Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2019-11-25 - LANG - PET. 2019-08-06-02 CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, November 25, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, November 25, 2019. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Jolly, Vice President Scott Bahr Brian Meakin Brandon Kritzman Cathy White MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Toy, President Kathleen McIntyre OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development Paul Bernier, City Attorney Sara Kasprowicz, Recording Secretary The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:01 p.m. with Vice President Jim Jolly presiding. This is a Public Hearing relative to the PETITION 2019-08-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 293-19 and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, proposing to amend Section 18.42A of Article XVIII which regulates wireless communication facilities by removing the governing of small cells and creating a new Section 18.42B, which would oversee the rules and technology of small cells. This will be heard at the Regular Council Meeting of December 16, 2019. The Public Hearing is now open. There were twenty-nine people in the audience. Jolly: Mr. Taormina do you want to kick this off here? Taormina: I would be happy to, Mr. Vice President. This proposed language amendment is intended to establish standards for regulating small cell wireless facilities in compliance with recently enacted state law which—in large part—preempts local authority over such uses. In July, City Council enacted Chapter 6 of Title 12 of the Code of Ordinances for the purpose of providing procedural rules and other standards directly related to small cell wireless facilities. The proposed changes involving the Zoning Ordinance st are twofold: 1, Section 18.42A would be amended to exclude small cell wireless facilities from the rules currently applied to other forms of wireless nd communication facilities and 2, 18.42B would be added as a new section 2 that would be specific to small cell applications. It is the intent of these ordinances to provide the City with the maximum authority available under the restrictions imposed by the new state law. From a land use perspective, what primarily distinguishes small cell wireless facilities from other forms of wireless communication is the size of the equipment. Small cell wireless antennas and equipment are much smaller and operate under different frequencies and technology that requires closer spacing between the cells. The facilities are typically placed on shorter structures such as existing utility poles or on dedicated new poles approximately 40 feet in height, as opposed to traditional cell towers which are 120 feet in height. In terms of local zoning, the Small Wireless Communications Facilities Deployment Act, or Public Act 365 of 2018, generally exempts small cell wireless facilities from zoning review. Exceptions exist in cases where the equipment exceeds a certain size, the height of a support pole is above 40 feet, or the small cell adds more than 5 feet to the height of a pole. Additionally, Act 365 imposes limits on fees that a City can charge, as well as time restrictions. Because of this, the Ordinance assigns a single authority responsible for reviewing applications, which is the City Engineer. Aesthetics can be a considered in limited circumstances, including where a small cell facility is proposed in a residential district, within the PRDA district along Plymouth Road, or within an established historic district. For this to occur, the City must establish written, objective requirements for reasonable, technically feasible, nondiscriminatory, and technologically neutral designs or concealment measures. Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and is recommending approval of the language as prepared by the Law Department. With that Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to answer questions. Jolly: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Councilwoman, White? White: Question for either Mark or the City Attorney. Do we have any small cells right now, in Livonia? Taormina: We do. There are not a lot. The first round of applications came in a few months ago. There have been a number of permits issued, but they actual installation of those facilities has been a little slower than the number of permits issued. There are handful of small cell facilities in place currently. White: Ok, and are they primarily on existing DTE poles or are you finding that they’re on cell tower support structures, mostly? My understanding is that they are generally on the utility poles. Taormina: The majority of the installations to-date are on DTE-owned utility poles within public rights-of-way. 3 White: Ok, thank you. Jolly: Mr. Bahr? Bahr: Mark, you said there is a small number of these in the City now. I assume, by the way I understand these function, that they require units to be close together. That’s one of the features that I understand of 5G’s, in order to communicate, they have to be closer together. So, are these in concentrated areas, is there an area of the city that they’ve focused on, and they are fanning it off from there or are they scattered? Taormina: You know, I do not know the deployment strategy of the one company that seems to be ahead of the other, that’s Verizon. There does not seem to be any kind of pattern or concentration at this point, but there will probably be a plan that will take shape at some later point in time. Bahr: I’m educating myself on this one and maybe some of the people that are here to speak tonight can educate me on this, but I’ll ask you for now. It seems like if they’re scattered, they’re kind of worthless, right? I mean, don’t you need the network for them to… Taormina: I don’t know fully the technology and how they communicate with existing cell towers, so again, this is kind of transitional right now, in terms of the deployment of these new facilities, so I can’t answer that. Bah: Another question. So, among the limited things that the state law allows us to control, can you summarize what are the things contained within this proposed ordinance that, what are the specifics that we’re looking to control on this? I went through all the material, there is a ton here, so I admit, I did not read the whole thing word for word, I was hoping someone, either you or Paul could just summarize for me. Whether its aesthetics or whether size, whatever, what are we asking to control in this? Taormina: Well, in terms of the physical application, the Engineering Department will review applications and as long as they are consistent with the standards and statute, the City is required to issue permits. There is a time limitation for the review and the issuance of those permits. Where a tower exceeds a certain height and in this case more than forty feet for a new application, or if an existing structure is raised by a certain height above, I think that’s five feet, the City may place additional restrictions or limit the height of the extension of those facilities. Other than that, it’s very limited. Where we have not seen any of these directly on Plymouth Road or we had one that was proposed in a historic, or adjacent to a historic property, we were able to successfully negotiate the relocation of that facility away from that historical property. In the case of Plymouth Road and the PRDA, while we 4 haven’t had the applications, it’s the intention to develop standards or policy wherein any of these are new structures, to have those be aesthetically compatible to some of the streetscape improvements that we thought, the theme that we’ve developed along Plymouth Road. Probably a black pole with the equipment being black to try to conceal it as much as possible and be consistent with what’s there today. Bahr: So that’s getting more along the lines of what I’m asking. I just found language here, it says that the proposed language at minimum will provide aesthetic considerations for small cell wireless facilities are in residential zoning districts, PRDA or within historic districts. So, what I’m asking is, are we specifying? When we say it provides for aesthetic considerations, are we specifying right now what the aesthetic considerations are? Taormina: No, we are not. Bahr: Ok, so I didn’t miss it. That’s what I was asking. Taormina: No, we do not have those standards. No. Bahr: Ok, so we’re just saying we can do that. Would that be another action by Council or Planning pushing to Council in the future to specify what those things are or we leaving it at the discretion of the City Engineer to decide what is appropriate for that? Bernier: They want that, this time, at the discretion of the City Engineer. We have real problems with this, because we, the state and the feds have taken away most of our power on this and the more we try, we’ve regulated this to the point that we believe we can’t go any further. As much as we would love to, it’s the state and the feds that have told us that we cannot. So, we have taken this as far as we possibly could in our views of what we could regulate. Intentionally, we kind of left some of those open, so maybe we could negotiate some of this. As Mr. Taormina said, we are able to negotiate it away from one of the historic sites. That’s the hope is maybe we, it gives us some room in order to obtain the results we want, when it comes to the permitting. Bahr: Ok, now is the City Engineer, does the statute for the state specify City Engineer or is that just what we’ve said in order to meet the time constraints they put on us? Bernier: No, that’s what we have established. Bahr: And then, I think my final question for now, the exception for PRDA in this proposed ordinance change. Is that something that we requested or that 5 the product of a general thing the state statute brought down or something like that. Bernier: I’ll let Mr. Taormina answer that. Taormina: The latter. It’s my understand