►
Description
Part 2 of 2 Meeting Files - 5G Telecommunications Technology Discussion
B
B
Okay,
great,
I
think
we
have
everyone
now
so
again,
just
just
remind
everyone
what
we
thought
we
would
be
able
to
accomplish
tonight.
Just
to
let
everyone
know
there
was
nothing
in
executive
session
that
was
voted
on
that
or
that
you
know
that
we
need
to
bring
to
a
boat.
So
I
believe
what
we
thought
would
make.
B
The
most
sense
at
this
point
was
to
have
joanne
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
the
mapping
and
the
information
that
we
learned
from
mapping
out
different
different
setbacks
and
different
distances,
and
to
allow
for
council
to
ask
some
questions
about
that,
and
then
what
we'll
need
to
do
is
just
start
moving
the
resolutions.
I
think
one
after
that,
I
think
to
me.
It
makes
sense
to
have
the
discussion
around
the
information
that
we
saw.
C
B
A
E
B
B
F
B
D
So
my
comment
on
that
was
premised
on
the
understanding
that
this
was
a
committee
of
the
whole,
which
would
mean
that
the
full
council
would
be
voting
that
draft
on
to
the
next
council
meeting.
So
I
had
misunderstood
that
I
apologize
and
that's
if
the
council
wants
to
move
forward.
As
is
then,
I
think
the
ordinance
and
wants
to
proceed
with
the
ordinance,
as
is,
I
think,
that's,
certainly
an
option
that
council
has.
E
C
G
D
Yeah
again,
to
the
extent
that
this
were
treated
as
a
committee
of
the
whole
votes
could
be
taken
on
each
element
in
order
tonight
and
any
remaining,
presumably
very
minor
tweaks
could
be
made
between
now
and
the
next
council
meeting
where
it
would
then
be
voted
fully
into
effect.
To
the
extent
that
council
is
proceeding
with
a
final
vote
tonight,
then
it
would
need
to
make
any
amendments
here.
D
B
B
Well,
I
still
think
we
can
get
95
of
the
way
there
this
evening.
What
I'm
hearing
is.
We
will
have
some
work
a
little
bit
of
additional
work
to
do
so.
The
benefit
of
leaving
a
couple
of
weeks
in
to
make
some
staff
edits
and
modifications
between
tonight
and
council
is
what
I'm
hearing
people
want
to
do.
B
So
back
to
my
original
sort
of
order
of
events
here,
do
we
want
to
talk
about
the
mapping
and
some
of
the
distances
and
allow
everyone
to
answer
just
some
generic
questions
before
we
get
into
moving
the
different
resolutions
so
joanne,
do
you
want
to
walk
us
through
the
work
that
was
done?
There
give
us
an
overview,
and
then
let
people
ask
questions
about
that.
G
Okay,
sure
I
don't
know
if
everyone
had
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the
maps
that
were
prepared
by
by
the
gis
department
the
there.
You
know
it's
just
what
you
would
think
it
it
would
be
there.
There
was
a
map
provided
that
had
all
of
the
buffers
in
accordance
with
the
zoning
that
you
have.
You
know
the
ordinance
you
have
in
front
of
you,
and
then
I
mean
I
have
it
on
my
screen.
G
I
don't
know
if
I
can
share
if
it's
even
worth
sharing,
but
then
they
analyzed
it
with
a
250
foot
distance
from
any
residences,
500
feet
a
thousand
feet
and
1500
feet,
and
if
you
know
you
look
at
the
different
distances
and
they
get
progressively
fewer
and
fewer
areas
where
you
could.
Even
you
know
where
you
could
have
any
kind
of
an
installation
at
the
1500
feet
from
a
residence.
G
B
F
B
G
C
G
B
Any
other
questions
related
to
the
guidelines
that
are
just
sort
of
general
questions
for
joanne
and
planning.
One
of
the
things
I
thought
might
be
helpful
since
we've
talked
about
this
at
a
few
meetings
is:
can
you
just
walk
everyone
through
what
the
process
would
be
staff
wise
when
someone
submits
an
application.
G
We
don't
have
a
shop
clock
language
in
here
and
in
our
other
ordinances.
As
far
as
you
know,
appeals
go
and
site
plan.
We
do
have
limits
on
how
long
you
can
let
it
hang
out
there.
So,
and
you
know,
in
reading
and
rereading
this
ordinance
and
preparing
some
of
the
information,
I
think
it
would
probably
be
best
if,
once
the
ordinance
is
passed,
we
have
a
checklist
checklist
and
we
have
a
pretty
good
process
for
other.
G
I
think
it's
going
to
take
longer
than
then
what
we
currently
do,
which
is
approve
antennas,
switching
out
of
antennas.
We
don't
get
lattice
towers.
We
only
have
one
cell
tower
in
the
city.
