W
T
And
when
we
talk
about
the
changes
that
were
suggested
on
the
floor,
I
I
I
believe
that
the
one
clear
set
of
consensus
that
I
heard
on
the
floor
tonight
was
the
changes
around
inserting
a
random
testing
requirement.
That.
T
By
the
city,
with
a
a
penalty
that
has
teeth
for
any
violations
that
are.
T
T
Jordan,
we're
looking
for
guidance
from
council
and
council
needs
to
set
those
numbers,
so
we've
heard
a
bunch
of
different
perspectives
on
how
to
do
it
and
the
answer
which
I've
already
given
is
that
we've
we,
my
office,
have
heard
a
whole
diversity
of
views
from
council
as
to
what
numbers
they
want
in
there
and
our
job
is
to
put
something
forward.
That
council
can
then
amend
as
appropriate
and
we're
asking
you
to
do
that.
P
A
In
without
revealing
details
of
an
executive
session,
there
were
concerns
that
were
discussed,
and
I
think
when
council
realized
that
what
we
had
originally
put
together
was,
in
effect,
a
prohibition
on
on
5g
or
a
moratorium,
based
on
the
way
that
it
was
written.
That
people
came
more
to
a
balanced
view
of
looking
at
it.
Where
it
was.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
weren't
putting
something
out
there.
A
A
T
T
A
P
C
Well,
perhaps
I
can
see
if
there's
some
way.
C
We
can
be
somewhat
assured
that,
because
you
know
we
could
pick
two
miles,
we
know
that
that's
going
to
prohibit
5g,
I
I
think
perhaps
what
jordan
and
I
would
like
to
be
assured
that
we've
sort
of
looked
at
this
and
and
I
I
do
defer
to
staff.
I
know
you're
looking
for
guidance
on
council,
so
here's
my
guidance
is.
I
would
like
to
be
assured
that
the
50
feet
and
the
500
feet
are
what
we
think
of.
V
C
C
Providing
you
know
so
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
formula,
but
you
know:
you've
looked
at
the
the
planning
and
what
5g
coverage
would
look
like,
and
this
is
the
the
the
maximum
that
we
think
we
can
move
forward
with.
If
that's
enough
guidance,
then
I'd
be
comfortable
with
that,
I'm
assuming,
if,
if
I
may,
if
those
numbers
were
to
change,
it
wouldn't
be
substantive
in
terms
of
making
some
changes
towards
getting
consensus.
When
we
have
this
in
front
of
full
council.
A
A
You
know
rationale
for
why
that
is
a
better
number
in
terms
of
distancing.
You
can
circuit
and
you
can
send
that
around,
but
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
helpful.
I
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
give
you
the
information
that
you're
asking
for
george,
but
I
don't
think
anyone
in
here
is
an
expert
either
on
the
topic.
So
I
think
we're
trying
to
find
a
nice
balance
between.
P
A
A
So
I'm
still
not
hearing
anyone
saying
they
don't
want
to
see
this,
I'm
hearing
george,
but
I
haven't
heard
directly
from
anyone
else.
I
heard
that
graham
is
comfortable
with
the
way
it's
written.
I've
heard
I'm
comfortable.
I've
heard
ducks
comfortable.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
laura's
comfortable
don
is
comfortable.
A
V
V
I
think
these
are
overly
conservative
and
will
limit
the
amount
of
you
know
high-speed
wireless
service
that
we'll
have
so
you
know,
I
think
what
staff
did
was
protect
the
city
as
best
that
they
could.
You
know,
given
the
discussions
we
had
in
the
executive
session.
T
And
to
be
clear-
and
I
appreciate
that
doc
to
be
clear,
I'll
add
what
staff
did
was
was
its
job,
which
is
to
reflect
the
will
as
best
we
could
read
it
of
counsel
in
the
draft
that
we
brought
forward,
and
I
really
hope
that
everyone
very
much,
including
you,
george,
will
will
not
place
this
on
our
staff,
because
our
staff
was
working
hard
under
a
difficult
circumstance,
a
job
that
turned
out
to
be
radically
larger
than
what
was
originally
assigned
to
it.
On
this
particular
topic,
and
this
is
not
about
the
staff.