that the statute does make exceptions, whether or not it specifically references DDAs, I don’t know, but it was the opinion of Mike Fisher and I believe he worked with, through PROTEC that it could be extended to at least a DDA or special planning area to provide, and again, just aesthetic consideration. Bahr: You can’t keep them from going there, we can just control it. Taormina: And again, we are very limited. As I indicated, they have to be reasonable, they have to be technically feasible, non-discriminatory and technologically neutral. The signs are concealed so that we can’t do anything that would prohibit them from being installed. We can just control, maybe, some of the aesthetic features of the structures. Bernier: It was actually pointed out that the ordinance that we were proposing was done in conjunction with PROTEC, which is the organization that we belong to that is fighting many of these things dealing with the state and federal government trying to take away our power to regulate, so it is a mild ordinance that a lot of the municipalities are looking at and will pass. Bahr: Ok, thanks, I’m all set for now. Mr. Chair, thanks. White: Mr. Chair, I have some more questions. Jolly: Yes, Ms. White. White: This question would be for probably Mr. Bernier. How does the idea of controlling the aesthetics of these small cells gel with the language where we state in the new ordinance that the Engineer, when evaluating the proposal for the small cell is not permitted to look at any requirements regarding the appearance of the facilities, including those relating to materials used or arranging screening or landscaping. Shall be reasonable, wait a second here, I might be misreading this. The Engineer shall not evaluate or require an applicant to submit information about an applicant’s business decisions with respect to any of the following. Then as far as aesthetics, where business decision is presumed to be reasonable when it comes to the appearance of the facilities. So, it sounds like there’s a very strong presumption that whatever they choose to do in terms of where they place these, how they look, local units of government really, really restrict it in terms of trying to do things in that regard. 6 Bernier: It’s extraordinarily restrictive on what we could do. Like I said, some of the, we went as far as legally we can and maybe even on aesthetics, that will be something that will get challenged on when we are looking at it and making a decision on the permitting, but we will take that if it comes up. I think that will be a consideration if we are trying to dictate too much of the aesthetics but there are clearly those things that are just plain ugly that we are going to fight and try to make as part of the permitting process. We want to it to blend into as much as possible, the surrounding area. White: I can appreciate the fact that we may, as a, one of the larger communities in Southeastern Michigan try to push the envelope there and as the former long-time chair of PROTEC, I know that PROTEC was formed in order to protect the interest of local government from just getting, you know, walked over, to put it mildly, from the telecommunications providers and these facilities. No matter what they look like or whatever. Paul, are you aware of any community that has taken on this issue or litigated it and if so, what the result was? Bernier: I am not aware of anyone that has actually litigated it and had a result on it. White: I mean, these are still fairly new. Bernier: It’s all new, the technology is new and it’s going to take awhile before they go through the system, before we find out what we can and actually can’t get away with. White: And as far as the health considerations of these, is that something that is solely within the privy of the federal government? Bernier: As much as this Council would like to take that into consideration, and I know every member of this Council would like to take that into consideration, the federal government, the state government, has taken that power away from your consideration in this matter. White: That was my understanding, as much as we would like to entertain thoughts and arguments about that, we don’t have the authority to say that small cell cannot go into a particular location within the city of Livonia because we are concerned what kind of emissions are generated by this. Bernier: Absolutely. That’s absolutely true, I know every member of this Council was concerned about that. The fact of the matter is, you don’t have the authority to do anything about it. That’s completely up to the state and the federal government. They’ve preempted it, they’ve taken away your power to do anything with the health and safety. 7 White: And, the only other question, or comment I have is, the shot clock for approving applications being thirty days is so tremendously short in terms of the way government operates in our public hearing process and all of that. So, that’s why the City Engineer is the front line, the one that primarily has the initial review of these. Bernier: When we looked at it, we thought, who knows the most about it in the city and that’s clearly the City Engineer and also has the access to public planning and the Law Department in case there is a problem that comes up with it. We needed to have someone with that short period of time, so the thought process when we drafted this was, the best person for this, is the City Engineer. Obviously, the City Engineer is going to get direction from the Mayor, the Council on this process. White: And these are always above ground, correct? Bernier: Yes. White: That’s it, thank you. Jolly: Ok, we’re going to have one comment from Mr. Meakin and then we will go to audience communication. Meakin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the Chair of the Legal Department, Paul, do we, whether we approve or deny this ordinance, do we lose any standing because of that decision? Bernier: If we deny this ordinance, we have put ourselves in a terrible situation on these ordinances. I believe, if we don’t pass this ordinance, then you are really allowing telecommunications industry to do whatever they want in your right of way. That’s the fear when we have. Meakin: Thank you. Jolly: Let’s go to audience communication. Ok so we have a healthy crowd here tonight for audience communication. We’re going to as that you take note that there are other people that want to speak to this item here tonight. There are two podiums, obviously, one on either side of the room. When you approach the podium, please make sure to sign in with your name and address, please also state clearly your name and address for the record so your comments can be properly attributed to you. When possible, I will be alternating from side to side. With that being said, we’ll go to the young lady over here. ma’am, what’s your name please? Bixler: My name is Hannah Bixler. 8 Jolly: Ok, what would you like to tell us, Hannah? Bixler: About the bees, how the 5G cell tower is hurting them. Hello, my name is Hannah. I am eight years old. I am here to talk about the 5G cell tower and how it is affecting the bees. Bees have important jobs to do. Bees pollinate flowers to help the vegetables and fruit grow. They also make honey, which is important to people because honey is good for eating, for sore throats, for allergies and for coughs. In order to do this, the bees go and collect pollen and fly flower to flower spreading it as they go. The problem is, when the bees fly through the active signal, it causes the bees to get confused and the bees can’t figure out how to get home, then the bees die. Bees are very important to Michigan because if the bees were gone, there would be no fruit, no vegetables and no honey. That would be sad. Bees need to pollinate and if we don’t have that, what would we do? I’m shocked that you are not testing out the 5G cell tower and studying it first like other places are. That scares me. Thank you. Jolly: Well done, thank you, ma’am. White: Mr. Chair. Can I ask you, how old are you? Eight? Bixler: Yes, I am eight. White: I see a budding political future for you, my dear. Thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts, you are brave to do that. I know there are a lot of adults can’t do what you did. Congratulations. Bixler: Thank you. Jolly: Good evening, ma’am. Please state your name and address for the record. Middaugh: Rachel Middaugh, 19488 Osmus. I am here to speak about 5G. For those of you who haven’t researched it yet, the small cells’ radio frequency for 5G is between 24 to 90GHz frequencies, whereas, 3 and 4G operates at 1-6GHz. 5G is designed to deliver concentrated and focused electromagnetic radiation up to 100 times more than the current levels. In 2011, the WHO classified wireless as a group 2B carcinogen. The US and Canada, the highest safety limits, compared to other countries. The US and Canada safety limit is 61.5 volts per meter while the limit in countries like Russia, China, Italy and Switzerland is 6 volts per meter, that’s quite the contrast. While the industry and the government would have you belief EMFs were safe, there are over 1000 studies and scientific research that shows EMFs can increase cancer risks, immunogenic effects, they prevent healing and can increase hormonal changes, alter brain development, cause neurological symptoms, sleep problems, sperm 9 damage, headaches, dizziness and more. There’s also research showing the negative environmental effects will include a drastic decline our bird and bee populations like Miss Hannah just spoke about. Not to mention, all the trees they will be required to be cut down because 5G, in order to access the community, they have to be between 200 and 500 feet apart or else it’s not going to work. So, we’re going to have them in our back yards. Our trees are going to be cut down and we’re going to be exposed 24-7. I’m asking that you do everything in your power to fight for the citizens of Livonia. Protect us from this unwanted