This
is
all
going
to
be
either
equipment
placed
on
you
know
on
private
property,
which
will
be
rooftops,
and
all
of
that
we
do
have
jurisdiction
over
that,
and
I
think
the
more
complicated
will
be
the
installation
in
the
city
right-of-way
and
I
think,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
eyes
on
this.
G
What
I,
when
I
started
doing
the
reviews
for
telecommunication
devices,
verizon
is
usually
the
first
through
the
door
and
they
will
as
we've
just
you
know,
we've
seen
and
they
will
pave
the
way
for
the
other
providers.
There
aren't
many
providers,
and
mr
cappanelli
was
correct
in
saying
that
we
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
interaction
with
the
provider.
We
have
interactions
with
the
companies
that
build
or
install
this
equipment,
and
those
are
the
people
that
we,
you
know
we
talk
with.
G
We
negotiate
with
it's,
not
the
provider,
it's
the
other
companies
that
are,
you
know,
profiting
off
of
doing
the
installation.
So
yeah,
I
don't
know,
I
think
I
think
in
the
beginning,
we'll
see
a
lot.
Maybe,
but
then
I
think
ongoing,
we'll
see,
switching
out
of
equipment
which
is
really
what
we
see
now.
B
B
B
H
So
and
deb
is
correct
early
on,
I
made
the
decision
and
asked
deb
who
very
kindly
agreed
to
take
this
at
the
ca
committee.
Well,
some
of
us
on
the
planning
committee
might
be
a
little
newer
to
this
whole
debate.
I'll
say
for
my
part,
getting
all
the
emails
over
the
last
year.
You
know
I
first
heard
about
this
and
went
on
the
internet,
and
I
read
some
very
alarming
scientific
studies
that
I
found
about.
H
It
then
had
subsequent
conversations
with
people
who
have
studied
this
stuff
for
their
entire
lives,
who
reassured
me
that
the
fears
are
overblown
and
that
5g
is
not
as
much
of
a
concern
as
some
people
in
the
community
are
making
that
to
be.
It
seems
like
we've
hired
a
lawyer
who
is
a
major
5g
skeptic
and
is
now
leading
us
down
the
path
to
passing
very
prohibited
ordinance
in
the
city
of
ithaca
that
will
restrict
the
5g
rollout.
H
The
question
I
have
and
I'm
most
concerned
about
is
if
we
move
forward
with
passing
this
ordinance,
whether
it's
the
500
feet
or
the
1500
feet
or
whatever
incarnation
of
it,
is
there
going
to
be
a
negative
consequence,
and
I
guess
this
is
a
question
for
joanne
or
a
question
for
people
that
have
sort
of
studied
this
on
the
deeper
level.
Is
there
going
to
be
a
negative
consequence
for
internet
service
in
the
city
of
ithaca?
H
That
is
my
number
one
concern,
because
the
economy
in
this
community
depends
on
that
and
there
are
lots
of
people,
especially
now
people
working
at
home,
whose
entire
careers
are
done
over
the
internet.
If
we
somehow
pass
something
that
is
going
to
have
a
negative
impact
on
that,
I
think
it
would
have
a
very
damaging
impact
to
the
local
economy.
H
G
Well,
I
am
not
an
expert
by
any
means
in
5g,
nor
did
I
just
sort
of
got
thrown
into
it.
So
I'll
give
you
the
best
answer
that
I
can
and
hope
that
I'm
correct
it's
not
really
about
internet
induction
may
be
able
to
help
me
with
this
a
little
bit,
but
it's
not
about
internet,
it's
about
cell
phone
coverage.
It
really
is
about
the
phone
and
in
a
community
where
we
have
almost
30
000
students
who,
as
we
all
know,
are
on
their
phone
all
the
time
they
depend
on
that
phone
for
face.
G
B
Certainly,
people
with
the
newer
technologies
that
are
that
are
coming
online.
That
would
like
to
use
those
technologies
and
phones
to
their
full
capacity,
and
if
that
adds
to
the
quality
of
life
for
some
people
for
some
degree,
then
that's,
then
that's
what
we're
talking
about
we're
not.
I
we've
had
a
lot
of
people
talk
about
fiber
optic,
that
is,
that
doesn't
have
any
place
in
this
argument,
and
I
can
assure
everybody
that
the
city
is
also
aggressively
pursuing
whatever
we
can
do
in
order
to
get
better
broadband
service.
F
Yeah,
thank
you
duckson.
Well,
that's
true,
but
aries
made
the
point
that
the
telecoms
company
have
a
different
model
for
providing
broadband
which
is
using
5g.
