a report from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair of the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee, for a public hearing held on July 24, 2019 to receive information about the draft Policy and Regulations for Small Cell Wireless Installations on Public Ways under consideration by the Pole & Conduit Commission and the Historical Commission

ATTACHMENT A ANTIOVIS NOVE TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE DONATA ADI CO RECIMINE COMMITTEE MEETING ~ AGENDA ~ Sullivan Chamber 2:00 PM Wednesday, July 24, 2019 Call of the Meeting The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee will hold a public hearing to receive information about the draft Policy and Regulations for Small Cell Wireless Installations on Public Ways under consideration by the Pole & Conduit Commission and the Historical Commission. Opening Remarks and Introductions Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee City Council and City Staff Discussion City Councillors, City Manager's Office, City Solicitor's Office, City Electrician Public Comment Discussion Adjournment

ATTACHMENT B City of Cambridge Pole and Conduit Commission's Policy Regarding Small Cell Wireless Installations on Public Ways The City of Cambridge ("City") Pole and Conduit Commission ("Commission") hereby adopts this policy ("Policy") regarding Applications ("Application"') relating to installations of small cell wireless communications equipment and related infrastructure on or within public rights of way in the City ("Installations"). I. Application Process A. Applicants ("Applicants") shall submit Applications to the Commission accompanied by an Application fee of $500 per Application, payable to the "City of Cambridge." The $500 fee will cover up to 5 Installations submitted with each Application. Each Application for more than 5 Installations is subject to a separate fee of $100 per Installation after the first 5 Installations. Additionally, a $270 fee (which shall be an "Annual Recurring Fee") for each Installation shall be required to be submitted with said Application. If the Application relates to a request for installation of a new non- City owned pole or other structure on or within the public right of way, a one-time $1,000.00 fee shall be required for each such new pole or other structure in addition to said Annual Recurring Fee. The amounts due under this section may be revised by the Commission from time to time, consistent with applicable law. In the event the City's costs in reviewing any Application exceed the amounts prescribed in this section, Applicants shall be responsible for those costs. B. The Application process shall, in addition to the requirements described herein, follow the Siting Policy of the Commission ("Siting Policy"). C. Applications shall include certified mail receipts evidencing that notice has been made by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all other wireless providers ("Other Providers"), within the Applicant's knowledge after reasonable inquiry, who may request use of the public right of way for wireless services in this location and/or within 500 feet of this location, indicating the Applicant's intent to apply for utilization of a particular pole or other structure in the public way. Such receipts must demonstrate that notices were provided to all Other Providers within the Applicant's knowledge after reasonable inquiry at the time of submission of the Application. In the event an Applicant cannot demonstrate it has provided notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, then proof of service of such notice by constable shall be required. D. Applicant shall provide an electronic copy of the Application at the time of the submission of the Application to each the following City departments: the Commission, the Community Development Department, the Historical Commission, and any other department that the Commission determines should receive a copy. E. Upon receipt, the Commission Chair shall make a determination as to completeness of the Application, including making a determination as to whether the Applicant has . provided all the above required notices, and notify the Applicant, in writing, within 10 days, if the Application is incomplete. If the Applicant is notified that the Application is incomplete, the time periods set forth in this Policy shall be tolled until such time as a complete Application has been submitted. In the event an application

remains incomplete thirty (30) days after its submission, such application shall be deemed withdrawn without prejudice, and will need to be resubmitted in full, including payment of fees accompanying a new application: Withdrawal for incompleteness shall not entitle Applicant to refund of any fees paid. E. Once the Commission Chair has determined that an Application is complete, the Commission Chair will schedule and convene a public hearing of the Commission to consider the Application, such that a determination may be made on any Application for any Installation(s) on an existing structure within sixty (60) days of initial receipt of the Application by the Commission, and on a new structure within ninety (90) days of receipt of the Application by the Commission. The Applicant shall notify all Other Providers, as applicable, of the hearing date within one business day after such hearing date is scheduled by certified mail, return receipt requested.. The Applicant shall, within one buşiness day after such hearing date is scheduled, notify to all owners of properties that share a common boundary with the area proposed, extending all the way to the owners of properties on either side of the area proposed in both directions for a distance of one hundred fifty feet, and to owners of property on the opposite side of the street of the area proposed, or, where the area proposed is adjacent to an intersection, all property owners in all directions of the public way for a distance of one hundred fifty feet as described in the previous sentence (hereinafter "A'butters"), by certified mail, return receipt requested of the scheduled hearing date. In the event an Applicant cannot demonstrate notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to the Abutters and Other Providers, proof of service by constable shall be required. Failure to notify all Abutters and Other Providers; as applicable, may result in denial of the Application. Alternatively, Applicant may sign an extension agreement extending the time within which the Commission may respond to the Application by one week for every extra day that the Applicant needs to notify all Abutters and Other Providers, with a corresponding ägreement to extend the hearing date accordingly. In no event shall the notice to Abutter and Other Providers be received less than one week before the hearing date: G. If there are any Other Providers who wish to utilize the same location or structure as described in the Application, then the Application(s) shall together be considered a common project ("Conmon Project"), and in the Common Project the first Applicant shall be the "Lead Provider" and shall coordinate the Applications, filings and responses of all Applications of Other Providers for the subject location involved in the Common Project, consistent with Section 7 of the Siting Policy. H. In the event that there are any material changes to an Application, or if the Application is amended, as determined by the Commission Chair in his or her sole. discretion, any of these events shall constitute a new Application, for the purposes of the time standards set forth above in Section (F) above. That notwithstanding, the Commission and the Applicant may enter into a tolling agreement if additional time iș necessary with respect to a material change to an Application, I. The Commission may grant, grant with conditions, or deny an Application. A denial may be based on criteria including but not limited to any of the following: i) inadequațe capacity of the pole or mounting structure, 2

il) safety concerns or reliability concerns, which are not related to the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions if the Applicant provides proof of compliance with federal emission regulations. iii) failure to meet applicable engineering standards, iv) failure to meet the Commission's design standards, iv) failure of the Applicant to comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations oi other requirements; v) there are more convenient or favorable nearby locations such that the applicant may densify its network through such nearby locations. vi) any other legally valid reason to deny such Application. I. Any approval granted to an Applicant shall be only for the specific Applicant and Application. II. Content of Applications Applications shall include the following information, in digital form: A. Applicant's nanze, addiess, telephone number and email address. B. Names; addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of anyone acting on behalf of the Applicant with respect to the Application. C. For installations proposed on City owned structures only, a copy of the standard License Agreement issued by the City, executed by the Applicant. Full execution by the City shall occur at the time of permit issuance, in the event of approval. For installations proposed on non-City owned structures, Applicant shall provide any license agreement or other documentation showing approval and authority for attachment to such structure from the owner of such structire, as well as sign the City's stardard License Agreement for utilizing the public way, executed by the Applicant. Full Execution by the City shall occur at the time of permit issuance, in the event of approval: Further, any other required executed agreements, forms or licenses as determined and provided by the Coinmission: D. Detailed drawings and descriptions of the equipment to be installed, whether mounted on poles or on the ground, or otherwise, including: i. Type of equipment li. Specifications of equipment (including but not limited to dimensions and weight). ili. Equipment mount type and material iv. Power source or sources for equipment; including necessary wires, cables,. and conduit, distance and direction from the power sources, and maps of any proposed excavation, and extent of excavation needed. v. Rendering and elevation of equipment •vi. Photo simulations, from four different angles; showing the pole and streetscape before the installation, as well as after installation. vii. If the equipment is proposed to be mounted upon a pole; a signed affidavit by a licensed and registered engineer that such equipment could not be installed underground, and if any of the equipment could be located underground, that such equipment is planned to be so located: If feasible, 3

undergrounding may or may not be required based upon the discretion of the Commission: E. Detailed map in a digital format acceptable to the Commission with locations of the poles or other property on which equipment is to be located, including specific. pole identification number, if applicable, and the areas it will service. F. Detailed map in a digital format acceptable to the Commission showing the Applicant's existing and proposed Installation(s) within 500 feet of the Application site and amount of cellular coverage in the area, including the amount - of cellular coverage in such area, and evidence that the proposed Installation is needed to prevent a material inhibition of wireless services. G: Certification by a registered professional engineer that the pole or property will sately support the proposed eguipment. H. Affidavit from a Radio Frequency Engineer outlining the network/network service requirements in the City and how the Installation(s) address that need in the City, Such affidavit shall characterize the current level of coverage and how the desired Installation(s) will change the current level of coverage, through or with coverage maps, including current and proposed coverage, including a breakdown of "excellent" "good and "poor" reception area, and any further evidence showing that the lack of the Installation would materially inhibit wireless services. I. Insurance certificates with the following minimum coverages: General liability insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrènce and $2,000,000 in the aggregate, worker's compensation insurance not less than the amount of $100,000 per accident and $500,000 per illness or the statutorily required amount; whichever is greater, and umbrella insurance in an amount tot less than $5,000,000. The City must be an additionally named insured, and such policies. shall indicate that the insurance company shal! provide thirty: (30) business days! prior written notice to the City of lapse or cancellation. All insurance carriers shall carry an A.M. Best rating of "A-" or better. Such insurance shall provide for the waiver by the insurance carrier of any subiogation rights against City, its agents, servants and employees: J. Description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations, from a community perspective, including, but not limited to i. Aspects showing that the Installation will not incommode the public way; ii. Visual aspects: and iii. Proximity to residential buildings and descriptions of efforts to prevent any blocking of views from windows.. K. An affidavit froin the Applicant which certifies that it will maintain the Installation(s) in good repair and according to Federal Communications Commission standards and will remove any. Installation not in such good repair, or not in use, within 60 days of being no longer in good repair or no longer in use. L. Description of efforts to co-locate the Installation(s) on existing structures, poles, or towers which currently exist or are under construction pursuant to the Siting Policy. A good faith effort to co-locate is required and written evidence of such efforts must be submitted with the Application, all pursuant to the Siting Policy. Further, this Policy encourages multiple wireless carriers to collocate their 4

