HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202001211
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
January 21, 2020
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Wireless Infrastructure Design Guidelines
I.B.Council Board Reports
I.C.Planning For Upcoming Joint Meetings (Wheeler, School Board, BOCC)
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Justin Forman, P.E., Operations Manager, Utilities;
and Ben Anderson, AICP, Planner II, Community Development
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Tyler Christoff, P.E., Director of Utilities
Paul Schultz, Director of Information Technology
Phillip Supino, AICP, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: January 14, 2019
MEETING DATE: January 21, 2019; Work Session
RE: Wireless Facility Design Guidelines and Related Land Use Code
Amendment
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
At the work session on Tuesday, January 21st:
1) Staff will update Council on the development of more specific and rigorous
design guidelines related to wireless telecommunications facilities, specifically
small cell facilities.
2) Staff will describe the relationship of the new design guidelines document to
proposed changes to the Wireless Facilities chapter of the Land Use Code
(26.505).
3) Staff requests two actions from Council:
• Review key elements of the proposed design guidelines for small cell
facilities and provide feedback. This feedback will be important as staff
works with our consultant team (HRGreen) to continue work towards a
final draft of the guidelines document. See Key Elements of Design
Guidelines in the Discussion section below.
• Provide direction for a future Ordinance that would adopt the design
guidelines and a related amendment to the Land Use Code.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
• Passing of Ordinance No.5, Series of 2019 – Amending City of Aspen Land Use
Code Related to Wireless Infrastructure Regulation
2
Page 2 of 6
• Passing of Resolution No. 92, Series of 2019 – Professional Services Contract
with HRGreen, Inc. for Design Guidelines for Small Cell Infrastructure
• Passing of Resolution No. 133, Series of 2019 – Approval of a Master License
Agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T).
• Passing of Resolution No. 135, Series of 2019 – Approval of a contract with Crown
Castle for Distributed Antenna System Facility Lease Agreement.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In 2017 and 2018, rule changes from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and
a new Colorado State Statute fundamentally changed the ability of local jurisdictions to
regulate a particular type of wireless telecommunications facilities called small cell
facilities. The changes were implemented to facilitate wireless providers in the
deployment of new wireless technology. Specifically, these rule changes:
• Preempt local authority over the use of the public right-of-way for these facilities
(FCC)
• Shorten times for local reviews (FCC)
• Limit local fees (FCC)
• Limit local review to aesthetic and location preferences (FCC)
• Allow small cell facilities as a use by right in all zone districts (Colorado)
Like many other communities, these rule changes created challenges for City staff as
there were not regulations, standards, or processes in place to evaluate these facilities in
the public right-of-way. In fall of 2018, COA staff began responding to this new paradigm.
Work Completed to Date
To date, a multi-department team has implemented the following:
• A fully new section of the land use code, written in consultation with
telecommunication attorneys, to define new review processes, definitions, and
basic design guidelines.
• A new land use application specific to wireless telecommunications facilities.
• New processes that coordinate reviews by Community Development (planning and
building), Engineering, and Utilities for facilities in the right-of-way. This was
necessary to ensure compliance with new “shot clock” review timelines.
Much of the initial work on this was completed as a stop-gap measure, as the City needed
to get rules and processes in place to respond to what was feared to be imminent
applications for these facilities. When these changes were adopted in March of 2019,
Council directed staff to update the City’s Design Guidelines on new wireless
deployments.
In August of 2019, City Council approved a contract for professional services with
HRGreen, an engineering firm, to assist staff in the creation of a more robust set of design
guidelines in giving specific definition to small cell facilities that are in the public right-of-
way.
3
Page 3 of 6
Role of Design Guidelines
The completed design guidelines will give definitive and detailed direction to the wireless
carriers and their representatives as they design wireless facilities for the Aspen market.
Additionally, the guidelines will give clear direction to city staff in the processes and criteria
for review of new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities.