So
I
agree
and
with
deb
saying
yes,
we
we're
going
to
increase
broadband,
hopefully,
but
I
think
the
telecoms
company
have
a
different
model
which
is
to
use
5g
as
a
connection
to
the
internet,
and
my
concern
is
that
that's
a
model
that
we
you
know
want
to
make
sure
if
it
is
going
to
be
that
in
the
future
that
we
have
a
minimum
impact
on.
F
You
know
the
environment.
In
terms
of
the
the
city
I
mean,
we've
seen
I've
seen
articles
where
cell
phones
without
any
regulation
and
these
powers
have
gone
up,
come
in
completely
inappropriate
places
in
in
communities,
and
I
think
that's
my
concern
here.
You
know
we
haven't.
Had
I
mean
I
don't
know.
Maybe
you've
had
a
lot
of
comments
from
people
about
the
terrible
cell
phone
service
and
I
think
I
certainly
haven't.
F
I
don't
see
this
demand
for
5g
as
a
service
for
cell
phones
from
constituents
at
this
time
and
if,
at
some
point,
the
entire
community
swamps,
the
broadband
or
the
available
bandwidth
for
cell
phone
coverage,
then
presumably
we
would
respond
to
that
kind
of
concern.
But
that's
my
my
main
point
right
now
is
that
I
don't
see
the
demand
from
this
from
the
community.
L
So
I
I
would
agree
that
our
service
is
suitable
for
now,
but
that
I
can
only
expect
demand
to
go
up
and
that
people
who
can
only
afford
one
or
the
other
will
almost
certainly
choose
cell
phone
service
over
house-bound
wireless.
I'm
sorry,
house-bound
broadband,
just
because
people
do
use
that
it's
so
much
more
flexible
than
wired
services.
B
C
Well,
my
original
question
was
a
process
question,
but
I'll
respond
to
some
of
the
comments
so
far
you
know
most.
If
I,
if
almost
everybody
I
know
has
has
cable,
everybody
has
cable.
Some
people
have
gone
to
the
dish,
but
cable
is
pretty
ubiquitous
and
when
I
had
problems
with
my
internet
at
home,
it
was
my
modem
at
home.
C
D
Yeah,
I
can
answer
that.
Thank
you,
cynthia
yeah,
this
led
since
spring
of
last
year.
You
know
nearly
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
council
has
shifted
the
direction
of
this
legislation,
and
so
what
was
projected
to
be
design
guidelines
at
the
time
has
instead
turned
into
this
ordinance,
design,
guy
and
and
the
most
of
the
content
of
what
would
have
been
in
those
design
guidelines
and
what
was
in
the
draft
design.
D
Guidelines
has
been
incorporated
into
this
ordinance,
so
the
content
is
in
many
ways
similar
and
somewhat
more
restrictive.
Frankly,
then
have
been
contemplated
for
design
guidelines,
but
but,
in
the
end
this
ordinance
would
be
in
lieu
of
design
guidelines,
and
I
don't
know
if
joanne,
if
you
have
other
comment
that
you
feel
I
missed
in
saying
that.
G
D
C
B
J
Just
one
quick
comment:
I
I
agree
with
ducks
in
that.
If
people
can
only
afford
one
thing,
either
their
phone
or
the
internet
on
a
computer
in
their
house
they're
likely
to
pick
the
phone,
I'm
not
worried
about
coverage
getting
worse.
I
think
I
believe,
mr
campanelli,
when
he
says
that
none
of
these
providers
are
going
to
cut
back
on
their
service
and
the
fact
is.
We
have
5g
now,
at
least
at
the
at
the
lower
levels.
We
have
5g
now
and
I
think
that's
going
to
get
stronger.
B
D
G
B
G
D
B
B
A
Can
I
ask
a
clarifying
question:
I
just
need
to
know
that
you've
declared
yourself
lead
agency.
Is
this
a
final
vote
on
lead
agency,
or
is
it
so
that
I
I'm
I'm
unclear
as
to
why
you
just
voted
on
this?
If
it's
going
to
common
council
and
you'll
be
voting
on
it
again,
because
I
don't
think
you
need
to
declare
yourself
if
this
is
purely
a
conversation
tonight
about
changes
you
want
to
make
to
the
ordinance
before
it
goes
to
council
on
october
6.
D
If
that's
correct,
then
what
they
are
doing
is
voting
out
of
the
committee
level
of
council
legislation
that
will
be
placed
on
the
october
council
agenda,
and
so
the
answer
is
they
are
voting
on
each
piece
of
legislation
on
their
committee
of
the
whole
level
agenda
tonight.
That
will
then
be
placed
on
the
october
council
agenda
for
council
action.
J
D
A
D
B
Because
what
we're
going
to
have
to
do,
I
think
right
now
is
start
and
I'll
try
to
make
it
an
organized
process,
but
I
believe
people
want
to
make
amendments
to
the
language,
that's
in
the
actual
ordinance,
and
so
maybe
we
can
start
with
that
and
see
what
people
want
to
propose
and
see
how
we
can
keep
this
a
manageable
process
here.