wireless communications equipment and related infrastructure on an existing pole or support structure. M. Evidence that Installation(s) shall comply with the Installation and Design Requirements of Section V. of this Policy. N. Proof that all other Installations by the Applicant or parent company which are no longer in use has been removed or turned over to the City and the annual re- certification has been submitted for such Installations, and all fees and fines paid with regard to such Installations. O. Documentation showing Applicant is in good standing and currently licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and the proposed Iristallation shall comply with any regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. III. Annual Re-Certification and Affidavit A. Each year on January 1 the Applicant shall submit an affidavit to the Commission which shall list, by location, all Installation(s) it owns within the City by location, and shall ceitify the following: (1) each Installation that remains "in use;" (2) that such Installations remain covered by insurance; and/or (3) each such Installations are no longer in use. B. The Applicant shall pay an annual re-certification and public way fee of $270 per Installation to the Commission. €. Any Installation which is no longer in use, abandoned or is no longer authorized to operate by law or other regulation, shall be considered in default and removed or turned over to the City after all small cell Installation equipment has been removed at the discretion of the City, as provided in the License Agreement to be entered into with the City. D.. Where such annual re-certification has not been timely submitted, or an Installation no longer in use has not been removed or turned over to the City after all small cell Installation equipment has been removed at the discretion of the City, as provided in the License Agreement to be entered into with the City, any further Applications by the Applicant will be deemed incomplete due to failure to include proof that all Installations by the Applicant or its parent company which are no longer in use have been removed or turned over to the City. and the annual re-certification has been submitted and all fees and fines paid. IV. Prohibitions A. No Installations will be permitted to be installed on double poles; B. No Installations will be permitted to be installed on poles which result in non- compliance with any applicable federal, state and/or local laws, rules and regulations; •C. No Installations shall remain upon the City right of way or on City property which zas not been certified as "in use" in the annual re certification affidavit; and ). No: Installations will be permitted to be installed on any traffic signal pole or other related infrastructure or equipment. 5

E. An Applicant may submit an Application inconsistent with the foregoing: prohibitions, but only if accompanied by evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the otherwise-prohibited Installation must be considered by the City in order to avoid a prohibition or effective prohibition on the provision of service, as defined by applicable federal law. V. Design and Location Requirements for Installations The purpose of the Design and Location Requirements for Installations is to preserve the character of Cambridge's neighborhoods and commercial corridors. A. Intent of the Design and Location Requirements for Installations: i. Minimizing visual as well as physical clutter to the maximum extent possible. ii. Maintaining publie open spaces and parks clear of visual clutter of communication and signage elements. ili. Discouraging placement of Installations on decorative pedestrian municipal street lights. iv.. Standardizing components of Installations, e.g., size, scale; color, location to be consistent with character of existing public infrastructure in the public right of way. v. Avoiding siting of Installations in front of designated historic structures, landmarks, parks or impacting view corridor to major natural, cultural, or historic resources. vi. Reducing visual clutter as much as possible by collocating Installations onto existing infrastructure. vii. Maintaining the consistency of character of the neighborhoods in Cambridge. B. Siting Requirements: All Installation(s) shall comply with the following requirements: No Installations should be located closer than 150 feet radially from another i. Installation. In commercial districts and major city squares such as Harvard Square, Central ii. Square, Inman Square, Porter Square and Kendall Square, Installation should not be located directly adjacent to a preexisting pole with a previously approved Installation. ili. To the maximum extent possible, Installations shall be placed on existing non- decorative light poles such as the "Cobra' and the '1907 Teardrop'. With respect

to Cobra Head poles, all antennas, equipment, wiring and cabling shall be built within the pole itself, which allow for multiple carriers in one pole, similar in design to the "Smart Fusion Pole." iv: All equipment associated with an Installation shall be consistent with ADA regulations. V. No Installation shall be located less than 6 feet from an existing building wall. No equipment associated with the Installation, including backup power supply or base equipment cabinet shall be installed in the pedestrian walking area or amenity zone of the sidewalk, where site furniture including seating or bike racks are located vii. Installations shall not obstruct ADA access and circulation including maintaining clear landing at the top of crosswalk curb ramps and ininimum distance between the base of the new Installation and any other obstruction such as building walls or other elements and shall not incommode the public way.. vili. Where possible, Installations shall be in a straight line with existing utility poles, street lights and street trees in the right of way, ix. No Installation shall be placed less than 6 feet away from the edge of a driveway. of a residential or commercial property; and shall be placed at least 15 feet from the edge of the curb of public right of way where possible. x. Installations shall not be placed in front or within 6 feet of a residence's windoi; door openings, porches or balconies. xi. No Installation shall be placed where, in the determination of the City, it would limit the City's ability to plant future: street trees başed upon the existing City plans for planting of street trees. xii. No Installation shall be placed where, in the determination of the City, it would limit the City's ability to install any city infrastructure, transportation elements or facilities including bike lanes, bike racks or other street furniture and the like based upon existing City plans for installation of such facilities. xiii. Where the City has planned a redevelopment or change to a street, sidewalk, square, or other area of the City, Applicants shall remove thei Installation at their own cost within 60 days of notice by the City, and may apply to re-install their Installation in a different location upon the City's redevelopment or change to such area. Xiv. In residential zoning districts, Installations should not be placed directly in front. of a building. Where there is a side yard setback with open space or other space;

preference shall be given to applications to locate an Installation on the public way in front of a side yard setback. XV. For properties under the jurisdiction of the Cambridge Historical Commission, Applicants for Installations shall apply for a certificate from the Cambridge Historical Commission. xVi. Applicants of proposed Installations must consider other optional siting locations to avoid placing Installations in-front of storefront windows, primary entrances, exits, in front of primary walkways or area in such a manner that would hinder service to the building or delivery. xvii. In residential zoning districts, new poles for Installations must be located at the lot line between properties. xviji. New Installations shall not be placed where they obstruct the sight line of any intersecting street or public alley. A minimum of fifteen feet (15°) shall be maintained between the new Installation and the outside edge of the street curb or public alley. xix. The design and location of Installations shall be consistent with the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises (MUTCD) and adopted Cambridge standards for intersections" sight lines triangles: Siting for utilization of existing utility or City-owned poles or other City-owned *x. property, for Instailations will be given priority, and any requests to install a new structure in the public way shall be discouraged. xxi. Proposed Installations shall avoid areas where significant excavation is required for installation of power and conduit. Installations which will have minimal. disruption to the integrity of the public way, with more limited excavation are preferred and encouraged, unless such excavation is for purposes of installing. underground cabinets, antennae and other equipment. Pole Design and Overall Height VI.. A. If Installation are proposed to be mounted on any of the City's existing single Acorn or single Saturn poles, the existing pole shall be replaced with a double. luminaire fixture of the same design for purposes of aesthetics. B. If the Applicant proposes to replace an existing decorative polé with a new Installation, the Applicant shall replicate the existing pole design and overall dimensions. C: Any installations at the site of an existing pole shall not extend the overall height of the pole to more than 30 feet high or by more than 10% of the existing pole 8

height, whichever is less except for "whip anterinas" which shall be no higher than 30 inches high by 2 inches in diameter and shall have an antenna mount Ino more than 45 inches high by 4.5 inches in diameter. D. In residential zoning districts, top mounted antennas on Installations shall not increase the height of the existing pole by more than 5 feet.. E. No Installation shall be higher than 30 feet or more than 10% higher than other adjacent poles, whichever is less. VII. Equipment Cabinet, Equipment Shroud, Antenna and Antenna Shroud A. Where technically feasible, equipment cabinets for Installations shall be located underground: All such below ground equipment may not be located in the street but may be located under the sidewalk. B. Any above ground or pole mounted equipment cabinet shall be no more than 36 inches highi, no more than 18 inches wide and no more than 12 inches deep: Any above ground or pole mounted equipment cabinet shall be installed with the 18 inches side parallel to the sidewalk. Hardware, anchors and straps to the pole shall match the pole color and finish. C. Equipinent cabinets shall be pole mounted at least 10 feet high on Installations. which are less than 25 feet high, or at least 12 feet high on Installations which are greater than 25 feet high. D. Pole mounted equipinent cabinets shall not be mounted on the street side of the Installation. E. Antennas of Installations greater than 25 feet high shall be no more than 24 inches high by 16 inches in diameter. F. Antenna's conduits, brackets and hardware shall be hidden from view. All associated wiring and cable shall be installed within the Installation, except for Installations upon a wooden pole, which in such case, wiring and cabling shall be shrouded and painted to match the wood on the pole. G. Antennas mounted on Installation which are greater than 25 feet high shall iclude a tapered transition piece between the antenna and the poie top for amless extension of the existing pole. The tapered transition piece shall be t more than 16 inches in diameter and 24 inches high. H.. Antenna enclosures on Installations that are more than 25 feet high shall be no wider than 150 percent of the diameter of the pole or support structure and shall not be more than 16 inches in diameter or whichever is less, and shall be no more than 24 inches in length. 9