Related to the adoption of the Design Guidelines, staff will be drafting an amendment to
the Land Use Code that gives direction to applicability, process, and the use of the design
guidelines within the review of wireless facilities. Once this amendment is adopted, the
design guidelines can be amended and evolve in response to new technology and federal
and state regulations, without having to further amend the Land Use Code. The
relationship of the Wireless Design Guidelines to the LUC will be similar in this way to
Aspen’s Commercial Design, and Historic Preservation Design Standards and
Guidelines.
Public Engagement
In the drafting of the design guidelines, it was essential that staff engage the public on
this topic as the implementation of small cell facilities raised concerns over visual impacts
to the community and a global conversation about potential health concerns of 5G
wireless technology gained the attention of citizens. Developed by City Communications
Department staff, a comprehensive engagement strategy was successfully deployed. We
had direct interactions and received input from 200+ residents and stakeholders.
A summary of public outreach – including communication efforts, events, and comments
received is included as Exhibit B.
DISCUSSION:
Staff requests feedback from City Council on the selected key elements in the proposed
design guidelines. A draft document outlining the full design guidelines is included as
Exhibit A.
Key Elements of Design Guidelines – selected items from Exhibit A
1) Replacement of existing street lights – staff recommends that our first choice for
small cell facilities in the right-of-way be in the location of an existing street light.
The street light would be replaced with a small cell pole that would be fully paid for
by the wireless provider.
2) Height – staff recommends that small cell facilities in the right-of-way be limited
to 25 feet in height. Federal rules allow these facilities to be up to 50 feet in height.
Staff based Aspen’s recommended height on the maximum height of structure
allowed in our residential zone districts.
3) Minimum distance between facilities – staff recommends that we limit the
minimum distance between facilities that contain the same wireless provider’s
4
Page 4 of 6
equipment to 600 feet. This includes both small cell facilities – and larger facilities
that may be on rooftops of private or public buildings.
4) Pole design features – staff recommends the following:
a) The pole will have a fluted pattern to reference our existing street lights
b) The pole diameter is limited to 18” at the pole’s base
c) The pole and antenna structure will be painted to match the color of
our existing street lights
d) A luminaire (street light fixture) will be mounted to the small cell pole in
replacement of the existing street light:
• The fixture will be mounted at a height consistent with best
practices and requirements in street light design
• The style of the fixture is “hockey puck” design, approximately
18 inches in diameter.
• The fixture will be flush mounted to the pole (little or no
armature)
• The fixture will be downlit
• The fixture will meet City of Aspen B.U.G. (backlight, uplight,
glare) standards – defined in a policy adopted in 2013.
5) Concealment of related equipment – staff recommends that all equipment
related to small cell facilities shall be located within the pole structure or in an
underground vault.
6) Prohibited Locations – Staff recommends the following areas be prohibited in
the location of small cell facilities:
Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any street
facing façade of these iconic Aspen buildings:
+Wheeler Opera House +Elks’ Building +Independence Building
+Wheeler/Stallard Museum +Hotel Jerome +City Hall (Armory Bldg.)
+Pitkin County Courthouse +St. Mary’s Church +Sardy House
No small cell facilities are allowed in the Aspen Pedestrian Malls. These
areas are described as Hyman and Cooper Avenues between Mill and
Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and Hyman Avenues.
Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No small cell facilities are allowed in the foreground of a designated
Mountain View Plane. See Aspen Land Use Code 26.435 for the
identification of these areas.
5
Page 5 of 6
Relationship to designated Open Space
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any
designated Open Space parcels.
7) Notice Requirements – If a small cell facility meets the design guidelines, they
would be considered as an administrative review – and no public notice would be
required until after an approval was granted. Therefore, staff recommends that
within 15 days of an application being deemed complete, the applicant shall
complete the following:
a) A poster being placed on site that includes
A photo simulation of the proposed facility
A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal
Contact information for the carrier and city staff
b) A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the
facility.
c) Newspaper notice in the form of a box advertisement
d) Updates to City of Aspen GIS and Map Aspen showing the
location of the proposed facility.