So
someone
willing
to
move
the
ordinance
itself,
donna.
Is
there
a
second
gram?
Thank
you.
Okay,
so.
B
M
J
J
G
Could
we
just
add
language
because
I
think
there
may
be
some
other
areas?
People
were
questioning
whether
or
not
the
utilities
were
underground,
so
it
does
say
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
as
more
may
be
added
in
the
future.
But
I
think
we
should
maybe
say
include
but
not
limited
to,
and
I
think
we're
we
can.
You
know
add
those
ones
that
that
cynthia
named,
but
there
may
be
others
in
the
city.
G
D
M
I
would
laura
but
yeah
I
would
ask
I'm
not
sure
what
you
just
suggested
joanne,
but
I
would
like
to
see
included
in
this
section
districts
presently
meeting.
This
definition
include
but
are
not
limited,
but
are
not
limited
to
as
more
may
be
added
in
the
future.
We
just
don't
know
where
more
will
be
added
in
the
future.
It's
fine
and
I
think
ari's
suggestion
is
a
good
one.
It
gives
staff
guidance
to
have
some
of
these
named
currently,
but
I
think
we
don't
want
to
preclude
future
inclusions.
G
B
And
then
in
not
that
not
that
we
want
to
get
too
into
word
wordsmithing
here,
but
if
you
look
up
above
in
special
interest
areas
as
well,
that
same
language
is
used
specifically,
including
but
not
limited
to
I'm
also
assuming
we
aren't
it's
not
as
likely
for
us
to
add
a
park
or
recreation
district.
So
we
can
leave
that
language
the
same
in
that
section.
C
So
it's
used
when
it
talks
about
adding
something
on
top
of
an
existing
utility
pole,
for
example,
which
is
152-37
b
for
a
triple.
I
it
talks
about
adding
something
onto
an
existing
pole,
but
the
height
can
be
no
more
than
50
feet
or
adding
more
than
50
feet
or
10
percent,
whichever
is
greater,
but
I'm
suggesting
smaller,
but
I
don't
know
what
it
means
by
telecommunication
system
because
it's
not
defined.
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
what's
called
a
pw
sf,
which
I
don't
really
know
what
that
is.
C
If
somebody
could
define
that
and
then
how
is
that
compared
to
a
small
wireless
facility?
And
then
the
term
that
was
used
today
was
a
node.
So
I
I'm
trying
to
understand,
especially
with
regards
to
the
ordinance,
because
the
ordinance
is
specific
about
certain
things
and
I
don't
know
what
they
mean.
So
is
there
a
definition
for
a
telecommunications
system,
and
how
should
I
understand
this
clause?
C
So
in
my
email,
it's
section
two
which
is
asking
about
that
height
height
of
support,
straw,
structure,
tower
or
utility
pole
in
the
right
of
way
shall
be
no
more
than
a
10
higher
than
any
adjacent
pole
up
to
a
maximum
height
of
50
feet.
Telecommunication
system
installations
shall
not
extend
extinction,
existing
structures
on
which
they
are
located
more
than
50
feet,
or
by
more
than
10,
whichever
is
smaller
or
bigger.
M
C
D
So
I
would
welcome
help
from
anyone
else
who
can
help
speak
to
this?
I
do
have
a
little
bit
of
information
that
I
think
may
be
useful
in
responding
to
you,
and
I
would
also
definitely
welcome
help
from
andrew
campanelli
who's
familiar
with
this
technology.
If
he
I'm
still
available
to
speak
on
the
subject
right
now.
I'm
the
first
thing
I
will
say
is
that
the
ordinance
we're
looking
at
is
amending
the
city's
existing
telecom
ordinance,
which
was
drafted.
I
don't
know
20
years
ago,
or
something
like
that.
D
I
believe,
though,
I'm
not
positive
that
when
you
are
looking
to
the
term
telecommunication
systems
that
is
coming
out
of
the
existing
language
of
the
20
year
old
ordinance
and
and
so
it's
referring
it's
effectively.
You
know
it
was
at
least
intended
to
refer
to
older
technology
that
long
predates
5g
and
then
you
get
to
pwsf's
and
and
where
the
language
go
and
small
wireless
facilities.
N
N
That
would
include
any
type
of
facility
that
provides
what
are
known
as
personal
wireless
services,
which
would
be
cell
phone
services.
Primarily,
there
are
primarily
three
different
types
of
facilities.
There
is
a
macro
facility,
which
is
your
classic
cell
tower.
There
is
a
small
wireless
facility
which
used
to
mean
a
facility
that,
like
a
macro,
tower,
works
independently.
N
Now
the
fcc
has
adopted
its
own
definition
for
small
wireless
facility.