I. Antenna mounted on top of Installations that are less than 25 feet high shail be no greater than 30 inches high nor greater than 2 inches in diameter and shall have an antenna mount no greater than 45 inches high nor greater than 4.5 inches in diameter. VIII. Color, Finish, Signage, Logos and Decals A. All Installations shall match the existing and adjacent street light poles colors. B.. No exposed wires or conduit shall be permitted on any Installation except on existing wooden poles; and Installations are installed on existing wooden poles, they must conform to the utilities! "Construction Requirements for Distributed Arterina Systems (DAS) on Electric Distribution Poles. E. No Signage/Decals or Logos of the Applicant, other than FCC required signage, shall be placed on any Installation. i. Signage: Unless required otherwise by state, federal or local laws, rules or regulations, signage shall not exceed 4 inches by 6 inches and must be attached or anchored with material to match the pole color and finish of the Instaliation. Applicant shall only post its or the manufacturer's name, location, pertinent and emergency contact information in an area on the cabinet that is visible to the public and shall do so only as permitted or required by state, federal or local laws, rules or regulations. Where no equipment cabinet exists on an Installation, the signage shall be located at the base of the Installation. ii. Applicants shall remove or paint over manufacturer decals without compromising the surface, color or finish of the Installatión's base material. The color and finish of the Installation shall match or be as approved by Cambridge Historical Commission staff. No advertisement for the Applicant or manufacturer of the Installation shall be allowed except displaying information as permitted or required by federal, state or local laws, rules or regulation. ill. Required equipment warning stickers: applicants shall use only the smallest and lowest visibility warning stickers allowed by federal, state, local laws, rules or regulations. iv. Equipment cooling fans: In residential zoning districts, if equipment cooling fans are required, the Applicant shall rise equipment cooling fans with the lowest noise level and shall not exceed the levels allowed in the City's noise ordinance. June 10, 2019 10

ATTACHMENT C Walker, Liz From: Devereux, Jan Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 11:25 AM To: Walker, Liz Subject: RE: Comments for 5G meeting at Wednesday's Transportation and Public Utilities Committee meeting --- Forwarded message -------- From: Gene Dolgin <[email removed]> Date: Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:49 PM Subject: Comments for 5G meeting at Wednesday's Transportation and Public Utilities Committee meeting To: <PCrane@cambridgema.gov> Cc: <ckelley@cambridgema.gov> (for the public record) To whom it may concern, I am writing with regard to the small cell equipment being planned and installed by various telecom contractors in the area. Specifically, I strongly support the "City of Cambridge Pole and Conduit Commission's Policy Regarding Small Cell Wireless Installations on Public Ways" as it gives the city some recourse in dealing with the barrage of attachment requests they're dealing with, and some control (though more is better) over how and in what manner the equipment is installed. For example, the equipment installed on a pole near my house went from a relatively small set inline with the pole, to an unsightly piece of equipment nearly 2x the size (in width and depth, in particular). Under the new regs, this would no longer be allowed, I believe. And if it is allowed, I highly encourage the regulation to become even more stringent. Original small cell equipment:

New equipment - much wide, deeper, and unfortunately just as noisy (despite promises to the contrary):

To the extent possible, I strongly encourage the city, associated boards, and councilors to re-examine the in-process and already installed equipment for compliance with the regulations. Gene Dolgin 3

ATTACHMENT D Assistant City Solicitors Nancy E. Glowa Paul S. Kawai City Solicitor Keplin K. U. Allwaters Arthur J. Goldberg Sean M. McKendry Megan B. Bayer Deputy City Solicitor Brian A. Schwartz Samuel A. Aylesworth Katherine Sarmini Hoffman First Assistant City Solicitor: Public Records Access Officer Seah Levy CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 July 29,2019 Louis A. DePasquale City Manager City of Cambridge Cambridge, MA 02139 Re: Awaiting Report No. 18-137, Policy Order No. O-18 of 12/3/18 Re: Report on Reviewing FCC Regulations on Small Cell Technology Dear Mr. DePasquale: This is in response to Awaiting Report No. 18-137, Policy Order No. O-18 of 12/3/18, regarding the request that the City Manager instruct the City Solicitor to review the FCC's ("Federal Communications Commission") Regulations on Small Cell Technology and report back to the City Council. The FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, dated September 26, 2018 ("FCC Order"), which requires that municipalities such as the City allow wireless companies to attach wireless telecommunication infrastructure such as wireless equipment and antennae to City infrastructure in the public right of way for Small Wireless Facilities,' and 1 The FCC Order defines Small Wireless Facilities as follows: (1) The facilities- are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in section (1) 1.1320(d) [of Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations], or (11) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by (ili) more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in section 1.1320(d)[of Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations]), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; (3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume: (4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under Part 17 of [Chapter 47 of the Code of (5) The facilities are not located on Tribal Lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and (6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in Section 1.1307(b) [of Chapter 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations]. FCC Order, at Paragraph 11, n. 9. TTY/D [phone removed] Facsimile [phone removed] Telephone [phone removed]

2 provides that the City may only charge fees that are "a reasonable approximation of the [City's] costs," which are "specifically related to and caused by the deployment," such as "the costs of processing applications or permits, maintaining the right of way, and maintaining a structure within the right of way." FCC Order at p. 26. This is a change from the previous position taken by the FCC, wherein the City was permitted at its discretion to lease or license its infrastructure in the public right of way under market terms and could refuse to do so if the terms. were not acceptable to the City. The FCC Order has established restrictive parameters when charging wireless companies for the use of the public way for wireless telecommunication infrastructure. Specifically, the FCC Order provides that there is a presumption that the following fees would not be prohibited as they would represent a reasonable approximation of a municipality's costs: "(a) $500 for non- recurring fees, including a single up-front application that includes up to five Small Wireless Facilities, with an additiona! $100 for each small Wireless Facility beyond five, or $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole (i.e., not a collocation) intended to support one or more Small Wireless Facilities; and (b) $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees,. including any possible Right of Way access fees or fee for attachment to municipally-owned structures in the" public right of way. FCC Order, p: 42. Further, the FCC Order provides that after an application to attach wireless equipment to an existing street light pole or other structure is submitted, the City must grant or deny such application within 60 days for an existing pole, and 90 days for an application to construct a new pole in the public right of way, and may only deny an application if such denial would not "materially inhibit" the provision of wireless services. The FCC Order provides that the City may still regulate aesthetics of the installations, but on a limited basis, as such aesthetic regulations must be "technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of character deployments;" they must be "objective- ie., they must incorporate clearly-defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner-and must be published in advance," and they must be "reasonable," and "no more. burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments" FCC Order, p. 45. In response to the FCC Order, on May 10, 2019, the City of Cambridge Pole and Conduit applications for grants of location upon the public way in the City for small cell wireless equipment, including aesthetic regulations for any such proposals, and requested public comment with regard to the proposed policy. After having received public comment, the Pole and Conduit Commission adopted an interim policy ("Interim Policy") at a hearing on June 10; 2019, a copy of which is attached hereto. The Pole and Conduit Conimission is still in the process of making additional changes to the Interim Policy, and a further hearing related to such Interim Policy is scheduled for July 25, 2019. Very Truly Yours, Nancy E. Giowa City Solicito 2

ATTACHMENT E Walker, Liz From: Devereux, Jan Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 11:36 AM To: Walker, Liz Subject: RE: 5g small cell wireless installations From: Isabelpraeger < [email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 12:26:00 AM To: City Council Subject: 5g small cell wireless installations Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council; My name is Isabel Praeger. I am a Cambridge resident, a nurse and a health care practitioner who has studied the 5g Issue extensively. The following information pertains to the installation of 5g cell phone towers in Cambridge and is vitally important. Life on earth is more important than a fast internet. International Appeal to Stop 5g on Earth and in Space; As of June 7, 2019 there are 100,091 signatures from 187 countries to the following petition: To the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe, and governments of All Nations, We, the undersigned scientists, doctors, environmental organizations, and citizens from (187) countries urgently call for a halt to the deployment of the 5g wireless network, including 5g from space satellites. 5g will massively increase exposure to radio frequency radiation on top of the 2g, 3g, 4g networks for telecom already in place. RF radiation has been proven harmful for humans and the environment that is defined as a crime under International Law. 5g facts; 5g download speeds are 20 to 30 times faster than 4g and 5g promises radio millimeter bands (frequencies) in the 30 to 300 Ghz range, while 4g tops out at around 6 Ghz. Speeds up to 60 to 120 times faster. The higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms and the earth. The beaming of millimeter length microwaves at the earth from 20,000 satellites to be launched by 4 companies to emit radiation to 5g cell phones and towers all over the earth is planned 4g wavelengths travel along the surface of the skin when 5g wavelengths that are emitted over skin will automatically be absorbed into the body. Because 5g frequencies are so strong they can only travel short lengths, thus one tower per the necessary 2 to 8 houses will exponentially increase exposure to radiation. 5g cell towers everywhere will destroy the beauty of nature in Cambridge on top of the overpowering amount of radiation killing wildlife. The deployment of 5g violates at least twelve International laws including The Nurenberg Code 1947), Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011) and The Outer Space Treaty, 1967. California Governor, Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have given more power to telecom companies and less power to local cities and towns in blocking 5g cell towers. Mill Valley and 2 other towns in California have banned the deployment of 5g cell towers. Brussels, Belgium and Geneva, Switzerland have banned 5g cell towers for health reasons. The evidence that RF radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming. The accumulated clinical evidence of sick and injured human beings, experimental evidence of damage to DNA cells and organ systems in a wide variety of plants and animals and epidemiological evidence that many major diseases are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution forms a literature base of well over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies. When 5g was recently tested at The Hague in Holland, 1