and unnecessary RF radiation. We don’t need 5G, fiber optics is faster and more reliable. Allow safe technology, reject unsafe and untested technologies. The federal government and the state government is leading you to believe you have no control. I don’t believe that’s true. Local governments do have authority to impose procedural requirements and other cities across this country have successfully done this. With all due respect, I think the ordinance needs to be adjusted and added onto. There are things you can add on to protect us, such as, you can prohibit the cell installation in residential areas. Require installations to be a certain distance away from residents or schools. You already talked about the aesthetics, personally, I don’t care about that. I just don’t want in our back yard. You can require annual recertification fees. You can reserve the right to hire independent consultants. You can consider passing a moratorium and you can appoint a committee to study the viability of a fiber optic network. So, there are things I believe that can be added to this before you pass it to keep us safe. Thank you for your consideration and for looking out for the health and well-being of the residents of Livonia. Jolly: Ok, with all due respect, this is a public hearing, we are recording this as well. As much as you appreciate the comments and the positions being cheered by everybody, I ask that you refrain from applauding at this time. Mr. Bahr, I wanted to through some of these people. Bahr: Can I ask the Attorney something about what was just stated? Jolly: Sure. Bahr: Ok. Mr. Bernier, two things were mentioned there. Your understanding of the statute, do we have the authority to specify a certain distance away from residents, schools, hospitals, etcetera. Do we have the authority to prohibit this in residential areas, certain streets, there were many other things mentioned but let’s just take those two. Benier: Mike Fisher, I’ll be honest with you, took the lead on this, and it’s my understanding after talking to Mike, that he drafted this as aggressively as we could address it. The fear is, what is a residential street? 6 Mile, three houses away from being a residential street? That’s still a residence. So, I 10 don’t think you’re going to be able to get it away from residential. It’s one of the kind of things that’s clearly if we’re given more power later on by the state or the feds, we can then always amend our ordinance in compliance with that. Until that time, we’re trying to establish a pattern as Mr. Meakin said so it isn’t the Wild West in the meantime. The fear is, if we do nothing today, we have no power to stop them or do anything at all until we have an ordinance. So, while then, in the future, we may have the authority to do it, it’s our belief that it would be a mistake for the City because in the meantime, you would have them popping up everywhere. Bahr: Ok, and just one quick comment, just to reinforce what the Chairman had said a minute ago. For those that aren’t always here, the request to not applaud, that’s actually normal procedure for us. I think we were all willing to let it go earlier under the circumstances, because we all wanted to applaud the young lade that was here, but, that’s nothing unique about tonight. We just typically refrain from that in this forum. So, thanks. Jolly: Thank you. ma’am, please state your name and address. Prush: My name is Kaytlin Prush and my address is 9090 Lathers Street. I have recently researched 5G cell towers because I’ve heard them being discussed and you can’t always, nowadays, believe everything you hear in conversation. I found out that while many people lead you to believe they’re completely safe and only in the interest of improving our technology, that is completely untrue. As the two speakers before me have said, 5G cell towers have negative environmental impacts and negative health impacts. One of the many studies that Mrs. Middaugh mentioned, they tested them on animals, and they were, I think something like, 9 out of 10 of the animals that were tested developed cancer at some stage during their study. If that happens to animals, then what will happen to us? I respect all of you and I just ask that if you guys are truly in the interest of the citizens of Livonia, that you would consider this because, just risking all of these health factors with us is something that I don’t think is worth it, even if it will increase the standing with Livonia with the state. Thank you for your consideration and thank you for your time. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Colbeck, your name and address please? P. Colbeck: Ok, thank you very much. Patrick Colbeck, I am actually a resident of Canton, but I also appreciate the fact of Livonia’s motto as Families First and I am here on behalf of my families, which both my in-laws and my dad actually still live here in Livonia, so, on behalf of all families of Livonia, I think this is a pretty important issue. One that I did not come to address very lightly. Many of you guys know from my time representing you as th State Senator for the 7 District, that my background is actually in aerospace engineering, I used to do cabling design in the international 11 space station. I’m pretty tech-savvy and I’m also familiar with the policy side, particularly this policy surrounding this particular issue. I was very vocal in opposition of this legislation and I not come to that decision lightly because I’m a techy at heart. I’ve got pretty much every electronic device that’s been rolled out ever since the T-I33 calculator, so I love technology, and this isn’t a case of that. There are benefits associated with this technology, but what doesn’t get discussed adequately, I think, are some of the risks. The risks are fairly significant. You’re going to hear a lot of folks talk about the adverse health impacts, I can tell you I was dragged, kicking and screaming to that realization, but the more you study it, the more it’s very true. My wife, who is a Pediatrician can come and talk about that a little bit later. I didn’t want to believe it, but I’ve seen tangible evidence to that fact, and I’ve had one of my last acts as State Senator was to hold a forum, featuring international experts on this topic. We’re talking about benefits and risks and I can tell you I had the person that was a lead scientist on the study, a fourteen-year study, twenty-five million dollar study and there is clear evidence of carcinogenic effects, i.e., cancer associated with cell towers. This is cell towers on steroids. Instead of a cell tower every one or two miles, you going to have it every two to ten homes. So, please understand, I don’t come to this issue lightly, but I wanted to get up a little bit early, I know a lot of people have to leave somewhat early and address specifically, the assertion that there’s nothing we can do about it from a local level. That’s not true. Now, I agree that the legislation was designed to make you feel that way. I totally understand that, but there’s an old expression, where there’s a will there’s a way. Now, there are specific points that I would like to point out that you can take action on in this legislation, right now. Number one deals with federal legislation. There’s federal legislation that can be engulfed in context that supersedes the provisions of the 1996 Telecom Act, which is what’s typically referred to as Comm Tax. There’s something called the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act and there’s also the federal Fair Housing Act as well. Both of those ensure that people have a safe environment in which to live. Fact of the matter is, over 3.2% of the community here, is electrosensitive, which is going to have some adverse health impacts associated with this. I’m afraid that the state legislature has pushed you into a bit of a pickle here, because what they’re essentially giving you the choice to do, what the federal government has done, is essentially set you off against the Telecom Act and the ADA, and your kind of in a bit of a bind here. I can tell you from a risk-management perspective, that the risk this community fiscally and long term risks are going to be significantly greater when you have people who claim damages against adverse health impacts than you would for failure to comply with the Telecom Act. So that’s one point in consideration that I’d like to point out. The next thing that I’d like to point out is around the state statute. There are two specific sections that I’d like you to take notes on right now, one is Section 15, Subsection 2B that allows you to go off and ensure that these Telecom 12 installers are actually in compliance with FCC guidelines. Now I don’t believe that the FCC guidelines are sufficient, but I think they should at least be held accountable for compliance with those guidelines. There’s multiple things you can do, first of all, you can require reports and inspections either monthly or quarterly from the telecoms on their installations and verifying that if all usage periods and non-usage periods, they are in full compliance with the FCC guidelines in regards to power density in the laws. The other thing you can go off and do is charge them a fee for the independent verification and validation associated with that. They have a tendency, it’s been done in Europe, if you look up something called phone gape, they’ll say that they’re in compliance with the specs on cell phones, for example, but guess what? They weren’t in compliance with it. You need to hold them accountable, so if you’re truly concerned about the health and well-being of the families here in Livonia, you can hold them accountable by making sure they are in compliance with the quote, unquote, thermal-based, at least, FCC guidelines on emissions. The last thing you can go off and do is dealing with Section 29, and by the way, when I say Section 15, Subsection 2B and Section 29, that’s a Public Act 365 2018. So, Section 25 allows for you to