I'd
recommend
it
to
the
town
that
you
adopt
that
same
definition,
because
that
carries
with
its
own
shot
clock.
There
is
a
third
type
of
facility
which
doesn't
operate
independently,
there's
something
called
a
distributed
antenna
system
or
is
commonly
known
as
das.
N
A
distributed
antenna
system
involves
multiple
installations
of
dos
nodes,
which
work
collectively
as
a
group,
so
one
dot
system
might
include
anywhere
from
8
to
30
nodes,
which
would
be
installed
throughout
a
community
at
various
distances.
So
a
dos
node
is
a
single
installation
of
a
larger
system.
It
is
one
type
of
pwsf
or
personal
wireless
services
facility.
C
N
Yes,
but
each
I'd
have
to
look.
I
didn't
prepare
that
section
of
your
code,
but
technically
speaking
under
most
codes,
a
single
node
is
a
pwsf,
so
you'd
have
to
look
at
each
specific
node,
because
each
node
would
have
the
ability
to
inflict
its
own
adverse
impacts,
aesthetics
property
values.
Things
like
that.
C
N
D
C
Okay,
so
so,
of
course,
what
I'm
doing
is
I'm
thinking
worst
case
scenario
and
whenever
I'm
looking
at
the
legislation,
I'm
thinking
of
the
biggest
most
obnoxious
thing
that
I
can
think
of
because
my
experience,
that's
usually
what
they
would
apply
for
if
it
allows
if
it's
allowed
under
the
legislation,
so
going
back
to
of
the
pdf
of
the
agenda
going
back
to
the
pdf
of
the
agenda
on
page
six,
it
says
the
height
of
the
support
structure
tower
right
of
way.
She'll
be
no
more.
C
C
G
C
C
And
I
did
look
in
the
code.
I
did
a
word
search
under
our
existing
code
and
I
did
not
see
a
definition
for
telecommunications
system,
so
perhaps
we
could,
if
we're
talking
about
a
pwsf
here,
maybe
we
should
say
that
or
if
we're
talking,
if
the
is
defined,
maybe
I
just
need
to
find
it
I
I
should
look
again,
but
I
don't
know
what
a
telecommunications
system
is.
D
So
to
the
to
the
legislative
interpretation
question,
I
I
do
think
what
joanne
just
said
is
correct,
that
that
the
height
is-
and
let
me
look
at
the
language
here
again-
that
the
height
you
have
the
support
structure.
So
that's
like
a
pole
and
then
you
have
what
they're
calling
a
telecommunicator,
what
we
are
calling.
L
D
K
B
D
C
D
D
K
D
B
B
F
Thank
you,
deb,
I'm
muted
yeah,
so
I
know
we've
all
spent
a
lot
of
time
and
it's
late,
but
I've
been
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
the
technology
and
what
the
capabilities
are
and
what
this
would
mean
for
the
community
and
my
main
concern.
Even
though
we
can't
consider
health
issues,
I
think
it's
we
have
to
recognize
that
this
is
this.
F
I'm
concerned
that
the
certainly
the
spacing
that
we
have
in
the
current
version,
which
I
believe
is
500
feet
and
also
the
spacing
to
residences
of
50
feet.
I
would
like
to
see
those
increase
not
for
a
health
reason,
but
basically
to
try
and
minimize
the
visual
impact
of
of
this
technology
in
the
community,
and
so
I
know
this
might
have
some
impact
on
co-location.
So
I
I'm
not
going
to
consider
that
right
now.
F
I
think
we
definitely
want
to
encourage
co-location,
but
I
would
like
to
propose
that
those
distances
that
is
the
50
feet
from
residences
be
increased
250
feet
and
that
the
spacing
between
these
pwsfs
be
increased
to
500
feet
and
those
I
think
they
appear
on
page
15,
16,
14,
41
and
42
in
the
pdf.
So
wherever
that
those
references
are
to
for
many
adjacent
residents
and
from
spacing
between
the
installations,
I'm
proposing
that
those
be
changed
to
250
and
1500
feet.
B
B
B
B
B
Okay
and
then,
let's
just
run
through
each
of
them
and
then
we'll
run
through
each
of
what
people
are
proposing
to
change.
So
what
so?
I
just
we've
had
so
many
discussions
about
this.
I
just
want
everybody
to
be
really
clear
about
where
we
currently
are
and
then
that
we
can
go
one
by
one,
so
that's
the
between,
then.
What
is
the
distance
from?
Is
it
residential.
M
B
K
D
And
deb
or
graham,
do
you
want
counsel
to
clarify
your
collective
views
on
co-location
as
part
of
that
minimum
spacing
issue?
This
is
the
issue
that
ducks
and
brought
up
in
an
email
recently
because
they
intertwine
with
each
other.