over the period of a few days 339 birds fell dead out of the trees. 5g is an unpresidented technology of millimeter waves previously used as an energy weapon in military operations and crowd control. 5g satellites will use closed array antennas to shoot beams of radiation at 5g cell phones. The total number of satellites. to be put into low and high orbit by several companies is 20,000. This will cause an environmental catastrophe from rocket fuel used to launch the satellites - ozone depletion and black soot. Mercury-based rocket fuel could spread neurotoxins over the earth causing disease. With life expectancy of only 5 years when the satellites fall to earth all the hazardous material in them will be released into the air. Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011) states Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly from the exposure to children and young people. The Nurenberg Code applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the deployment of 5g with new; higher radiation exposure that has not been pre-market tested for safety: The Outer Space Treaty 1967 requires that the use of outer space be conducted so as to avoid harmful contamination and adverse changes in the environment of the earth. CLEARLY 5g DEPLOYMENT VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW! The shorter millimeter waves required by 5g are more hazardous to human beings because of the intensity of the technology, it will use millions more towers than before. These towers are not only dangerous, thy are lethal - and should be considered a crime against humanity and the environment. Lloyds of London and other insurance companies are refusing to underwrite all and any damage caused by EMF's, mobile phone towers and 5g.. If the telecom industry's plans come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on earth will be able: to avoid exposure; 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet. These 5g plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversable damage to all of the earth's ecosystems. Immediate measures must be taken to protect humanity and the environment, in accordance with ethical imperatives and international law. It is not fun to be on the wrong side of a class-action lawsuit. In the U:S: the power to license and erect 5g cell towers all over the place ultimately lies with the state and city governments, as been aptly shown in California. I do not care what the reason for stopping this insanity is, whether it be to save the environment, prevent out neighborhoods and parks from being overrun by hoards of ugly cell towers, or God forbid, to save all human beings on earth. The facts speak for themselves. Many people are alarmed by this issue. Many see that life on earth is more important than a fast internet. Do not let the telecommunications companies wreak havoc. Does the Cambridge City Council really want to license 5g cell towers al! over Cambridge that will connect with 20,000 satellites and spread immense amounts of radiation all over the world? Do not you want to see your children grow up? Please google 5g dangers and read the details of the appeal to stop 5g on earth and in space as well as the many other websites on 5g dangers. Thank you for your kind attention, Isabel Praeger 2

ATTACHMENT F Devereux, Jan H Hardouf < [email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 6:25 PM Devereux, Jan To: City Council Cc: Information about theharmful effects of 5G Technoloogy Subject: Attachments: 5G Ready.doc; 5G Threatens Weather Forecasting.doc; 5G -- Great Tech or Great Threat.doc; 5G Wireless Tech War Against Humanitiy.doc H. Fleishon 100 Landsdowne Street Cambridge, MA 02139 [phone removed] Dear Vice-Mayor Jan Devereux, Here are some articles with references and citations that I want to share with the committee. I downloaded and converted them to Word docs. I am appealing to the committee to please educate yourselves about the dangers this technology poses to the entire planetary ecosystem Virus-free. www.avast.com 1/15

"5G Ready"? UK Government's "5G Rural First": "Dangerously High" Levels of Electromagnetic Field Radiation (EMF) in Southern England. Glastonbury Festival-goers Are Walking into an EMF Minefield By Annie Dieu-Le-Veut Global Research, June 26, 2019 The Holistic Works 25 June 2019 Click to read this article in your browser This weekend, a group of us drove around the site of Glastonbury Festival in Pilton, Somerset UK). We had an electromagnetic field radiation detector that was conținually bleeping alarmingly and flashing red, indicating that the EMFs it was detecting were way above World Health Organisation recommended safety levels. They were penetrating on to the main road which runs past the site, and there were several hotspots in the quaint little village of Pilton itself, including the village hall and the Working Men's Club. A couple of weeks before, 1 had attended a meeting of Pilton's parish council. It was standing room only as residents packed in to express their dismay about a telecommunications mast that had been erected, without any consultation with them, in the children's skateboard park. Engineers had informed one of them that it was going to be made "5G ready" at the end of May, in time for the music festival. We are now beginning to receive reports from inside the site of dangerously high levels of EMFs. On-site workers have been reporting bad headaches, nosebleeds and digestive issues. And this is all before the bulk of the campers arrive on Wednesday. So one can only assume that matters will get far worse once hundreds of thousands of smart phones turn up. 5G technology was installed at Glastonbury Festival this year by EE as part of a governmental agenda called 5G Rural First. This is a promotional push dreamed up by urbanite marketeers that purports to be about giving better Internet access to country dwellers. In reality, though, good folks have paid £250 a ticket to be used as guinea-pigs in a 1.4 square mile test bed for an untested technology that could have serious implications for their health. 2

Partners of 5G:Rural First include: US telecommunications giant Cisco, Microsoft, the BBC and British Telecom, the owners of EE who are bringing 5G to Glastonbury Festival: 5G Rural First also has test beds on the Orkney Islands and Shropshire and it claims its technology will help dairy cows perform better. But they are ignoring the evidence of 230 scientists and doctors who are appealing to the World Health Organisation to move the 5G wireless signal from a Group 2B carcinogen to a Group 1, the same as asbestos and arsenic. They believe that the dangers to health from 5G include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes to the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being. And the damage goes well beyond the human race; there is growing evidence of harmful effects to plants, insects and animals. So where are the protests to halt this threat to our health and well-being? Well, we cannot turn to Extinction Rebellion for help. Last month's state-organised protests by their "actorvists" against climate change, which brought central London to a standstill, were to provide "hearts-and-minds" support for the zero-carbon-by-2050 promises made by Theresa May in the dying days of her premiership that, unwittingly or not, will bankrupt the country over 30 years. One of Extinction Rebellion's founder directors, Gail Bradbrook, went on to head up Citizen's Online as a "digital inclusion strategy specialist consulting with a wide range of clients such as EE, London Connects and the Cabinet Office." There is also a former head of Exxon Mobil on its board as well as Lord Anthony Tudor St. John, a senior consultant to Merrill-Lynch and legal counsel to Shell. Shell is heavily invested in the satellite and aerospace industries, which will be involved in the rollout of 5G. So what about the Greens? Surely they will be concerned about a new technology that will require the culling of thousands of trees, to successfully transmit its signals? Well, Caroline Lucas and Co were very late to the party, As recently as September last year, she was supporting the "smart agenda" although the Greens are now talking about conducting a moratorium while the safety risks are assessed. Glastonbury Town Council, made up largely of Greens, has also been foot-dragging on the issue. It is only now making efforts to catch up with the local grassroots anti-5G movement which had been vigorously trying to draw their attention to the problem for 3

months. However, it is too little; too late: One of the worse EMF hotspots we found on Sunday was when we drove past the entrance to the Chalice Well Gardens at the bottom of Goursing Batch, just before the town. Glastonbury Town Council is not responsible for the festival site at Pilton, which is in its own parish, and that is why so many of us attended their parish council meeting a few weeks ago. However, it has made no difference. Michael Eavis, the festival's farmer founder whose daughter Emily now heads up the four-day event, was leafleted by a local campaigner in Tesco's the other day: She said he got annoyed with her and replied: "Young people are the cause. I'bet you have a phone." In response, she pulled out of her bag a decidedly unsmart, out-of-date Nokia that, she informed him, was only used for emergencies. Eavis then told her that he didn't own a mobile phone. Make of that what you will.