T
P
P
A
I'm
going
to
stop
counseling
I'm
going
to
stop
this
back
and
forth.
We
have
consensus
from
the
majority
of
the
people
that
are
here.
So,
let's
take
a
five
minute
break.
We'll
end
this
topic.
I
think
the
staff
has
a
pretty
clear
guidance
from
us.
We
can
do
whatever
additional
research
and
information
gathering.
We
need
to
do
in
order
to
put
a
little
more
detail
behind
why
the
numbers
are
the
numbers
that
they
are.
So
you
have
the
data
that
you're
looking
for.
A
Numbers-
and
this
is
our
decision
for
the
number,
so
if,
when
we
see
this
again,
we
have
different
information,
you
can
suggest
a
different
set
of
numbers
and
you
can
provide
the
rationale
for
why
you
think
it
should
be
those
numbers.
So
far,
what
I've
heard
is
everybody
here
is
comfortable
with
the
numbers,
as
they
are
written
in
this
draft,
for
it
to
be
circulated.
W
And
if
I
can
just
just
clarify
number,
it
be
very
brief,
but
when
we
do
a
document
for
circulation
it
is
we
take
what
we
hear.
We
put
it
down
for
review
and
for
discussion,
and
I
think
next
month
you
will
hear
from
many
of
the
people
that
spoke
tonight
on
why
they
would
support
this
or
why
they
wouldn't,
and
I
think
that
will
all
go
it.
So
it's
not
set
in
stone
when
you
circulate
it's
to
get
input
and
to
get
additional
information.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
C
So
if
I
can
just
briefly
so
joanne,
I
really
appreciate
that
and
I
think,
as
you
know,
mr
campanelli
gave
us
some
numbers.
I
don't
think
he
was
thinking
about
the
density
of
housing
in
ithaca.
So
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
address
that
when
we
will
see
that
number
come
up
again.
C
We
have
to
say
well
so
here's
the
rationale
and
I
agree-
we
have
to
have
this
rationale
but
for
mr
campanelli
to
say
300
feet
that
might
be
appropriate
as
a
target
or
something
like
that,
and
why
can't
we
do
that
because
that
would
mean
basically
maybe
there'd
be
one
installation
in
the
whole
city,
which
is
not
what
I
would
be
looking
for.
So
I
I
think
that's
important
to
have
that
information
down
and.
J
G
C
I'd
like
to
maximize
that
with
consistent
with
this
idea
about
having
this
testing
that
will
really
back
up
the
decisions,
I
think.
A
T
T
T
V
A
A
V
V
Y
J
P
K
Y
A
A
A
A
All
those
in
favor
of
our
consent
and
that
carries
four
to
zero.
Thank
you.
Waterfront
revitalization
program
want
to
move
4.1,
I'm
perfectly.
V
Excuse
me
resolution
authorized
implementation
funding
of
the
first
instance
100
of
the
federal
aid,
eligible
costs
and
state
marches
selling
program
aid
eligible
costs
of
a
transportation,
federal
aid
project
and
appropriating
funds.
Therefore
resolve
that
the
common
council
hereby
approves
the
above
subject
project
and
be
it
further
resolved
that
the
common
council
hereby
authorizes
the
city
if
they
get
to
pay.
V
Be
it
further
resolved
that
common
council
hereby
creates
capital
project
887?
Okay,
you
have
waterfront
revitalization
project
to
include
the
project
cost
of
1.5
million
and
be
it
further
resolve
that,
in
the
event,
the
full
federal
and
non-federal
share
cost
of
the
project
exceeds
the
amount
appropriate
above.
V
The
common
council
shall
convene
as
soon
as
possible
to
appropriate
said,
excess
amount
immediately
upon
the
notification
of
by
nye's
that
and
be
it
further
resolved,
that
the
mayor
and
of
the
city
of
illinois
be
and
is
hereby
authorized
to
execute
all
necessary
agreements
for
the
project
and
the
superintendent
of
public
works
is
hereby
authorized.
V
Executable,
necessary
certifications
or
reimbursement
requests
for
federal
aid
on
behalf
of
the
city,
with
the
federal
highway
administration
and
nisdot
in
connection
with
the
advancement
or
approval
of
the
project
and
providing
for
the
administration
of
the
project
and
the
municipality's
first
instance.