It
may
be
wise
to
actually
also
take
a
position
on
co-location.
At
the
same
time,.
F
B
B
C
So
as
I
am
in
support
right
so
right,
if,
if
it's,
if
it's
50
feet
right,
if,
if
I
step
back
to
residential
uses,
is
you
know
50
feet,
for
example,
then
between
towers,
it
would
be
100
feet
so
that
you
don't
have
some
someone
who's
being
exposed
to
two
towers
at
the
same
time,
right
that
whatever
you're
set
back
to
residential,
the
setback
between
towers
should
be
double
that.
So
you
don't
have
a
venue
diagram
of
an
overlay
of
multiple
catchment
areas
under
one
tower.
B
C
B
L
I'm
just
going
to
explain
this
vote
and
future
votes.
I
I'm
just
I'm
concerned
about
perpetuating
unfounded
fears,
and
you
know
to
quote
a
cornell
professor,
who
wrote
us
earlier
today
and
for
these
radio
waves
that
we're
talking
about
to
have
health
effects,
the
foundations
of
quantum
mechanics,
electromagnetism
and
many
other
fields
have
to
be
wrong
in
very
fundamental
ways,
and
so
I
know
we're
framing
it
as
an
aesthetic
decision.
L
I
don't
have
concerns
in
that
area.
Either.
They're
relatively
small
devices
and
500
feet
is
larger
than
most
city
blocks.
They
even
putting
that
aside.
If
we
are
kind
of
shadow
regulating
based
on
health,
I
just
don't
share
those
concerns
and
I'm
afraid
of
restrictions
that
would
inhibit
future
innovation,
so
I'll
be
voting
against.
L
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
A
Now,
if
they're
member
filed
in
time
for
the
agenda
to
be
put
on
the
agenda,
they
don't
require
to
be
added
so
they're
fine.
But
I
also
would
imagine
that
if
you
did
a
unanimous
vote
tonight
to
move
the
city
administration
items
onto
common
council
without
discussion
that
we
could
just
do
it
that
way
and
put
them
under
the
ca
committee.
B
M
J
B
J
B
H
H
B
B
The
next
wednesday
we
have
a
presentation
on
capital
items.
We
were
also
going
to
move
the
city
manager
legislation
to
next
wednesday
as
well,
because,
quite
frankly,
we
haven't
been
able
to
get
to
that
legislation
in
city
administration,
normal
committee.
Because
of
this,
so
we
were
going
to
propose
that
on
the
29th
we
did
that
as
well
as
our
capital
projects
review,
as
well
as
the
federal
fund
review,
which
is
that's
basically
our
first
special
topic
budget
meeting,
remembering
in
october,
is
the
presentation
of
the
budget.
B
Thank
you
for
your
patience
and
we
will
address
those
issues
that
were
on
city
administration
at
the
council
meeting.
Those
will
all
go
under
as
julie
mentioned.
Now
we
can
put
them
under
the
city
administration
section
in
our
october
council
meeting.
We
still
have
the
amendment
now
originally
from
our
discussion
related
to
5g,
which
was
1500
co-location.
That's
what
we
were
in
the
middle
of
ari.
You
were.
B
D
F
B
B
I
However,
the
fact
that
verizon
advertises
in
at
least
two
places
that
we've
seen
that
their
transmission
is
quite
adequate
at
fifteen
hundred
feet
and
in
interest
of
reducing
the
negative
aesthetic
impact
of
these
things
and
thinking
that
it
might
be
easier
in
the
future
to
reduce
this.
The
distancing,
where
it'd
be
very
hard
to
go
back
and
expand
the
distancing
in
the
future.
C
H
H
A
Could
I
just
clarify-
because
I
think
I
missed
something
while
I
was
multitasking-
are-
is
cynthia
amending
the
amendment
that
no
no?
No?
No,
no,
so
what
we're
still
talking
about
is
increasing
the
minimum
permissible
distance
between
installations
from
500
feet
to
1500
feet,
except
with
co-locations
and
whatever
ari's
language
was
yes.
Thank.
B
L
E
C
B
B
B
B
C
That's
why
birds
and
small
creatures
are
the
first
to
demonstrate,
impacts
from
contamination.
So,
since
the
definition
of
school
is
elementary
middle
and
high
school,
these
are
younger
bodies.
They're
smaller
bodies,
they're
their
risk
of
exposure,
is
higher.
I
think
schools
and
residential
setbacks
should
be
1500
feet.
B
C
M
C
E
C
So,
if
you're,
you
know
thinking
about
existing
towers,
which
we
already
have
on
the
top
of
south
hill,
we
already
have
one
in
the
center
of
ithaca.
We
have
towers
and
in
office
buildings
it.