Response to Public Concerns
The most significant and consistent comments that staff received related to small cell
facilities came from citizens concerned about potential health effects of emerging 5G
technology. While Federal Law prohibits local communities from regulating these facilities
based on environmental or health concerns, staff recommends the following requirements
as part of the application and approval of wireless facilities:
1) NIER Reporting – this is a technical description of the specific radio frequencies
that are expected as designed from a specific small cell facility – related to the
FCC rules regarding maximum permissible exposure (MPE). This report, which
Aspen has not required in the past, will provide detailed information about the radio
frequency emissions specific to a given facility. It will be required in the
establishment of a new facility and any time a facility is upgraded.
2) Required testing and reporting of the actual frequencies and strength of
frequencies being emitted following the installation or upgrade of a wireless facility
within 90 of completion of work. Additionally, annual audits of radio frequency
signals from all facilities will be required. This will be the responsibility of the
cellular providers.
6
Page 6 of 6
Next Steps
If Council agrees with the continued efforts toward the design guidelines and related Land
Use Code Amendment:
1) Staff will return to Council in the coming weeks with a Policy Resolution outlining
City Council direction to final drafts of the design guidelines and related Land Use
Code update.
2) Staff will present the proposed design guidelines and code update to P&Z and
HPC for a formal recommendation to City Council.
3) Staff will present an Ordinance to City Council for approval of the final draft of
the design guidelines and Land Use Code update. This is expected to be
completed by early March.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: Outline of Design Guidelines related to Small Cell facilities
EXHIBIT B: Summary of public outreach efforts
7
City of Aspen
Wireless Communications Infrastructure Design Guidelines
–Recommended Elements -
The following recommendations are being considered prior to being included in Aspen’s draft
design guidelines document. The City of Aspen may change these recommendations at any
time and without prior notice.
The recommendations resulted from a combination of these sources of information:
•Public Engagement efforts and corresponding feedback
•City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission feedback
•City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Board feedback
•City of Aspen City Council feedback
•City of Aspen staff expertise
•HR Green – Wireless consultant expertise
Introduction
Aspen’s Wireless Communications Infrastructure Design Guidelines are intended to supplement
the requirements of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505, Wireless communications facilities
and equipment. The Guidelines provide objective, technically feasible criteria, for the
development, installation, maintenance, modification, and removal of wireless communications
infrastructure that is consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town character, while at the same
time not unreasonably interfering with the development of a competitive wireless
communications marketplace in the city. The criteria are applied in a non-discriminatory manner
that reasonably match the aesthetics and character of the immediate area regarding all of the
following, which the City shall consider in reviewing an application.
(a)The location of any ground-mounted wireless communications facilities (WCF) including
their relationship to other existing or planned WCF sites regardless of provider using
each pole
(b)The location of a WCF on a wireless support structure
(c)The appearance and concealment of WCFs, including those relating to materials used
for arranging, screening, and landscaping
(d)The design and appearance of a wireless support structure including any height
requirements adopted in accordance with these Guidelines
It is the goal of the City to allow the installation of a wireless communications infrastructure with
a minimum foot print. This shall be accomplished by WCF siting and the use of multi-cell poles
that can accommodate multiple service providers.
The City may revise, develop new, update, or amend their Guidelines as necessary to meet the
goals of the City. The provisions of the Guidelines shall not limit or prohibit the City's discretion
to promulgate and make publicly available other information, materials or requirements in
addition to, and separate from the Wireless Communications Infrastructure Design Guidelines
that do not conflict with state or federal law.
Exhibit A
8
Wireless Communications Infrastructure
Design Guidelines Recommendations
DRAFT 2 | P a g e
Wireless Communications Facility Definition
Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505 defines a Wireless Communications Facility or WCF as
a facility used to provide personal wireless services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332
(c)(7)(C); or wireless information services provided to the public or to such classes of users as
to be effectively available directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or Smart
City, Internet of Things, wireless utility monitoring and control services. A WCF does not include
a facility entirely enclosed within a permitted building where the installation does not require a
modification of the exterior of the building; nor does it include a device attached to a building,
used for serving that building only and that is otherwise permitted under other provisions of the
Code. A WCF includes an Antenna or Antennas, including without limitation, directional, omni-
directional and parabolic antennas, support equipment, Alternative Tower Structures, and
Towers. It does not include the support structure to which the WCF or its components are
attached if the use of such structures for WCFs is not the primary use. The term does not
include mobile transmitting devices used by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle or
hand-held radios/telephones and their associated transmitting Antennas, nor does it include
other facilities specifically excluded from the coverage of the Guidelines.