Funding
of
project
costs
and
current
funding
of
the
local
share
of
federal
aid
and
state
aid,
eligible
project
costs
and
all
project
costs
within
appropriations.
V
A
Y
Sure
so
this
is
a
project
that
used
to
be
a
larger
project
that
would
have
taken
have
gone
all
the
way
to
construction.
This
is
scaled
back
to
to
scoping
and
design
and
preliminary
design,
so
essentially
50
design
drawings
of,
like
probably,
what
would
result
is
a
urban
boulevard
type
solution
to
the
roadway
right
now
that
is
route
13
between
approximately
fall
creek
to
the
north
and
purity
point
as
we're
calling
it
to
the
south,
and
so
we
want
to
you
know
better
connect
residents
with
with
the
west
end.
Y
Y
This
design
project
is
a
very
big
deal
for
the
city.
It
has
the
possibility
to
be
really
transformational
for
for
our
city
and
meet
a
lot
of
our
goals
in
making
you
know
it's
safer
and
nicer
to
to
live
and
and
work
and
walk
around
there.
Do
you
have
any
specific
questions.
P
Y
Well,
there
is
a
long
portion
of
the
roadway
here
that
we
want
to
rebuild
as
a
boulevard
or
something
similar
that
is
signed
for
30
miles
per
hour
and
new
york.
State
d.o.t
is
okay
with
that,
and
they
would
like
for
the
speed
limit
in
that
area
to
be
30
miles
per
hour.
So
you're
right
and
I
see
the
tension
between
what
they're
trying
to
do
on
buffalo
street
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
on
route
13.
Y
Y
We
probably
won't
even
lose
a
lot
of
lanes
of
traffic
if
any
lanes
of
traffic,
we
have
a
100
foot
right-of-way
in
this
area.
I
believe
so.
There
is
a
lot
of
space
to
play
and
to
open
up
that
space
for
other
uses
and
and
people
to
access
it
in
with
you
know,
non-vehicular
modes
of
transportation,
while
also
making
it
safer
for
people
in
cars.
Y
I
do
they
it's
my
understanding
that
they're
aware
of
this,
so
I
I
mean
when
I
talked
to
them
recently
about
buffalo
street.
Y
They
pointed
out
that
well,
you
know
we
don't
want
traffic
to
back
up
in
this
area,
because
people
live
here
right-
and
I
say
yes,
but
if
this
is
like
a
highway,
then
you
know
we
don't
want
people
to
live
by
the
highway
either
right
like
and
they
said.
No,
that's
true.
You
know
they.
The
people
I
talked
with
at
dot
also
seem
to
understand
that
there's
a
need
for
this
stretch
of
roadway
to
be
similar
to
the
city
around
it.
Y
It's
inconsistent
with
the
neighborhoods
all
around
it
and
what
I
think
the
city
is
trying
to
build
for
the
west
end.
It's
they're,
not
city
streets,
right
now,
it's
not
right.
A
A
P
P
4.2
proposed
resolution
to
authorize
nice
egg
easement,
whereas
nice
egg
requires
an
easement
to
place
certain
power
lines
that
serve
the
training
facility
for
the
ithaca
fire
department
underground
as
depicted
in
exhibit
a
and
whereas
city
staff
is
supportive
of
the
installation
of
underground
lines.
Now,
therefore,
be
it
resolved.
P
A
C
One
million
expense
account
are
other
economic
development
fees
and
contracts,
20
000
dollars
and
892
dollars
and
164
cents,
and
then
balance
sheet
accounts
reserved
for
room
for
a
city,
room
tax
of
58,
931
and
reserve
for
city
room
tax.
Final
reserves
of
100
000
be
further
resolved
that
in
no
case
will
2021
room
tax
expenses
exceed
2021
room
tax
revenues
and
iso
move.
C
A
I
don't
know
that
we
have
any
questions
for
him,
so
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
drag
him
out.
This
to
me,
just
looks
like
the
financial
accounting
side
of
what
we
already
have
approved
and
we
just
need
to
authorize
which
accounts
they're
being
moved
into
so
yeah
unless
it's
way
different
than
that
tom
sorry.
Z
Steve
was
about
to
explain
so
it
is
the
basically
the
accounting
for
what
you
have
previously
approved,
and
it's
and
it's
this
way,
because
it's
already
mid-year
in
the
future.