You
know,
looking
at
the
setback
of
1500
feet,
most
of
the
the
area
where
the
highest
need
for
5g
would
be,
which
would
be
the
commons
college
town
areas
around
ithaca
college,
where
people
are
outside
lots
of
people
using
their
phones
using
playing
games
or
wanting
to
download
things
in
the
right
of
way.
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
That's
actually
was
included
in
the
environmental
report
as
a
mitigating
act,
but
we
didn't
actually
implement
it.
So
I
would
like
these
to
see
the
inclusion
of
that
in
the
ordinance
I'm
seeing
a
nod
from
joanne,
so
I'm
not
sure,
but
does
that
require
counsel
to
improve?
I
don't
have
the
language
for
it,
but.
B
I'm
perfectly
fine
with
that
as
a
friendly.
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
vote
on
that
as
an
amendment,
but
I
am
going
to
defer
to
our
original
movers
and
seconders,
which
I
believe
is
laura
and
graham
right
is
that
right,
julie,
the
big,
the
the
ordinance
who
moved
the
ordinance.
I
think
it
was
me.
Oh
donna.
I
F
I
C
D
So
I'm
guessing
that
joanne.
They
have
more
practical
comments
on
this
than
me.
But
one
clarifying
question
I
have
cynthia
is
to
ask:
is
the
motion
that
you
are
making
applicable
to
what
the
ordinance
calls
tier
one
applications
which
were
intended
to
be
handled
at
the
staff
level
or
only
to
applications
that
would
need
to
be
determined
by
the
pca.
D
G
D
Just
when
that
was
in
the
design
guidelines,
I
believe
it
was
originally
intended
for
a
much
smaller
number
of
feet
so
that
it
was
a
very
unusual,
close
set
of
houses.
Saying
look,
there's
going
to
be
something
right
outside
your
house
here
now
we're
talking
about
a
much
larger
number
of
feet,
so
yeah.
You
may
want
to
consider
that
fact,
when
I'm
considering
a
direct
mailing
requirement,
but
I
leave
that
so
to
join
comment
and
to
counsel
to
determine.
G
C
M
C
There
was
a
notification
process
to
inform
people
after
an
installation
was
approved
and
right
before
it's
installed,
there's
a
notice
process,
but
I
think
what's
missing
and
again,
I
think
by
the
time
I
got
to
this
part
in
the
zone
in
the
code.
My
brain
just
froze
over
I'm
asking
for
a
notice
in
the
approval
and
review
process,
so
that
people
would
be
aware
that
there
is
a
petition
coming
forward
to
put
in
you
know,
a
pwsf
which
could
be
anything
from
a
huge
tower
to
30
nodes
to
a
little
thing.
H
B
I
C
G
I
G
G
B
B
I
think
what
I
heard
to
give
very
clear
direction
to
ari
and
joanne.
What
I
heard
is
we're,
okay
with
some
form
of
notification
process,
but
we
wanted
to
be
consistent
with
other
types
of
notification
that
are
done
for
similar
kinds
of
zoning
and
planning
projects.
Is
that
what
I
that's?
What
I
heard?
That's
what
I
said.
Yes,
okay,
I
see
many
heads
nodding
so.
D
B
J
J
J
N
K
J
K
D
E
D
C
J
C
C
B
C
B
C
E
C
K
B
C
Thanks,
okay,
so
I
only
have
two
more
points:
if
you're
willing
to
stick
it
out,
and
I
think
we
can
do
it
really
quick
in
my
email
of
the
21st,
I
just
identified
a
couple
areas
where
there
should
be
a
designated
person
to
make
the
decision
where
it
says
the
city
should
decide
just
if
we
can
clarify
who
exactly
that
would
be,
and
then
there's
a
couple
locations
where
we
talk
about.
For
example,
170-5i.
C
C
C
I
Donna
I
I
would
like
to
is
that
consistent
with
other
sorts
of
rules,
I
I
think
there
are
probably
landlords
who
have
buildings
who
are
not
in
compliance
and
get
permits
for
other
buildings.
Is
that
right
I
mean.
Is
this
a
consistent
rule
across
the
city
that,
if
you,
if
you
fail
in
one
way
that
you're
not
allowed
to,
I
think
you
get
my
point.
B
B
A
And
honestly,
I
would
encourage
everyone
who
made
amendments
to
do
something
similar
to
help
joanne.
I
will
say,
for
my
own
part,
I
have
notes.
I
have
no
confidence
that
I
got
everything
correct
and
I
will
not
have
time
to
review
this
video
and
get
it
all
ready
before
the
october
6
goes
out
next
week,
so
whatever
you
can
do
to
help
joanne
pull
all
this
together,
I
think,
would
be
very
helpful.
G
B
B
B
J
J
Right,
I
understand
that
I
think,
given
the
changes
we've
made
in
the
distances,
some
of
this
language
could
be
omitted,
I'm
not
asking
to
change
anything.