5G Threatens Weather Forecasting. Devastating Health Impacts - Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization It comes as no surprise that the American public remains oblivious to a not-so- slight glitch in the 5G Race with China as the US strives to be the first, the best and most technologically advanced country in the world with its guarantee of a Brave New World. But then, many Americans are unaware of the .... https://www.globalresearch.ca/5g-threatens-weather-forecasting-devastating- health-impacts/5683373

Alliance for Natural Health 5G: Great Tech or Great Threat? MAY 28, 2019 Despite lack of testing; 5G is being launched in neighborhoods nationwide. Action Alert! Recently, Verizon announced it would launch the next generation of wireless technology in dozens of cities by the end of 2019. The technology has already launched in Chicago and Minneapolis, and the company listed twenty more cities that can expect to see 5G network rollout in the coming months, with more locations to be announced. Yet there are still a number of critical safety questions to be answered. Simply put, we do not know the human health implications of launching 5G networks on a wide scale-and what information there is gives grave reasons for concern. 5G networks will be substantially different than the 4G networks currently in use. Whereas current 4G networks use up to 6 GHz, 5G will use frequencies between 24 GHz and 100 GHz, known as millimeter-wave frequencies. These smaller waves are more easily blocked by trees, buildings, and other objects in the world, which necessitates erecting many "small cell" towers to support the network. This means that dozens of these unsightly "small cells" will be installed in your neighborhood, which will emit millimeter waves and bathe neighborhoods in radiation. In previous articles we've reviewed both the lack of safety testing on 5G networks and the evidence of negative health effects that could result from widespread use of this technology. A group of hundreds of scientists from around the world recently sent a letter to the United Nations and the World Health Organization warning of "serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by electric and 6

wireless devices. " The scientists explain that EMF "affects living organisms at levels well below most international guidelines," causing increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in free radicals, genetic damage, changes to the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, and neurological disorders. Recall, too, that 5G networks will expose us to EMF at an unprecedented scale. As Verizon boasts on its website, the "Internet of Things" will thrive on 5G technology. The Internet of Things refers to the expanding number of devices, appliances, utilities, and other technologies that collect, transmit, and share data through the internet. Many processes that have not previously relied on the internet will start to once 5G roles out: switching light bulbs on or off with a smartphone app, driverless cars-even "smart cities" that will use wireless networks to collect and analyze data about the environment, traffic, water, transit, lighting, waste management, security, and parking. Our environment will be saturated with EMF. The scientists" letter did not even list all of the dangers. Millimeter wavelengths present new threats to human health: Israeli researchers found that our sweat ducts act as antennas for millimeter waves, meaning we would absorb more of this energy into our bodies. Millimeter wavelengths are also used in crowd control systems, making people caught in the high-powered millimeter wave feel like their skin is on fire. Most disturbing of all is the lack of long-term research on exposure to millimeter waves, yet telecom companies are working with the federal government to railroad communities into adopting 5G networks. The FCC recently approved rules that limit the fees local governments can charge telecom companies for use of public utilities and property. The rules also limit cities' ability to control the look and design of small cells. We cannot let special interests and the federal government treat us like guinea pigs. We must demand that more research be done before telecom companies are allowed to implement 5G networks. 7

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FCC to demand that more research be done on 5G before this technology rolls out. Please send your message immediately.

5G Wireless Technology Is War against Humanity This article was first published in February 2019. Disclosure about SG — and its considerable risk for humanity — is occurring within the United Nations: This is thanks to longtime UN staff member and whistle-blower Claire Edwards, who recently contacted me with this powerful story which touches all of humanity and our shared future. Watch the interview above; or on YouTube here or on Facebook herę. - Josh del Sol Beaulieu **** The first eight months of WWII with no fighting was called The Phoney War. Using millimetre waves as a fifth-generation or SG wireless communications technology is a phoney war of another kind. This phoney war is also silent, but this time shots are being fired - in the form of laser-like beans of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from banks of thousands of tiny antennas - and almost no one in the firing line knows that they are being silently, seriously and irreparably injured. 'In the first instance, 5G is likely to make people electro-bypersensitive (EHS) 2] Perhaps it was sitting in front of two big computer screens for many of the 18 years I worked at the UN that made me EHS. When the UN Office at Vienna installed powerful WiFi and cellphone access points - designed to serve large, public areas - in narrow, metal-walled corridors throughout the Vienna International Centre in December 2015, I was ill continuously for seven months. I did my best for two and a half years to alert the UN staff union, administration and medical service to the danger to the health of UN staff of EMR from these access points, büt was ignored: That's why, in May 2018, I took the issue to the UN Secretary-General, Antonio on Guterres[transcript]: He is a physicist and electrical engineer and lectured telecommunications signals early in his career, yet asserted that he knew nothing about this. He undertook to ask the World Health Organization to look into it, but seven months later those public access points remain in place. I received no replies to my many follow-up emails. As a result, I welcomed the opportunity to join the effort to publish an international Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space because it was clear to me that, despite there having been 43 earlier scientific appeals, very few people understood the dangers of EMR. My experience as an editor could help ensure that a new 5G appeal, including the issue of beaming 5G from and accessible to the non-scientist. space; was clear, comprehensive, explanatory, The International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space is fully referenced, citing over a hundred scientific: papers among the tens of thousands on the biological effects of EMR published over the last 80 years. 13) Having spent years editing UN. documents dealing with space, I know that outer space is hotly contested geopolitically and any untoward event involving a military satellite risks triggering a catastrophic response 4) Space law is so inadequate - just one example is the complexity of space liability lawis),6) - that we could really call the Earth orbits a new Wild 9

West. China caused international consternation in 2007 when it demonstrated an anti- satellite weapon by destroying its own satellite, Space debris is the main concern among 'space-faring nations, with a so-called Kessler syndrome positing a cascade of space debris that could make the Earth orbits unusable for a thousand years. Does launching 20,000+ commercial 5G satellites in such circumstances sound rational to you? I live in Vienna, Austria, where the 5G rollout is suddenly upon us. Within the last five weeks, pre-5G has been officially announced at Vienna airport and 5G at the Rathauspiatz, the main square in Vienna, which attracts tens of thousands of visitors to its Christmas market each December and skating rink each January, which are special treats for children. Along. with birds and insects, children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies.[8) Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic eye pains, chest pains, symptoms of EMR poisoning:i9j nosebleeds, headaches, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs. Other biological effects such as tumours and dementia usually take longer to manifest, but in the case of 5G, which has never been tested for health or safety, who knows?no] Seemingly overnight a forest of 5G infrastructure has sprouted in Austria. In the space of three weeks one friend has gone from robust health to fleeing this country, where she has lived for 30 years. Each person experiences EMR differently: For her, it was extreme torture so she and i spent her last two nights in Austria sleeping in the woods. Interestingly, as she drove across southern Germany, she suffered forture even worse than in Austria, while in northern Germany she had no symptoms at all and felt completely normal, which suggests that there has been as yet no 5G rollout there. There are no legal limits on exposure to EMR. Conveniently for the telecommunications industry, there are only non-legally enforceable guidelines. such as those produced by the grandly namedInternationa! Commission on Non-Yonising Radiation Protection, which turns out to be like the Wizard of Oz, just a tiny little NGO in Germany that appoints its own members, none of whom is a medical doctor or environmenta expert:!!! Like the Wizard of Oz, ICNIRP seems to have magical powers, its prestidigitation makes non-thermal (non-heating) effects of EMR exposure disappear into thin air, for taking into account the tens of thousands of research studies demonstrating the biological effects of EMR would invalidate its so-called safety guidelines. 12] It has bewitched the International Telecommunication Union, part of the UN family, into récognizing these guidelines. 13) And one little email sent to ICNIRP in October 2018 to submitProfessor Martin Pall's comments on ICNIRP's new draft guidelines conjured up an immediate explosion of interest in the sender's online presence - which had hitherto attracted none - from companies and individuals worldwide, one country's immigration authorities, the office of the Austrian Chancellor (head of government), a fir of lawyers in Vienna and even Interpol![14121s) I hope that people read and share our Stop 5G Space Appeal to wake up themselves and others quickly and use it to take action themselves to stop 5G. Even eight short months of this 5G Phoney War could spell catastrophe for all life on Earth. Elon Musk is set to launch the first 4,425 5G satellites in June 2019 and "blanket" the Earth with 5G, in breach of countless 10

international treaties. This could initiate the last great extinction, courtesy of the multi-trillion- US-dollar 5G, the biggest biological experiment and most heinous manifestation of hubris and greed in human history. 10 People's first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror. We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action. We may have already lost 80 per cent of our insects to EMR. in the last 20 years: 10) Our trees risk being cut down by the millions in order to ensure continuous 5G signalling for self-driving cars, buses and trains (i7) Are we going to stand by and see ourselves and our children irradiated, our food systems decimated, our natural surroundings destroyed? Our newspapers are now casually popularizing the meme that human extinction would be a • not rhetorical but real, when good thing nig but when the question becomes it's your life, your child, your community, your environment that is under immediate threat, can you really subscribe to such a suggestion? If you don't, please sigh the Stop 5G Appeal and get active in contacting everyone you can think of who has the power to stop 5G, especially Elon Muska and the CEOs of all the other companies planning to launch 5G satellites starting in just 20 weeks from now. Life on Earth needs your help now. Video: 5G Is War on Humanity. Towards An Unspoken Global Health Catastrophe? Claire Edwards The transcript of my exchange with the UN Secretary-General of 14 May 2018 follows. Staff member:Mr. Secretary-General UN staft have repeatedly been told that they are the most important resource of this Organization. Since December 2015, the staff here at the Vienna International Centre havé been exposed to off-the-scale electromagnetic radiation from WiFi and mobile phone boosters installed on very low ceilings throughout the buildings. Current public exposure levels are at least one quintillion times (that's 18 zeros) above natural background radiation according to Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. The highly dangerous biological effects of EMFs have been documented by thousands of studies since 1932 indicating that we may be facing a global health catastrophe orders of magnitude worse than those caused by tobacco and asbestos. "Mr. Secretary-General, on the basis of the Precautionary Principle, I urge: you to have these EMF-emitting devices removed immediately and to call a halt to any rollout of SG at UN duty stations, because it is designed to deliver concentrated and focused electromagnetic radiation in excess of 100 times current levels in the same way as do directed energy weapons. In line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to "Protect, Respect and Remedy", 5G technologies MUST be subjected to an independent health and safety assessment before they are launched anywhere in the world. There is currently an international. appeal https://www.emfscientist.org/index. phip/emf-scientist-appeal) signed by 237 EMF scientists from 41 nations urging the UN and particularly the WHO to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and 11

educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. Mi. Secretary-General, we have a unique opportunity here at the UN Office at Vienna. Since our medical records are digitized, you have the possibility of releasing data on a closed population exposed to off-the-scale levels of electromagnetic radiation to establish if there have already been abnormal health consequences for the UN staff here in the last 28 months. I urge you to do so and stop any 5G rollout in these buildings immediately. Thank you. UN Secretary-General: Sorry, because you are talking to someone who is a little bit ignorant on these things. You're talking about the WiFi systems? Staff member:On the ceilings of these buildings, Wiri boosters and cell phone boosters were installed without consultation, without information to staff in December 2015. Now, if you understand electromagnetic radiation, the signal is - if you cannot get a signal from your mobile phone, the signal goes to maximum strength and that then bounces off metal walls affecting the body multiple times at maximum exposure levels. So the situation here is extremely dangerous. I have heard anecdotally of many people who have had health problems. I don't know if they are related but the Precautionary Principle would dictate that we use our medical records to look into this and that we remove these dangerous devices immediately. Thank you. I because I put those devices in my UN Secretary-General: Well, I'm worried house. [Laughter & applause] Staff member:Not a good idea! UN Secretary-General: This I will have to - 1 confess iny ignorance on this but I'in going to raise this with WHO [World Health Organization] - which I think is the organization that might be able to deal with it properly for them to put someone - their staff or organizations to work on that because I must confess I was not aware of that dangei - [humorously] to the extent that I put those things in the rooms of my house - in the ceiling. Staff member:] would suggest that everybody start looking into this issue and particularly into 5G, which 237 scientists from 41 countries consider a threat that is far worse than the tobacco and asbestos threats of the past. UN Secretary-General:Well, maybe I have learned something completely new. I hope it will be very useful to me but I confess it is the first time I hear about it. *. Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums, etc. This article was originally published on Take Back Your Power: Claire Edwards, BA Hons, MA, worked for the United Nations as Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing from 1999 to 2017. Since May 2018, she has collaborated with Arthur Firstenberg lo publish the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (www.Sgspaceappeal.org), which is available in 28 languages. The Appeal has attracted over 94,000 individual and group signatories from more than 170 countries. Claire warned the Secretary-General about the dangers of SG during a meeting with UN staff in May 2018, calling for a halt to its rollout at UN duty stations. Notes. 12

[!] Delos, Peter: "The Way to a New Phased Array: Radar Architecture," TechTime: Electronics & Technology News. January IS, 2018. Accessed January i, 2019. https://techtime.news/2018/01/15/analog-devices-phased-array- radar/. "Although there is a lot of discussion of massive MIMO and automotive radar, it should not be forgotten thạt most of the recent radar development and beamforming R&D has been in the defense industry, and it is now being adapted for commercial applications. While phased array and beamforming moved from R&D efforts to reality in the 2000s, a new wave of defense focused arrays are now expected, enabled by industrial technology offering solutions that were previously cost prohibitive." [2] "Electrosensitive Testimonials." We Are The Evidence. 2018. Accessed January Lp 2019.http://wearetheevidence.org/adults-who-developed-electro-sensitivity/. "WATE intends to expose the suppressed epidemic of sickness, suffering and human rights crisis created by wireless technology radiation; elevate the voice of those injured; defend and secure their rights and compel society and govemments to take corrective actions and inform the public of the harm." [3] Glaser, Lt. Z. "Cumulated Index to the Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena ('effects) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency Radiation: Report, Supplements (no: 1-9)." BEMS Newsletter B-l through B-464 (1984), Accessed January 1, 2019. http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/p- content/uploads/2018/06/Zory-Glasers-index.pdf. Lt. Zorach Glaser, PhD, catalogued 5,083 studies, books and conference reports for the US Navy through 1981. 14] "Space Sustainability: A Practical Guide." Secure World Foundation, 2014, 21. Accessed January I, 2019.https://swfound:org/media/206289/swf space sustainability-a practical guide 2018 1.pdf. "However, as more countries integrate space into their national military capabilities and rely on space-based information for national security, there is an increased chance that any interference (either actual or perceived) with satellites could spark or escalate tensions and conflict in space or on Earth. This is made all the more difficult by the challenge of determining the exact cause of a satellite malfunction: whether it was dze to a space weather event, impact by space debris, unintentional interference, or deliberate act of aggression." [5] "Space Law: Liability for Space Debris." Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019:https://www.aviationdisasterlaw.com/liability-for-space-debris/; "Filing a lawsuit against SpaceX: for space debris is a little différent than one against the commercial industry or state-sponsored launch. Since Space is a private company, injured parties can file claims directly agairist the establishment in accord with the state's personal. injury laws. For the claim to be successfill, the plaintiff will have to prove that Space was negligent in some way that caused the space debris collision. Space law is notoriously complex; making it very difficult for injured parties to recover for [sic] their damages in California." [6] Von Der Dunk, Frans: G. "Liability Versus Responsibility in Space Law: Misconception or Misconstruction?" University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law: Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications 21 (1992). Accessed January I, 2019http://digitalcommons.unledu/spacelaw/21/?utm source=digitalcommons.ul.edu/spacelaw/21&utm me dium=PDF&utm campaign-PDFCoverPages [7] Kessler, D. J., P.M. Landiy, B. G: Cour-Palais, and R. E. Taylor. "Aerospace: Collision Avoidance in Space: Proliferating Payloads and Space Debris: Prompt Action to Prevent Accidents." TEEE Spectrum 17, no: 6 (1980): 37- 41: [8] Morgan, L. Lloyd, Santosh Kesari, and Devra Lee Davis. "Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences." Journal of Microscopy and Utrastructire 2; no. 4 (December 2014): 197-204. Accessed January 1; 2019. htips://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pil/S2213879X14000583. Highlights: (1) Children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults. (2) MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen. (3) The fetus is 13

in greater danger than children from exposure to MWR. (4) The legal exposure limits have remained unchanged for decades. (5) Cellphone manuals warnings and the 20 cm rule for tablets/laptops violate the "norinal operating position" regulation. (9] Electro Hypersensitivity: Talking to You: Doctor, PDF. Canadian Initiative to:Stop Wireless, Electric, and Blectromagnetic Pollution. http://weepinitiative.org/talkingtoyourdoctor.pdf [1O] ECC Chairman on 5G: "We won't study it, regulate it, have standards for it. "Youtube. June 20, 2016. Accessed January 1, 2019; www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwgwe01SIMc. Notes in video: Ultra-high frequency radiation (24 to 1.00 GHz or more); aimed and amplified signals; massive deployment of towers; worth billions; no standards, no testing; sharing with satellite and military operations; all areas (including rural areas) to be saturated with radiation; all loçal deployments to be fast-tracked; everything to be microchipped. [11] Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD. "Is ICNIRP Reliable Enough to Dictate Meaning of Science to the Governmental Risk Regulators?" Between a Rock and a Hard Place (blog), April 8, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019:https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/type/gallery/."The major problems of ICNIRP are: (1) it is a "privațe club" where members elect new members without need to justify selection; (2) lack of accountability before anyone; (3) lack of transparency of their activities; (4) complete lack of supervision of its activities; (5) skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members of the Main Commission and all of the othier scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission.". [12] Matthies, Rüdiger. "EMF Safety Guidelines: The ICNIRP View." International Telccommunications Union Workshop on Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, May 9, 2013: Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/elimatechange/emf-1305/Documents/Presentations/s2partlp1-Rued igerMatthes.pdf. [I3] ITU Telecoimunication Development Sector Study Group 2: Session on Modern Poliçies, Guidelines, Regulations and Assessments of Human Exposure to RF-EMF. Session I: Recent Activities on Himan Exposure to RF-EMF in ITU and ICNIRP, Geneva, Switzerland. October 10, 2018. Accessed January 2,. 20.19. www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Study-Groups/2018-2021/Pages/meetings/session-07-2-oct18.aspx. "Session I will discuss some of the recént activities held in ITU and describe the latest updates to the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non " Ionizing Radiațion Protection) guidelines.* [14] Martin L» Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, Response to 2018 ICNIRP Draft Gutdelines and Appendices on Limiting Exposure to Time-Yarving Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 KHz to 300 GHz). October 8, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019.www.5gexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FINAL-Martin-L-Pall-Response-to-2018-Draft- Guidelines-8.10.18.pdf. [15] Cooperation Agreement Between The International Criminal-Police Organization Interpol and The International Telecommunication Union. Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-18) Dubai 29 October-16 November 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019. https://www.itu.int/dms.pub/itu-s/md/18/pp/c/S18-PP-C-004711MSW-E.docx."2. In implementing the Agreement; each Party shall act within their respective areas of competence. More specifically, the implementation of the Agreement by ITU shall not exceed beyond its mandate pertaining to building confidence and security in the use of ICTs, in accordance to Plènipotentiaiy Conference Resolution 130 (Rev. Busan; 2014) and to its role on child online protection in accordance to Plenipotentiary Conference Resolution 179 (Rev: Busan, 2014), whereas the implémentation of the Agreement by INTERPOL shall not exceed its mandate as defined by article 2 of its Constitution which include activities pertaining to cybercrime and online child exploitation". (emphasis added) [16] Hallmann. C.A., M. Sorg and E. Jongejans, "More than 75 per cent decline over 27 years in total flying insect bioinass in protected areas." PLOS One 12, no. 10 (2017): 14