go off and require insurance, insurance from the telecommunication installers to indemnify the citizens of Livonia from any lawsuits associated with these adverse health impacts or failure to comply with the ADA and the FHA. So, there are some very tangible things you can do. Now, I agree that the legislation is designed so that you are told that there is nothing that you can go off and do, and sure enough, if you read the abstract and you read the initial sections of the law, that’s exactly what it says, but if you keep on reading, and you understand that there is an opportunity to hold them accountable to their own standards, you have an opportunity to act. So, please go off and look into that. The reason why Section 15 Subsection 2B is so important, because all of their exemptions under the Act were aligned on their compliance with FCC guidelines. If they don’t do that, all their other protections fall apart just like a kerplunk when you pull that kerplunk stick, everything else falls apart. So, there is something you can do, don’t take the standard party line on this stuff. There is something you can do and I will, for the sake of my families in the City of Livonia and the sake of all families in Livonia, that you guys set yourself up as a model for the whole state and frankly, for the whole country if you go off and safe-guard the best interest of our citizens, thank you very much for your time. Jolly: Thank you. Mr. Bahr. Bahr: Mr. Colbeck, thank you. You gave us a lot there, I have just one, specific question for now. When you talk about holding the installers accountable for being in compliance with FCC guidelines, obviously, there is a cost to that. 13 P. Colbeck: Yes. Bahr: I would think if that’s a requirement for them, as you just stated that the FCC is following that, the federal government is following up on that. Can you elaborate a little bit on that, I mean, why would this, while it may make sense, why would it be the City’s responsibility to check and make sure the federal government is doing its job? All sarcastic comments, held for now, please. P. Colbeck: First of all, when was the last time you seen and FCC inspector going around the City of Livonia to go off and ensure compliance with FCC guidelines? When was the last time you seen that? Ultimately, all politics is local, I mean the compliance with the ordinance that your passing makes you complicit and the acceptance in what is being proposed here from my perspective and from a lot of other perspectives, so we have to be, you have to do your due diligence. I mean, everybody took that oath of office and you gotta go off and respect it. Michigan Constitution Article 4, Section 51, which we all swore to go off and uphold, that primary concern of us as elected officials, is supposed to be the safety and health of our citizens and so with the idea that they are going to be held accountable for compliance with existing FCC guidelines, it gives them special privileges to go off and supersede local control and local privileges, I think is pretty important upon all of us and incumbent upon us to go off and pursue that. So, I hope that helps, but we do have latitude and any time you put in an ordinance, you have to go off and ensure compliance with it. Here’s a way a lot of the pushback that I’ve gotten from local units of government is always on the fee structures associated with Article 637. I’m telling you, this is an opportunity. If you are really concerned about fees and holding them accountable and covering the cost going off and monitoring compliance with this, you do have latitude to go off and number one, require insurance, number two, go off and insert fees in there for independent verification/validation that they’re in compliance with the FCC guidelines. Bahr: Thanks, Mr. Chair. White: Mr. Chair, I have a question, a couple for Mr. Colbeck. Jolly: Sure, Ms. White. White: Are we limited on the amount of fee? P. Colbeck: I haven’t seen any limits specified, I’m sure there’s a reasonable constraint that it delves into some other areas, but they do have specific limits on fees around permitting for this, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to your fees around report requirement and requiring them to provide reports and 14 requiring them to provide fees to cover us to validate that they are in compliance with the law. So, there is an opportunity to push back in that realm. White: I mean, I can see us requiring reports from the providers but then we are relying on their information, so the only way to know if there’s any question about those is to get an independent evaluator and I imagine those scientists are expensive. Typically, what I see in this area is that anytime local government wants to impose some sort of fee, our hands are tied, or at least there’s a limit to what we can impose. I’m thinking that if there are limits here, it’s not going to necessarily cover our cost to hire an expert to look at those reports and determine if the information is true and factual. P. Colbeck: Well, I’ll tell you, there is specific language, Section 15, Subsection 2B, if you’d like here, and granted, I’m getting a little old, so we don’t know how long I can make my arm here but the bottom line is, you are giving authority specifically to hold them accountable for compliance with the FCC guidelines, so that gives you a certain degree of latitude on how you actually go off and enable that. In order for you ensure and hold them accountable for that compliance, you may need to increase and levy a fee to ensure that they are in compliance. So, I think you got the latitude. If this isn’t the standard permitting fee associated with doing it, not (inaudible) or anything else. That’s what’s specifically called out in the legislation. This is outside the box on that and you got an opportunity to make some waves here. Jolly: Thank you. So, we’re gonna hear from these three people here on the right-hand side, who have been waiting since the very beginning of the meeting, I believe. ma’am, can you tell us your name and address please? Prush: Hi, I’m Sheri Prush, 9090 Lathers Street. I have a family in Livonia, four girls and three of them are medically fragile. One of them, you heard speaking. I love that she doesn’t speak on her own behalf for that, but I will. I am fairly concerned with 5G and the power behind these small cell towers. The closeness, the fact that even if I opt not to buy 5G cell phones or anything in my home, I don’t have a choice and it scares me. I hear what you are saying for cost and what can we do and I’m praying for you guys every day that you’ll find a way to do something. I have a little girl at home who already goes to Burger in Inkster and the littlest things affect her. 5G towers outside my house, my life will be miserable, her life will be even worse. She can’t tell me how bad the headaches will be, she can’t tell me about the sleepless nights, I know about the sleepless nights, because I’ll be up there with her, but there’s no reassurance for families like mine who have kids or adults in the house who just can’t, they can’t withstand this. There’s no reassurance for us. I came to Livonia, I moved, I left my home in Madison Heights, I came here for the schools and the 15 community. I came her for families first and this is the second time I have spoke on this issue and I hear what you’re saying, that you guys feel that your hands are tied, but I do believe that if there’s a will, there’s a way and I’m just praying that you guys look for it. I’m praying that you put in the language, all that you can, I hear a lot of ‘well I didn’t’, ‘that wasn’t my area’, or you know, ‘this is what they told me to say,’ that’s not good enough for me. That’s not good enough for my family. I need you guys to, I’ve trusted, I’ve been to the City Council many times for other things, but I trust that you’re doing what you can for your citizens and I really just hope that you’ll do that in this situation too. That you won’t sit back and just say ‘well, my hands are tied’ because its gonna be me, it’s gonna be the same citizens coming back saying ‘look what happened’ and you’re gonna have to look me in the eye and say ‘sorry, my hands were tied, sucks to be you.’ I just don’t think I can take much more of that where my kids are concerned and I’d really like to have some faith in my City Council, here, doing that research, digging in deep, at least you can look at me and say ‘I made an informed decision.’ So, that’s what I’m asking for, I’d like you guys to make an informed decision. Thank you. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. Good evening, ma’am, please state your name and address for the record. Cochenour: Good evening, my name is Diane Cochenour, I live at 9090 Lathers Street. I am the mother and grandmother of the two ladies that just spoke, and I am strongly opposed to 5G. It’s very scary and for the vicinity of those towers and we’ll be the collateral damage. Also, I would like for you to seek out these communities that are already implementing 5G and maybe get some feedback, find out the pros, the cons, the language that they used to protect us. I’m praying that you’re going to do what is best for the citizens of Livonia. I trust that you will do your homework. Thank you. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. Good evening sir, please state your name and address for the record. Gonzales: Frank Gonzales, I live in Plymouth but a friend of mine is here and lives in Livonia and my son and my two grandsons live in Livonia, so I’m speaking on their behalf. As the young lady stated the effect on the bees, actually, I wanted to add that 35% of our food supply is dependent upon bees. Then there was a UK video where a gentleman was pointing out the fact that half a tree, the side that was facing the 5G antenna was dead. Bark was coming off. The other half that was facing away from it was perfectly healthy. So, it not only going to affect us, it’s going to affect, you know, the insects, the birds, in fact, there was a you tube video from the Netherlands, where they turned on 5G system as an experiment and hundreds of birds fell from the sky, dead. So, it’s really going to mess up our environment and us too. Another interesting thing is that a couple of 16 months ago, a Senator here, I think it was Senator Blumenthal. He asked the big wigs from the communication industry, he said ‘how much money have you spent determining whether this is healthy for our, it’s not adversely, adverse to the health of people’ and the answer was zero. They have spent no money at all and its obvious that the reason they’ve spent no money is because they knew if they did, they would agree with all of the independent studies that say it’s damaging. You can go on you tube and type in 5G dangers. A whole bunch of videos will come up, done by doctors, researchers, regular people. In fact, there was one where a lady who worked at one the airports where they installed a full body scan with 5G. She was perfectly healthy until they installed that. Within, I don’t know, a year or so, she had cancer and she noted that twenty-eight other people who work with her have it at the airport or came down with some very serious illnesses, cancer, being the most. She said some of those people are young people and they are still getting cancer. That reminds me, there’s an interesting information on the internet about carrying cell phones in your back pocket. A friend of mine has diverticulitis and she has to get a colonoscopy every couple of years and the last time that she was getting one, the receptionist told her she has seen a lot of young people coming in here with colon cancer. I looked up statistics. Colon cancer is an over-50 kind of disease, not a, you know, late teens early twenties. There’s a second page of my handout is different power densities and how they affect human health and at the very bottom, it says that the US and Canada standard, all these negative affects on people’s health displayed is six or less, OK, the US and Canada and some other developed nations, their standard is six hundred to a thousand. So, if you to any person of authority and say ‘gee I’m sick, blah, blah, blah’ they’re gonna say ‘well, sorry, it meets the standards.’ You know, which, standards are way higher than they should be. Let’s see, what else. Oh, I’d just like to mention that Mill Valley, California has restricted cell phone tower 5G installations. I actually contacted them and they have something like a thirty-eight page document where they try to take as much control over it as possible. I was actually in contact, I think it was the attorney for the city. She sent me the document in the email, I guess I’ll just forward it to you guys. You can have it. Maybe you will see something in there that can help get as much control of this situation as possible. Thank you very much. Jolly: Thank you, sir. Good evening, sir, please state your name and address. E. Martin: Yes, my name is Ed Martin, I’m a resident of Livonia for over 40 years. My address is 18525 Southhampton Street. The last couple of years, I been having a-fib, my wife has a-fib, so I went through my house and tried to go ahead and get rid of the wi-fi. I went ahead and called DTE and get rid of my smart meter so I gotta pay extra money so they can read my meter. I went through all of this effort because of the fact we’re trying to reduce the amount times that we have a-fib. I don’t know if you guys know anybody 17 that has a-fib, but pretty much almost everybody that I know that’s my age has a-fib, so, the key is, is that going ahead and doing this wireless 5G, you know, this 5G, you’re going to stick this in my yard? I don’t want it in my yard. So, you gotta consider the people out there, you know, just because the federal government says something, or the state government says something, if there’s a way to go ahead and ensure our safety it certainly would be appreciated, thank you. Jolly: Thank you, sir. Good evening, ma’am, please state your name and address. Ciavaglia: Amy Ciavaglia, 18997 Gary Lane. This is the second time I have spoken about 5G. When I found out about it in August, I never even heard of it. When I started researching out facts, it has been keeping me up at night thinking about the effects its gonna have on my family. I have two daughters, my youngest has special needs and she’s effected by the amount of radiation. We have to limit her screen time, big time or we see negative effects on her behavior-wise, development, mentally, academically, you name it. You know, I grew up in Livonia, I worked for Livonia schools for years, I’m choosing to raise my family in Livonia and I’ve always thought Livonia is a great place to raise a family. I feel like, how can you raise a family if you have this cell tower, you know the cells, small cell right in front of your house, I mean if I wake up and I find there’s a light post right in front of my house and I keep thinking, ok, one day, my rights are going to be taken away from me, you know, and I’m gonna have this in front of my house, against my will, whose gonna be the first one in my house to get sick? You know? I am a very health-conscious person, we don’t do chemicals in our house, my daughter is on a very specific diet, we are very cautious with everything we use and everything we do. I feel like that is my right to keep my family healthy and if there’s small cell in front of my house, behind my house, you know, near my kid’s school, I feel like my rights to keep my family healthy have been take away from me. I really hope and pray that you guys find a way to protect the citizens of Livonia. There has to be a way, you know, there has to be something that we can do because other cities, other states are doing it. We don’t know enough about it, well we do, just, nobody’s acknowledging it. You know, we need to look at, you know, records of people that are experiencing hazardous health effects from it already. We need to look at that and we need to consider what’s the next step, what can we do to protect the City of Livonia? Thank you. Jolly: Thank you. Good evening, ma’am, state your name and address for us. A. Colbeck: Yes, I am Dr. Angie Colbeck, I live in Canton, but I grew up in Livonia and I have a lot of family, a lot of friends in Livonia and so I’m here to encourage you to join with other cities in the United States that are 18 passing ordinances to restrict 5G due to the adverse health impacts from wireless radiation, including, but not limited to cancer and DNA damage. I am a retired, board-certified Pediatrician and I also study hospital molecular epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Wireless radiation acts at a cellular level and therefore, results in extensive adverse health impacts. I have been reviewing a study showing the impacts wireless radiation on our health and there are now thousands of studies in the medical literature showing the following adverse health impacts due to wireless radiation. Cancer, oxidative damage, DNA damage, DNA repair failure, cardiac arrhythmias and other effects on the heart muscle as well as blood pressure and vascular effects. ADHD, behavioral disorders and learning difficulties, sleep disturbances and memory loss. Changes involving the actual blood-brain barrier and effects on the neuron firing rate in EEG. Disruptive immune function and change in stress proteins and reproductive and fertility impacts. To see a compendium of these over thirty-six hundred studies in the medical literature, I encourage you to visit the following websites, bioinitiative.org, mdsafetech.org, ehtrust.org and babysafeproject.org as well as many others. Hundreds of doctors and scientists are sounding the alarm regarding the adverse health impacts of wireless radiation, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. In addition, a recent, large $25M study conducted by the FDA also feels that wireless radiation causes cancer and DNA damage. With all of this in mind, we should be joining other cities to protect our citizens from the massive amounts of wireless radiation that 5G would be exposing our citizens to. 5G is not like going from 3G to 4G. 5G, because it operates at a much higher frequency, requires hundreds of thousands of new wireless radiation transmitters to be placed. Ask yourself this question. How many of you would choose next to a cell tower if you had a choice? If 5G is deployed, you have no choice. When 5G is fully deployed, estimates are that wireless radiation transmitters will be places every two to ten houses. Now listen carefully to this. They are deploying 5G with no safety testing, no regulation and no safety guidelines. There have been no test to show it’s safe, yet people are being forced to have the wireless radiation transmitters in front of their house. This is in spite of the fact that as far back as the 1970’s, the US Navy examined this technology and found there to be serious health hazards. Having a 5G wireless radiation transmitter in front of your home will massively increase your radiation exposure and you will be exposed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year. Children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to the negative health impacts. The telecom industry has too much influence over our federal and state legislators, thankfully, you can make a huge impact at the local level. As a physician and a previous Livonia resident with a lot of friends and family in Livonia, I’m asking you to join other cities in the United States in restricting 5G. Let’s especially keep 5G away from 19 our neighborhoods and away from our schools. Let’s keep our friends and families healthy. Thank you. Jolly: Mr. Meakin. Meakin: Dr. Colbeck, what cities have restricted it so far. A. Colbeck: I can go ahead and send you, if you go to ehtrust.org, they have just ordinance after ordinance after ordinance and they’re hitting it from all different areas. Like he said, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Meakin: But none in Michigan so far? A. Colbeck: Actually, they’re working on it in Grand Rapids. You know we have Michigan cities that are working on it right now too. This is all new, but they’re all saying ‘well, we don’t want it in the neighborhood, we don’t want it in the schools.’ They’re trying many different ways to go ahead and find the loopholes. We need to find loopholes; we can’t let them do this to for families. Meakin: Thank you. A. Colbeck: You’re welcome. Bahr: Mr. Chair? Jolly: Mr. Bahr. Bahr: Question regarding to Colbeck. One of the things that I noticed, came in our materials that were provided to us, where they’re explaining just the physical attributes of these antennas. I understand that there is a warning sign that is required to be placed four to six feet below the antennas warning of radio frequency fields exceeding FCC rules for units of exposure. Just because I know you are knowledgeable on this topic, can you tell me why those are place four to six feet below the antennas versus at the bottom of the pole where people can see them? I’m not asking that to be funny, I’m asking because is that insinuating that the risk is just within the four to six-foot radius on one of these things or…can you answer my question? A. Colbeck: That, I don’t know that, but you have to know that its going to be penetrating your house, right, because its right in front, so the whole point of it is that it goes through you walls and if you actually took a look to see what happens to children’s brains, especially with wireless radiation, it’s a nightmare. It’s a nightmare, what we are seeing with the MRIs. 20 Bahr: Well, let’s assume all that is true, and while you are well-studied on this, what I’m trying to understand is, and if you don’t know the answer to this, it’s fine, but some of the diagrams that were given to us here, show tall telephone poles with the antenna at the top with these warning signs for to six feet below that. That could never be seen from the ground. What I’m just trying to understand, and if you don’t know, its fine, it’s a question that I have. Pat’s raising his hand, but if you know, come on up, I’d love to ask you. That warning sign, common sense would say ‘well, it’s four to six feet below because that’s where you’re in danger’ and so I’m just asking somebody that’s still studying all of this. As just a resident, I would look and say ‘oh, well then maybe I’m not in danger at ground level.’ A. Colbeck: Oh, no, you’re in danger. In Switzerland, for instance, if you look up Switzerland 5G, some of the first injuries are coming out now. Actually, they had thousands of people protesting in the streets. They put one hundred and twenty in, fairly close together and if you look under physicians for safe technology, the people started getting many of the symptoms that I just described for all the thirty-six hundred studies. They started getting severe headaches, tinnitus and chest pain and they started coming into the doctors and the doctors are ‘what is going on here’ and it’s the same day they flipped the 5G on. So, it was fairly concentrated, there were one hundred and twenty they turned on all at once. People are already getting sick, that’s all I can tell you. Maybe my husband can answer that more specific, but its dangerous, we don’t want it. Bahr: Mr. Chair, if it is ok with you, if there’s a specific answer to that question, I’d be… Jolly: Well, with all due respect, this lady is first and if he wants to approach the podium, he is free to do so. I’d be happy for him to first. A. Colbeck: Ok, so he can answer but ultimately, it penetrates the house, just like all forms, so it’s not that, just because you’re not standing in front of it, it’s still gonna impact you. Actually, that particular frequency is currently being used in the military as active denial system, you know, for crowd control. It’s actually being used in a higher frequency, but the fact, if you think about this really, think about this for a second, as a physician, I cannot believe they’re doing this. Putting it in front of every two to ten homes with no safety studies, with all of this information in medical literature showing all these damaging impacts its having already, this is insane. This is because the FCC, who is in charge of this, is a lobbying industry for the telecoms, they’re not looking out for you, they’re looking out for the telecom industry. That’s why you guys, we need you to stand with the 21 other cities doing this, because, you know, we just need you to stand. Thank you. Jolly: Please state your name for the record, sir. P. Colbeck: Patrick Colbeck. To that point, it drops off exponentially, so the power density levels, and that the FCC guidelines right now only specify based on power density levels. It drops off at algorithmic rate and so they say that its back within safe guidelines, within four to six feet, or whatever, of the transmitter. By the way, those FCC guidelines are only based on thermal issues, they’re not based on non-thermal so that’s still not a good standard, but that’s what they’re based on. Bahr: I did read that. That just, exploring the issue here. Its for anybody in general on that, this goes for anybody, don’t necessarily interpret our questions as advocacy one way or the other, I’m just trying to explore this. Would that fly in the face of the notion that we’re in danger in our homes, that are, maybe, fifty, seventy, a hundred feet away from this. P. Colbeck: Not at all because the effects that they have documented, I mean right now, one of the testimonies dealt with the fact that our current FCC standards are hoards of magnitudes above what you would normally see of adverse health impacts, so other countries, and actually I’ve got some white paper that I can hand out to you, my wife and I put together that gives a companion of studies around the world or whatever, if you go off and look at that, what we find out, is our standards are so high, they’re still see adverse health impacts at the nominal usage levels that you see with 5G systems. By the way, if you wanna see the details on this, go to warninginmichigan.com, scroll down until you get to wireless radiation. I’ve got a link to the tech forum that we exhibited, and you’ll get that information and more. Jolly: Thank you. Bahr: I said thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, ma’am, state your name and address please. Melabiotis: Irene Melabiotis, 19758 Norwich Road. I’m a proud Livonia resident of seven years, I’m a wife and a mother of one and one on the way. I love this city and all it has to offer my family, but I’ll be honest with you, if 5G rolls out, I’d be very scared to even stay in my home, I’d probably move out and I know I’m not the only one that feels this way, in fact, there are studies to show that the 5G right outside of the homes actually decreases property values because people don’t want to live next to cell phone towers. So, that’s neither here nor there, it’s definitely something to 22 consider, so I live a good distance from the nearest cell phone tower by choice, with 5G technology, I’m afraid I won’t even have a choice as to the amount of radiation that’s going to be exposed on me and my family. As has been indicated by Dr. Colbeck, the most vulnerable of our society are our small children, whose developing brains are most susceptible to the radiation and damage it causes. They’ve been finding that in children, specifically, it actually impacts their behavioral center of the brain. Not to mention, the massive amount of evidence that indicates that DNA damage occurs, DNA breaks, which limits the body’s ability to repair damaged cells, which leads to things like cancer and other diseases like that. The blood-brain barrier gets disabled when you have radiation, in fact they use EMFs to treat individuals that have tumors so they can get in the brain and treat the tumor. So, it opens that blood-brain barrier which should be closed, because it will allow pathogens in it and the pathogens can wreak havoc, especially on children’s brains. So, there’s so much that needs to be said and there’s not much time to say it but suffice it to say that its been said that the FCC is a captured agency, I’m sure you’ve heard this before. The head of the FCC right now used to be a lawyer at Verizon, so obviously that’s a major conflict of interest. The FCC guidelines have not been updated in over twenty-three years, I believe, if I am not mistaken. That’s a huge oversight because back then, we didn’t have as much exposure to EMFs and now the cumulative exposure to EMFs is far, far greater and they are not looking at that. That should be taken into consideration when they’re looking at the exposure limits, in toxicity level, on a biological level. So, something mulling over is that after testing the 5G cell, small cell towers, Verizon CEO and Field Engineer concluded, and this is online, that they were getting strong signals from them, even at three thousand feet apart. So, they’re saying they need to be two hundred, three hundred feet apart and there was foliage in between so we don’t, I think after that testing you should be questioning whether they even need to be that close to us. Some cities are doing their due diligence as has been mentioned by putting strict ordinances, so ordinance amendments that I see here are not as strict as other cities. I urge you to consider other cities, contact them, see what they’ve done that’s working for their citizens. So, I would say more restrictive ordinance amendments, so I would put small cell is not being placed as was mentioned many times, in schools, residential areas, apartment buildings, near vulnerable populations like people recovering in hospitals, in old-age homes, in parks, like in areas where people should go and just relax and not be exposed to EMFs. Also, some cities are including restrictions such as having the right to remove cell antennas if the space they occupy is needed by the city. There’s