I'm
just
suggesting
there
could
be
some
omissions
in
this
language
that
explain
what
5g
is
type
of
deal
I
can.
I
can
tell
you
specifically
what
I
mean
if
you
want,
or
we
can
wait.
G
G
B
So
I
think,
for
now
we
can
vote
on
negative
declaration
and
then
what
we
will
expect
to
see
in
the
council
package
is
some
potential
modifications
to
some
of
that
language,
but
I
don't
think
we
will
expect
to
see
anything.
It
will
still
be
a
negative
declaration.
We
will
just
be
modifying
the
supporting
narrative
as
to
why
it's
a
negative
declaration.
J
B
B
Wait.
I'm
sorry,
all
those
opposed
apologies
cynthia,
it's
hard
to
see
all
the
little
boxes.
I
understand
okay,
so
that
is
carries
with
one
opposed,
and
I
think
we're
good
for
this
evening,
but
I
want
to
give
ari
and
joanne
an
opportunity
to
ask
right
now.
If
there
is
anything
they
need
from
council
as
they
work
on
bringing
tweaked
versions
of
this
to
the
council
meeting
in
october.
B
Okay,
great
the
other
thing
I
we
were
going
to
talk
to
everybody
about
tonight,
which
I'm
not
going
to
spend
any
time
on
it
more
than
30
seconds
you
heard
me
refer
to
it
earlier.
Is
that
what
we
will
originally
city
and
administration
this
evening
was
also
supposed
to
include
the
legislation
related
to
city
manager,
and
I
think
we
wisely
felt
that
it
was
not
smart
to
tackle
both
of
those
issues
this
evening.
So
this
is
where
we
landed
on
this
one.
B
Changes
at
next
week's
special
meeting,
where
we're
also
talking
about
capital
projects
and
it's
our
first
budget
topic
and
you'll,
see
a
memo
and
some
documentation
come
out
about
that
with
the
agenda
for
that
meeting,
which
will
be
next
wednesday.
So
I'm
just
reminding
everyone
that
we
do
have
a
meeting
next
wednesday
as
well
our
first
official
budget
meeting
so.
D
D
Right
so
I
know
we
don't
want
to
spend
any
time
on
this.
So
I'll
be
very
brief.
But
I
do
need
to
make
sure
that
all
council
understands
that,
because
the
city
manager
legislation
is
a
local
law
subject
to
aging
requirements
and
because
september
29
is
too
close
to
october
6.
I
think
of
the
date
for
there
to
be
aging
in
between
the
two
that
we
either
have
to
lay
that
local
law
on
the
table
like
tomorrow.
D
B
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
have
enough
time
to
go
through
all
the
details
of
that
with
everyone
as
well,
so
I'd
be
comfortable,
leaving
the
window
open
where,
if
that
even
ended
up
having
to
be
the
final
vote
on
that
is
the
november
council
meeting.
I
still
think
we're.
Okay,
with
that,
we
aren't
racing
a
clock
to
referendum.
B
We
just
you
know
we're
hoping
to
get
that
done
before
the
close
of
this
calendar
year.
So
and
now
that
we
have
hopefully
this
big
topic
close
to
finish,
then
we
can
start
addressing
that
other
one.
Okay
is
everyone?
Okay
with
that
right,
I
won't
ask
you
to
make
any
more
big
visions
today,
other
than
someone
needs
to
move
to
adjourn
with
six
minutes
left
in
our
meeting
graham
seconded
by
george
yeah
who's
gonna
take
steve's.
Second,
you
know
adjournment
spot
here.
We
saw
graham
george
is
now
in
the
running.
B
So
all
those
in
favor
of
closing
our
meeting
that
looks
quite
unanimous
staff
voted
on
that
one.
To
close,
thank
you,
everyone
for
giving.
You
know
the
attention
I
see
mr
campanelli
is
still
with
us.
We
would
like
to
thank
you
also
for
your
guidance
and
advice
sticking
through
us
as
we
worked
through
the
nitty-gritty
details
of
this.
Your
your
advice
was
quite
helpful.
So
thanks
thanks
for
hanging
in
there
for
this
long
meeting,
it.
J
I
C
Like
to
thank
corinne,
who
actually
carried
all
the
water
on
this
legislation
for
over
a
year,
she
has
taken
a
job
with
a
firm
that
she
worked
with
before,
which
is
in
advancement
of
her
long-term
career
goals.
So
I'm
so
happy
for
her,
but
it's
a
terrible
loss
for
us,
but
she
really
did
an
amazing
job
with
this
and
it's
unfortunate
to
bring
this
to
a
close
without
her
being
a
part
of
the
process
but
yeah.
I
just
want
to
wait.
We.