e0185809.http://iournals.plos.org/plosone/article/fite?id=10.1371/iournal.pone.0185809&type=printable Accessed January 1; 2019. [17] Laville, Sandra. "Millions of Trees at Risk in Secretive Network Rail Felling Programme." The Guardian, April 29, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/29/millions-of-trees-at- risk-in-secretive-network-rail-telling-programme [18] May, Fodd. "Wöuld Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?" The New York Times, December 17, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/opinion/human-extinction-climrate-change.html. [19] Davis, Nicola. "Falling total fertility rate should be welcomed, population expert says: figures showing declining birth rates are "cause for celebration', not alarm." The Guardian, December 26, 2018. Accessed January 3, 2019:www.theguardian.com/vorld/2018/dec/26/falling-total-fertility-rate-should-be-welcomed-population- expert-says. [20] "Planet Earth: Worldwide 5G Radiation from Orbit?" Letter from Claus Scheingraber, Roland Wolff and others to Elon Musk. June 18, 2018. Brunnthal, Germany. ".. We are sure that your satellite project is already at an advanced stage. Buteven if much money has been invested, one should consider that it is only a matter of time until the fact of damaging health potential of mobile communications - and especially of 5G-mobile communication-.can no longer we overlooked. Therefore we emphatically recommend not to implement the satellite project." (Letter in German) (Letter in English) The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Claire Edwards, Global Research, 2019

ATTACHMENT G Stanley J. Usovicz Regional Director verizon External Affairs 63 High Street Danvers, MA 01923 Phone [phone removed] [email removed] Cambridge Pole and Conduit Commission 831 Massachusetts A venue, First Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Policy Regarding Small Cell Wireless Installations on Public Ways ("Draft Policy"). Verizon Wireless has reviewed the version of the Draft Policy attached to the Commission's "Amended Notice of Vote" issued on May 20, 2019 and offers the following initial comments, while fully reserving all of its rights under federal, state and local laws and regulations: Threshold Issue: As an initial issuc, the Draft Policy leaves unclear whether it applies (in whole or part) to the placement of small cell attachments on poles in the right of way that are not owned by the City, e.g. installations on existing or replacement wooden utility poles owned and maintained by Verizon and Eversource for the provision of communications and electrical service. At the May 16, 2019 meeting, the Commission itself was uncertain, and individual members apparently disagreed on, whether the Draft Policy applied only to City-owned poles or also to utility company-owned poles. Verizon Wireless urges the Commission not to apply the Draft Policy to private utility pole attachments, and notes that the Commission has, to date, handled petitions for wireless attachments to private utility poles under its existing grant of location procedures. The Commission's authority under state law to regulate utility installations in the right of way does not authorize it to impose different and unfavorable substantive and procedural provisions on applications for wireless attachments to utility poles. Furthermore, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 166, Section 25A comprehensively addresses the placement of wireless attachments on utility poles and does not envision a role for municipal regulation of such attachments. I. Application Process A. Fees. 1. Application Fees: Verizon Wireless acknowledges that the proposed application fees are consistent with the fee amounts that the Federal Communications Commission presumed to be reasonable in its Third Report and Order dated September 26, 2018.' However, the additional requirement that "in the event the City's costs in reviewing any Application exceed 'In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT 17-29, WC 17-84, FCC 18-133, Sept. 26, 2018. ("Third Report and Order"). Page 1 ol 7

the amounts provided in this section, Applicants shall be responsible for those costs" is not consistent with the premise that the application fee represents the average cost to the Cily of an application and should be deleted 2. Annual Recurring Fees: Verizon Wireless objects to the proposed Annual Recurring Fee to the extent that it is not based on the City's actual cost of administering the City's right-of- way in a way that benefits carriers with small cell pole attachments in a manner that is not shared by others. In particular, to the extent that the City intends to apply the recurring fee to installations on private utility poles, the City should explain the basis for doing so. It is unclear what costs the City would incur that are attributable to such installations, as required in order to justify this annual charge under the FCC Third Report and Order of under state law (which does not authorize such charges as a general revenue raising mechanism). B. Siting Policy: The Commission's Siting Policy addresses grant of location procedures for the installation of telecommunications services in the right-of-way. It is not intended or suited for application to wireless attachments on existing or replacement utility poles or City-owned poles. To the extent that there are certain specific requirements of the existing Siting Policy that the Commission reasonably would apply to wireless attachments, those should be specifically incorporated into the Draft Policy so that interested parties know what they are and comment on them. C. and D. Pre-Application Public Notice Requirements: The requirement for pre-application notice to other wireless providers and to abutting property owners within 150 feet is unreasonable and overly burdensome. Pre-application notice to other wireless providers serves no bencficial purpose. It will not have the effect of increasing collocation. It is also unreasonable and unprecedented in any Massachusetts land use permitting context to require notice by sheriff if a certified mailing is not effectuated. F. Determination of Completeness: It is unreasonable and serves no beneficial purpose to declare that an application is "deemed withdrawn" if it is "incomplete" 30 days after it is submitted. It will not always be feasible for an applicant to complele a lechnically defective application within 20 days after receiving notice that an application is incomplete. Furthermore, because "shot clock" periods are tolled when the applican is notified that the application is incomplete, there is no prejudice to the City in allowing the application to remain pending until the missing information is filed or the application is actually withdrawn at the applicant's request. G. Notice of Hearing: The requirement to notify all abutters and other providers within one business day after the hearing date is scheduled is extremely unreasonable and serves no legitimate purpose. Abutter notice should be provided under the same procedures as apply to other Commission applications. This provision of the Draft Policy also states that a failure to provide this notice "may result in denial of the Application." This is an unreasonable and extreme remedy for an omitted notice; a more reasonable approach would be to permit the hearing to be continued at the applicant's request so the defective notice can be supplemented. Page 2 of 7

H. "Common Project" Requirement: This requirement appears to be borrowed from grant of location procedures for conduit installations, and is similar to provisions some jurisdictions have applied to wireless macro towers. It is unreasonable to apply this in the context of wireless attachments to existing or replacement utility poles or City-owned poles. As a practical matter, it would not be possible to complete the contemplated process within the shot clock deadlines that apply to the review of' small cell installations. 1. Amended Application: This provision purports to allow the Commission Chair to unilaterally, in her "sole discretion" deem that any amendment to an application (whether material or not) be treated as a new application resetting the shot clock. This should be limited to only material changes, which should be defined so that there is appropriate guidance for deciding whether the change warrants treatment as a new application. The decision whether an application has been so materially changed should be presented to the entire commission for decision according to guidance provided in the policy, not reserved to the "sole discretion" of a single member. J. Application Denial: It is unclear what "reliability concerns" means in subsection (ii). To the extent that this provision implies that the Commission may evaluate the performance of the service from the proposed wireless facility, it exceeds the Commission's authority. Verizon Wireless also strongly objects to subsection (v) which purports to authorize the Commission to deny an application if "there are more convenient locations such that the location applied for is not needed as determined by the Commission." The Commission does not have any authority to determine what locations Verizon Wireless or other carriers need for their network. In addition, this provision is impermissibly vague because it provides no guidance to applicants as to as to whether a location will satisfy the City's standards. Il. Application Components C. License Agreement: This provision appears to contemplate an individual license agreement . for each location that is the subject of an application. If the regulations are intended to encompass applications for wireless attachments on privately owned utility poles, the license requirement should not apply to an application to attach to such a pole because the City has no interest or rights in such a pole to license. For wireless attachments to City-owned poles, it would be preferable to have a master license agreement with the City that applies to all locations the Commission approves, without requiring a separate agreement for each location. D. Equipment Descriptions: Verizon Wireless objects to the requirement that it submit equipment specifications other than a general description of the type of equipment and its dimensions, weight and proposed height and location on the pole. The Commission has no authority over or need for information on expected life of carrier equipment, coverage area, specific antenna or RRU model, call capacity of equipment, bandwidth, backhaul rate, or whether there are multiple fiber paths, In addition, the requirement for "rendering and elevation" of equipment as well as before and after photosimulation views "from four different angles" is burdensome to applicants and goes beyond what could reasonably be needed for the Commission, other City agencies or the public to evaluate what a proposed installation will look like. Page 3 of 7