also some amendments to ordinances about how high the small cell tower needs to be, like it could be one hundred, one hundred fifty feet high, that could be something they can pass. Then it could be planted a certain distance apart, like I said, if the Verizon CEO and Field Engineer in their testing of these test cities found that even at three thousand feet, 23 these things are working just fine and with strong signals, I think we should question whether or not these need to be this close and even in residential areas where people spend the majority of their lives. Professor Trevor Marshall, a biomedical scientist indicated in a tweet, a recent tweet. A small cell thirty feet from a bedroom radiates ten thousand times as much energy into the bedroom as a cell tower a half a mile away. Radiation ‘in brackets’ is proportional to the distance ratio squared. He also says some interesting tidbits of information that makes you think. He mentioned that the Louisiana House passed resolution HO145 to direct its Department of Health and Environment to study the potential impact of 5G and a report back sixty days before their 2020 session. So that’s something that we can actually ask Michigan State Senators to also consider doing. Not to mention international appeals that people have mentioned. By scientists and people that have done their research, EMF experts, we need to be listening to these people, they know what they’re talking about. The FCC has no experts on there that know anything about biology and medicine. They don’t have any of those experts and they’re not listening to them, in fact, as you may already be aware, the national toxicology program just released its findings from a ten-year study and it showed clear evidence of EMFs being linked to brain cancer and cancer, I think schwannoma, I don’t know how to pronounce that properly, but it’s related to the heart nerve sheaths. Ok, clear evidence and instead of supporting this finding, this institution, which is the premiere research institution of our country, they attack the findings and the scientists and the quality of the study. Instead of maybe, hmm, this is an alarm bell, we should look more into this, because that’s due diligence. If you see even one little harm being in a study, that magnitude, the biggest study of its kind, it should alarm bells and if they’re doing their job, they should have paused on 5G and put a moratorium on it until further safety studies, either if they didn’t agree with those findings disproved it or proved it further. Aside from that, I urge you as other cities have done, to pass a resolution for a moratorium asking our State Senators to introduce support and enact a moratorium on wireless expansion until A) biologically safe exposure levels have been established by independent researchers, not funded by telecom industry and free from industry influence and conflicts of interest. Only these types of studies we should be really looking at and considering and not the ones that the FCC say show/indicate evidence wireless radiation being safe, which those are industry funded, so we shouldn’t be really looking at those at all, because I’m a researcher and I know that if you have that as a conflict of interest, then your study is biased, you can’t even pass the research ethics. Then, B) the telecom industry should be reevaluated. The least intrusive distance between small cell towers, if we are to go this route, to accomplish its goals. As I said, the testing showed that the cell towers work three thousand meters in between, or feet in between, so I think that’s a very important finding from their testing and I think we should pro-warn, find out what else they found out because that 24 could probably inform our decision making. Also, we should do a survey and ask our State Senators to implement a survey that looks into the possibility to increase our fiber and wired infrastructure because time and time again, and scientists, I thinks it’s scientists for wire tech, is a great website to go to, reveal that it is far more reliable, superior in terms of speed, safe, where RF is not an issue and secure. So, you know, not and issue with hacking and everything like that and affordable and accessible, because that’s in the public, it used to be, you know, a public service available to almost everybody that wanted it, now they want to remove that and put in wireless. So, I think our infrastructure should be balanced between wireless and wired in order to make it a healthy and safe place to be for all residents of Livonia and really across the states. So, I thank you for your time and for listening to me. I pray to God you are enlightened to do something, it’s a very difficult task, I don’t envy you, but to do something that will make Livonia residents proud to call you their Councilors. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. Please state your name and address for the record. Prested: Besty Prested, I’m a resident of Livonia, my address is 20044 Floral Street. I agree with all the speakers before me and I can’t go home tonight and look my kids in the eyes and tell that I stayed silent. I stand before you and ask you to please stand up for the health and safety of our Livonia residents. You can’t ignore what you’ve heard tonight. I pray that you oppose going forward with 5G. Please put our Livonia families first. Thank you. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. It looks like we have one resident. Yes sir, state your name and address please. Timoszyk: My name is William Timoszyk and I live at 35283 Leon Street here in Livonia. I’ve been in Livonia 40 plus years and I want to compliment the people that came in front of me with their in-depth knowledge. I don’t have that kind of knowledge, but by the same token, when you look at the big picture, this is not rocket science. When you go in and get an x-ray, the guy that gives you the x-ray is standing behind a lead shield that’s an inch thick that’ll stop a bullet. We just got some real refined things like that and they’re putting it in wires and putting it in neighborhoods. So, I think Livonia, this is part of your job, this is part of your position to take care of the citizens of this town. That might take a lot of guts to do it but I think you should make the citizens of this city proud of you and stand up and say, you know what, we’re just not going to roll over with this, this is hazardous stuff. I don’t have any children, I’ve talked to my friends about all the rays and electronics going around and kids are gonna pay the freight. You know, I’m old, I’ll just die, whatever, but there are already kids walking around with cell phones and sleeping with them and having 25 problems. So, like I say, its not rocket science, but you gotta take a stand and do evidently from my predecessors here that spoke, there are ways and mean if you step up to the plate, that you can slow this down and say, you know, like I said, we’re just not going to roll over and die, and I think the citizens of Livonia would be very proud of you. I don’t think anybody will walk up to you and say, gee, what did you do that for? I mean, maybe the guy that owns the telephone company will, but you know, so there you go. Thank you for your time. Jolly: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma’am. Diaz: Jessica Diaz, my address is 14183 Deering Street. I live in Livonia, I have three kids, I just moved here a few months ago and I moved here because I thought it was a great, safe environment for my family, but, my mind is definitely going to change if we implement the 5G. I only heard about this a few months ago, so I’m not as well-researched or read as everyone else here, but I know it’s dangerous. I also know that, you know, I already live near the freeway, I have two large cell phone towers not even a mile from my house, then I go to work and there’s one right outside my window. My kids go to school, they’ve got wi-fi in their schools, they’re given Chrome books and tablets and whatever to do the work. None of us had that when we were growing up, but we’re just so anxious to give it to our kids? We’re just gonna just throw them into this wireless environment, when, I mean, who’s really done their research, I mean, how many of you can really say they know what the effects of that are? I mean, because if everybody did that and we knew what we, none of us would want this. Its insane and for us to say, well, we can’t do anything because the federal government, the state government, they have our hands tied, I just can’t believe that, I refuse to believe that in this country, that we’re going to sit back and say that. That anybody is going to sit back and say that they can’t stand up and do something, there has to be something than can be done. Obviously, we are counting on you to do it, because we elected you, as our City Officials. It’s a great responsibility and I pray that you take that responsibility on and protect us. Thank you. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. U. Martin: My name is Ursula Martin, I live in Livonia and have been here for almost 41 years. It’s a wonderful town, it really is but I agree with all these presentations that were given. We don’t need that. We wanna keep Livonia what it was when we moved here. So please do your best and I just feel really bad for the little guys, you know, for the young children. We just can’t do that, we have to please do what you can do, ok? Thank you. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. Seeing nobody else at either podium. Ok, at this point, if you have additional comments to say, I would appreciate it if you would 26 approach the podiums here and be ready to speak when the speaker before you is finished. Yes, Sir, please state your name and address. Serra: My name is Jeremy Serra, I live at 10581 Stark Road and I just want to speak to the effect how it has affected the birds. I have one of the 5G cell towers nine hundred feet down the street from me and for the fifteen- twenty years, been there thirty years, but well I’ll say the past thirty years, the birds would smack into our front picture window maybe once or twice all year. Since that tower went down the street from us, ten of them have smacked into that window in about three months over the summer. It messes with their navigation, so I’m assuming that’s why they’re crashing into the window in greater numbers and I’ve noticed there are less birds around the area in the neighborhood from that cell tower. I also want to speak the fact that I read a little bit of the proposed ordinance that you guys have and I understand you had in the wording, something about ninety days. That you have to approve within ninety days of the application. For now, before anything else is added or strengthened, temporarily, could you guys use the whole ninety days and don’t approve anything until the ninety-day time limit is up to delay this for now? So they can’t just come in and roll this stuff out, you know, if we can get more permanent, better, stronger, ordinance here until, I don’t know if that’s something you guys can do, have the Engineers delay the application for the ninety days or, I also wanted to speak, let’s see, I have it on my cell phone here. In August 2019, there was a ruling in DC circuit court of appeals saying every application across the US for small cell or wireless transmission facilities is rendered incomplete so all the BTF shot clocks must be told and all application processing and construction will stop until the wireless industry and FCC completes the court mandated environmental assessment (EA) and work environmental impacts statement as specified in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. That’s all I have to say. Jolly: Thank you, sir. Timoszyk: Thank you. Melabiotis: I wanna say one more thing. Jolly: Please state you name for the record. Melabiotis: Irene Melabiotis, 19758 Norwich Road. So, in my haste to leave because I knew I was up here for a while, I didn’t mention that I have a feeling that there are some places that are implementing 5G at much, much lower frequencies than we are doing. So, we’re gonna be implementing at 20- 27 100 GHz which Dr. Colbeck mentioned, is in the higher range of that one that they’re using, I forgot what they were, the power control weapon. That’s the range they’re using, so what’s to say that somebody can’t hack it and use it as a way to, you know, make citizens submit to whosever will that’s controlling it. With all this infrastructure, we’re really relying on wireless as much without expanding wired at the same time. We’re at the mercy of telecom and raising prices and it’s not going to be a free market when it comes to that. So, I really want to look into the lower frequency, it’s possible to achieve 5G at lower frequencies. I don’t know why it has to be in effect that high, which is dangerously high. The issues is surveillance as well, which is what’s happening in China. The more, you know, smart things that you have going on, they can easily, somebody can hack in or whatever, facial recognition. It could be used against you, which is totally against the Constitution of this Land and what our Founding Fathers stood for. I heard, and I don’t know how factual this is, but its worth maybe considering, that recently in 2018, the FCC’s hold on the wireless industry was categorized, or decategorized, I should say from Title 2, which is regulated to Title 1, unregulated. So, if that’s the case, which I’ve heard from somebody that fought this based on those grounds, then they are not, they don’t have any power to, or jurisdiction to, enforce their rules for us to place these in public right-of-ways. So, I think that’s worth looking into, maybe your lawyers can look into that, see if there’s any recourse at the local and state level, in order to stop deployment. Lastly, again, going back to Professor Trevor Marshall, who is a biomedical scientist, he tweeted just a couple of days ago, the FCC has repealed a large part of the 4G/5G small cell order by reinstating full environmental review as of , December 52019, nationwide. He goes on to say we await FCC formally removing the sixty-day shot clock, which rely on this exclusion. So, I have so much information on this, I’ve, just like everybody else, well not everybody else, but some people who have mentioned this, I’ve had sleepless nights about this because I’m concerned for the safety of my children and one unborn. Again, actually, another thing I didn’t mention, that fetuses are very highly susceptible to biological harm from EMFs. So, we might be producing the next generation of biologically harmed human beings. If we don’t properly investigate this and do our due diligence. If we don’t stand up to this awful, you know, mandate by the first, by the FCC and then on to the State, then we are compliant and in compliance with any damages that occur. So, I urge you to stand up and do the right thing and lots of cities have done it before you, just look at what they’ve done. The first thing would be, go to the State level and ask them to do that, that memorandum, ok and support that resolution, ask them to support it. Thank you for your time, I’m sorry for coming back two times. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. Yes, ma’am? 28 Brukwinski: Hi, my name is Suzanne Brukwinski, I live at 30033 Fairfax. I just wanted to reiterate, there is an alternative and you should really look into that wired technology because it works. The point of fact is that the city of Chattanooga, TN has done that already and it’s been a great success and they brought more companies into the city because it worked so well and they are doing really well economically because of that. So, I just want to say that there is an alternative, we’re making this thing into this wireless one and it’s not true and I don’t want to feel bullied into it. Thank you. Jolly: Thank you, ma’am. I see nobody else approaching either podium and at this point, on behalf of the Council, I thank you for your comments and your taking the time to be here this evening with us. Public comment is now closed, I’ll look to the Council here for direction. Before I let Mr. Bahr speak, I will state that this matter will be next taken up on December 16, 2019 at the Regular Study meeting. That means that whatever is proposed here tonight, will move us along to that point, but any motion is th possible at that Regular meeting on December 16 as well. Mr. Bahr? Bahr: A comment, question and a couple proposals for resolutions. The comment being, and I think you all know this, but a lot of what we’ve heard tonight. First of all, I applaud the people that are here for the obvious passion and time that you’ve put into research this. We’ve had a lot of well-spoken people that have obviously done a ton of reading and study on this tonight and it’s pretty impressive, actually. I think you do know this, but many of the concerns you are expressing, and I think there’s some compelling things that have been said, but, yes, we would like to represent you but a lot of things you are talking about, you are talking to the wrong body. We have State Senators, we have State Representatives, I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but just I know from previous conversations with Senator Colbeck, you know, he’s talked about, he was in Legislature when this was taken up and I know he advocated against it. A lot of this has been taken out of our hands, that doesn’t mean that you are powerless to speak out, it doesn’t mean that we, as Americans, can’t do something about it, or want to, it’s just this isn’t the body to do it. We have a Federal and we have a State and Local body and there’s laws that we dictate where to go, so you do have power to make a difference it’s just you need to be contacting Representative Pohutsky and Senator Polehanki at this point for the larger 5G issues, however, I am intrigued by some of the things that have been mentioned tonight and there, they reinforce some stuff that I’ve found in my own study on this prior to this meeting that I think are worthy of further explorations. So, my question is for Mr. Bernier, is there some, something time-critical to this as far as the, I think there’s two levels of things here. I thinks there’s the proposal that’s before us tonight, which I understand what that’s trying to do. I think there’s potentially some things that are worth further study beyond that, that maybe are within the purview of the local government, some of those 29 things we’ve heard tonight. I think those are worth studying further. I guess I’d be interested in your opinion. The cleanest thing to me would be to put this into Technology Committee to explore some of those things to see if it can be strengthened with some of those things if we would choose to do that. Unless, there’s some time-critical need why what’s before us to night needs to happen now, which would not keep us from doing that later. Bernier: If you’re asking my opinion, if you don’t do something with this now, you’ve just told them they can put them wherever they want. You’ve just opened it up. You’ve taken away all the power of the City Engineer to have anything dealing with the licensing of it. To deal with the permitting of it. Bahr: Between now and when we would ever take up a larger issue. Bernier: Realistically, we should have had this passed before now. Bahr: Ok. I’d offer two resolutions, I’d offer and approval of the resolutions before us tonight and I’d offer a resolution to put into the Economic Development, Strategic Planning and Technology Committee, the topic of what additional stipulations we can put at the local level for the implementation of 5G. Jolly: Ok, we have those two motions made by Mr. Bahr. Any other direction from the Council? There appears to be none. The Public Hearing will be closed at 8:28 p.m. Thank you all for being here tonight. Again, this will be next taken up on December 16 at the Regular voting meeting. Thank you.