We
would
have
this
accounting
go
through
the
budget
process,
so
you'll
see
that
in
the
future,
starting
with
2022.
C
So
I
see,
there's
a
I
guess:
there's
a
reserve
balance,
so
I
guess
the
question
is
this:
this
is
according
to
the
projections
and
expectations.
Is
that
so
what
you're
saying
so
that
reserve
balance
gets
carried
over
each
year?
If
there
is
one
okay
and.
C
X
And
under
the
under
the
projections,
all
of
the
reserves
are
capitalized.
The
city
final
reserve
grows
to
something
like
850
000
and
the
unallocated
room
tax
reserve
balance
grows
to
above
800
000
as
well.
We're
trying
to
you
know,
build
in
insurance,
essentially
so
that
if
there's
a
revenue
shortfall
or
higher
than
expected
costs
in
any
given
year,
we
have
reserves
to
cover
that
we're
going
to
be
required
to
pay
the
debt
service
of
1.8
million
every
year.
X
And
so
so
so.
Yes,
the
reason
that
there
are
two
reserves,
unallocated
reserve
balance
and
a
city
final
reserve-
is
the
multi-party
funding
agreement
that
spells
out
how
the
dia
and
the
four
downtown
hotels.
X
Will
pay
in
under
certain
scenarios
it
was
important
to
them
that
we
have
a
dedicated
city
final
reserve,
which
is
the
purpose
of
that.
You
know
and
is
articulated
in
that
agreement.
So
essentially
that
would
that
would
sit
there.
The
committee,
the
ldc
and
the
fiscal
oversight
committee
make
decisions
about
how
much
to
put
in
every
year.
X
G
C
We
had
a
long
discussion
about
the
conference
center
and
some
colleagues
are
definitely
hesitant
about
and
didn't
support
it.
It
might
be
helpful,
I
don't
want
to
add
work,
but
as
we
go
through
this
process,
maybe
a
comparison
between
kind
of
actual
results
and
your
the
projections
would
be.
I
think,
very
helpful
in
future
when
this
comes
up,
because
I
think.
C
A
A
P
George,
the
kegel
lake
watershed
intermunicipal
organization,
they
call
themselves
the
io
for
short,
is.
P
P
So
the
goal
is
for
them
to
hire
a
watershed
manager,
and
this
would
bring
about
a
lot
of
benefits,
largely
that
it's
not
he
wouldn't
be.
He
or
she
wouldn't
be
limited
to
any
particular
municipality
or
county
and
would
be
able
to
search
for
grants
that
would
lead
to
improving
the
water
in
the
lake
and
that's
that's
what
other
watershed
managers
do.
P
Interestingly,
tompkins
county
has
38
of
of
the
streams
and
that
go
go
into
the
lake,
which
I
thought
was
interesting.
I
thought
it
wouldn't
be
that
much,
but
it
is
so.
P
The
consequence
of
hiring
a
watershed
manager
is
that
everybody's
dues
will
go
up
significantly
all
the
contributors,
but
in
my
opinion,
it's
spending
money
to
to
get
more
money
and
to
make
the
quality
of
not
just
the
lake,
but
the
streams
surrounding
the
lake
much
better.
We
just
heard,
I
think
yesterday
that
there's
a
harmful
algae
blooms
in
several
spots
in
the
lake
right
now.
A
I
Z
Certainly,
water
water
fund
and
that's
where
the
900
has
come
from
previously,
so
we
could,
we
definitely
can
incorporate
it.
A
Z
P
Liz
thomas
is
more
than
willing
to
come
talk
to
us
about
it.
The
only
issue
is
that
their
meetings
are
wednesdays,
but
they
don't
start
till
seven.
So.
A
V
A
C
Sorry,
I
just
had
one
question
so
who
does
this
position
report
to
then?
Is
it
this
organization
or
who
does
yeah?
Okay,.
P
And
and
all
its
members,
which
would
include
the
city
yep,.
P
C
Be
away
on
august
25th,
so
I
know
well
I'm
trying
to
rearrange
plans,
because
I
have
a
bit
more
time
to
do
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
heads
up
on
that.
Okay,
I'll
do
my.