E. and F. Detailed Maps: Verizon Wireless objects to the requirement that applicants provide maps showing the arcas a proposed installation "will service," the "amount of cellular coverage in the area" and coverage gaps. None of these are relevant to any authority the Commission has to evaluate pole attachments under the grant of location process. This requirement is also contrary to the Third Report and Order, which makes clear that these are not issues for consideration. (See Third Report and Order at paragraphs 37 and 40 and note 84). I1. RF Affidavit and Coverage Maps Verizon Wireless objects to the requirement that an application include an affidavit from a radio frequency engineer outlining the network/network service requirements in the City and how the applicant's proposed facilities will address that need. It likewise objects to the requirement that coverage maps of any type be required as part of a small cell application. These are burdensome requirements, do not provide information that the Commission needs to conduct its review of small cell attachments under the grant of location process, and are contrary to the Third Report and Order which makes clear these are not issues for consideration. (See Third Report and Order at paragraphs 37 and 40 and note 84). 1. Insurance Certificates: Verizon Wireless does not object to insurance requirements for wireless attachments on City-owned poles, but the proposed requirements are overly prescriptive and would be better addressed as part of the license agreement each wireless provider would have for such sites, rather than under the Draft Policy since they are business rather than . For example, Verizon Wireless would cover the City as a blanket additional regulatory matters. insured rather than naming them as an additional insured. Another carrier might propose an acceptable variant for another element of the proposed requirements. Verizon Wireless does object to these requirements to the extent that they are intended to apply to small cell attachments on private utility poles; there is no reasonable or legitimate basis for imposing insurance requirements on wireless providers that are not applied to other entities attaching to such structures. J. Description of Why the Proposed Location is Superior: This requirement is too vague, general and subjective. The City can legitimately consider some potential impacts of a particular proposed facility on the use of the public way (for example whether an installation will encroach on the travelled way, or will block passage on a sidewalk), but if the Commission has particular concerns about potential impact on the public way that it wants addressed in an application, il should specify what those are. "Visual aspects" is impermissibly vague and not tied to any standards. To the extent that the Commission has authority to regulate on the basis of appearance, it should specify what that authority is and what the standards are, as required by the Third Report and Order: (See Third Report and Order at paragraphs 84 and 86). "Proximity to residential buildings" is also an impermissibly vague and subjective standard. In addition, it appears to be a veiled effort to regulate the siting of small cell facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, which is prohibited under federal law to the extent that the facility complies with Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning such emissions. L. Description of Efforts to Collocate: It appears that this provision may be intended to address requests for new poles in the right of way. Attaching a small cell facility to an existing utility pole or City-owned pole would appear to comply with the Siting policy. Page 4 of 7

Ill. Annual Recertification and Affidavit B. Annual "re-certification and public way fee" It is unclear whether this $270 fee is the same as the "Annual Recurring Fee" mentioned in Section I. If it is an additional $270 fee, it violates the Third Report and Order: In addition, the City does not have authority under state law to charge a fee merely for the use of the public way. It is also unclear what costs the City would incur for "recertification" of a wireless attachment, particularly since the Draft Policy calls for the applicant to provide certain certifications but does not mention any certification process that the Commission will perform. C. Installations No Longer in Use: This provision states that any installation no longer in use is "in default." Default is not typically a regulatory concept, and it is unclear what a provider would be "in default" of if it ceases to use a small cell facility. To the extent that this provision is intended as a determination that an installation no longer in use should be treated as being abandoned and lose its authorization, it should provide for a reasonable period, such as 180 days, for the provider to either resume operation of the facility or remove its equipment. V. Design and Location B. Siting Requirements: Several of these siting requirements are overly restrictive, vague, or are likely to have the effect of entirely precluding siting solutions or precluding solutions that are more desirable from the standpoints of both the City and the carrier. Subsection (i) requiring a separation distance of 150 feet from another installation will as a practical matter prevent multiple providers from serving the same street segment or intersection. Subsection (ii) preventing locating "directly adjacent" to a preexisting City pole with a previously approved installation is vague because il does not define "directly adjacent." To the extent that it is intended to prevent a provider from locating on a City pole if the next City pole in line already has an installation on it, this provision is discriminatory and will also as a practical matter prevent multiple providers from serving the same street segment or intersection. Subsection (vi) preventing the location of equipment in the "amenity zone" of the sidewalk is overly restrictive and prescriptive. There may be situations in which this location provides a desirable and acceptable siting solution. Subsection (vit) states that an installation cannot "incommode the public way," which is a vague and subjective standard (see prior comment on this issue above). Subsection (ix) states that an installation shall not be placed less than 6 feet away from edge of any driveway and should be 15 feet from the edge of the curb, where possible. The restriction on location of'a pole mounted-installation within 6 feet of'a driveway is unreasonable to the extent that there are existing utility poles or City-owned poles within that distance. Locating installations at least 15 feet from the edge of the curb will be impossible in most cascs, and very Page 5 of 7

few existing utility poles or City light poles are set 15 feet back from the curb, making this inconsistent with the direction in subsection (vili) that installations should be in a straight line with existing utility poles, street lights and street trees: This requirement is also in tension with the requirement of subsection (v) that installations not be less than 6 feet from a building wall and the requirement of subsection (vi) that they should not be localed in the "pedestrian walking zone" of a sidewalk. Subseclion (J) states that an installation cannot be in front" of a residence window, door opening, porch or balcony. The term. "in front" is vague and not limited by distance, and unreasonable to the extent that there are already utility poles or City light poles that sould be considered "in front" of such features. Subsection (xi) forbids locating an installation where "it might limit the City's ability to plant future street trees." Sulsection (aii) forbids locating an installation where "it might limit the City's ability to install any city infrastructure, tränsportation elements or facilities including bike lanes, bike racks or other street furniture and the like." These prohibitions are too open-ended and vague, and should be limited to locations where the City has actual plans for a specific improvemént at a designated location that the proposed installation will actually interfere with. Subsection (xili) requiring removal of'an installation to accommodate a City redevelopment or change to a street; sidewalk, square "or other area" should be revised to provide for advance notice and a reasonable timeframe for removal and to state that the City will cooperate to facilitate the relocation in order to avoid service interruption. Subsection (viv) is not clear, so it is not possible to evaluațe whether this is a reasonable restriction: A drawing may be helpfül in tiderstanding what is intended Subsection (iv) refers to an application requirement for "propeities under the jurisdiction of the Cambridge Fistorical Commission." Any pole-mounted installation addressed urider the Draft Policy is on City right-of-way, so this requirement woul be inapplicable except to the extent that the right-of-way location or pole in question and the proposed installation are actually subject to Cambridge Historical Commission jurisdiction. Subsection (vi) is vague in stating that installations should not be placed "in front of" certain locations, including. store windows, entrances and exits. The term "in front" is vague and not limited by distance, and is unreasonable to the extent that there are already utility poles or City light poles that would be considered "in front" of such features. Subsection (xvili) requiring that installations not interrupt "sight lines" and be a minimum of 15 feet from the street cuib or public alley of an intersecting street is arbitrary and overly prescriptive and unreasonable to the extent that there are existing street lights and utility poles within that distance, If the purpose is to avoid interfering with the sight lines of drivers at intersections as a public safety measure, the provision should be clarified to specifically address that performance standard, however, that issue appears to be well-covered in subsection xix. Page 6 of 7

Subsection (x)—Verizon Wireless objects to this requirement to the extent that it is intended to prioritize siting of installations on City-owned poles or property over private utility poles. If that. is not the intent, the provision should be clarified. V1 Pole Design and Overall Height A. Requíred upgrade of replacement poles Verizon Wireless objects to the requirement that carriers replace single lominaire poles with double luminaire poles unless the City is willing to offset any additional cost of the upgraded pole. Such a requirement amounts to an impermissible: lax, C., D. and E. Pole and Antenna Height: Verizon Wireless objects to these provisions to the extent that they impose requirements that are inconsistent with and more limiting than those in the FCC regulations for small cell facilities at 47 C:F.R. § 1.1312(e)(2). VIl Equipment Cabinet, Equipment Shroud, Antenna and Antenna Shroud A. Undergrounding of Equipment: Verizon Wireless objects to this requireinent as overly burdensome, unreasonably costly, and impractical. Among other reasons, the underground equipment vault is larger and will require bigger excavations, there are weather related access. and deterioration concerns and potențial trip hazards from hatches. B. Pole Mounted Equipment: Verizon Wireless objects to these provisions to thic oxient that they impose requirements that are inconsistent with and more limiting than those in the ECC regulations for small cell facilities at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1312(e)(2), In addition, these requirements are overly prescriptive. C. Height of Pole Mounted Equipment: These requirements are overly prescriptive and may not be feasible in all cases, depending on the location of other existing attachment. E. Size of Antennas: Verizon Wireless objects to these provisions to the extent that they impose requirements that are inconsisten with and more limiting than those in the FCC regulations for small cell facilities at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1312(e)(2). F. Wiring and Cable Installation: It is not clear what the City means when it calls for "associated wiring and cable" to be "installed within the Installation." Presuming this means that wiring must be installed within the pole, Verizon Wireless objects to this requirement to the extent that it would apply to installations on private utility poles. G., H. I. Antenna Enclosures. Verizon Wireless objects to these provisions to the extent that they impose requirements that are inconsistent with and more limiting than those in the FCC regulations for small cell facilities at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1312(e)(2). In addition, these provisions are overly prescriptive. Page 7 of 7

General Comment As a general point, the Draft Policy would be improved by clarification that design and siting requirements are applicable only to the extent feasible, and by the addition of a waiver provision. The Commission should provide itself with the ability to relax or waiver dimensional and other standards in order to accommodate a proposal that is superior to a complying design in other ways, or otherwise acceptable. This is a typical and important element of wireless siting regulations that is missing from the current version of the Draft Policy. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, Stanley J. Usovicz. Copy to: Paul Olson, Verizon Wireless Michacl S. Giaimo Page 8 of 7