Small Cell Facility Definition
Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505 defines a Small Cell Facility or SCF as a WCF where
each Antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than three cubic feet in volume or, in
the case of an Antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements
could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three cubic feet; and primary equipment
enclosures are no larger than seventeen cubic feet in volume. The following associated
equipment may be located outside of the primary equipment enclosure and, if so located, is not
included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meter, concealment,
telecommunications demarcation box, ground-based enclosure, back-up power systems,
grounding equipment, power transfer switch and cut-off switch. Small cells may be attached to
Alternate Tower Structures, Replacement Pole, and Base Stations.
Application and Review Procedures
No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur
except after a written request from an applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in
accordance with Section 26.505.050 and Section 26.505.060 in City code.
Preferred installations for all wireless facilities – in order of preference
1) Co-located on the rooftop of private property
2) Co-located on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building
3) New facility on the rooftop of private property
4) New facility on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building
5) Co-located on an already established or future small cell facility in the right of way
6) New small cell facility established on the site and in replacement of an existing City of
Aspen street light and including an attached luminaire or contained within the structure
of existing or redesigned traffic signals, with cooperation of CDOT
7) New stand-alone facility in a new location – this may or may not include a luminaire
9
Wireless Communications Infrastructure
Design Guidelines Recommendations
DRAFT 3 | P a g e
Prohibited Locations
1) Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any street facing façade of these
iconic Aspen buildings:
• Wheeler Opera House
• Elks’ Building
• Independence Building
• Pitkin County Courthouse
• Hotel Jerome
• City Hall (Armory Building)
• St. Mary’s Church
• Sardy House
• Wheeler/Stallard house
No SCFs are allowed in the Aspen Pedestrian Malls. These areas are described as
Hyman and Cooper Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between
Copper and Hyman Avenues.
2) Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No SCFs are allowed in the foreground of a designated Mountain View Plane. See
Aspen Land Use Code 26.435 for the identification of these areas.
3) Relationship to designated Open Space
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any designated Open Space
parcels.
Height
SCFs within the City of Aspen’s Right of Way are limited to 25 feet in height.
Minimum Distance between facilities
WCFs shall not be located closer than 600 feet from any wireless facility that has the same
provider’s equipment attached to it.
Pole Design
SCFs shall have a fluted pattern on the shaft of the facility – in reference to the existing street
light design.
Pole Diameter
SCFs shall be contained in a pole with a base diameter of no more than 18 inches. The
maximum diameter indicated shall extend no more than four (4) feet from the point of
attachment. Above the base, the diameter of the pole shall be reduced from t his maximum
before terminating with the antenna facility.
10
Wireless Communications Infrastructure
Design Guidelines Recommendations
DRAFT 4 | P a g e
Antenna Dimensions and Color
SCF antenna and related shroud at the top of the facility are limited to three (3) cubic feet in
volume. The antenna and shroud shall be painted to match the related pole.
Caisson Design (the underground concrete foundation and conduit connection)
HR Green is working with City of Aspen Engineering and Utilities to define SCF caisson
standards.
Pole Color
The SCF shall be painted to match Aspen’s existing street lights.
Electric Meter
The City strongly encourages SCF site operators to use flat-rate electric service when it would
eliminate the need for a meter. If, however required by utility provider, a related electric meter
shall not be contained within or adjacent to the SCF but will instead be located proximate to the
transformer or underground with other related equipment.
Luminaire Design
Luminaires attached to SCFs shall have the following characteristics:
a. A LED, “hockey puck” design
b. The fixture shall be mounted at a height that is consistent with best practices and
requirements in street lighting design
c. The fixture shall be painted to match the pole to which it is attached
d. The fixture shall be designed to be modular – in that it could be easily replaced with an
alternative fixture in the future
e. The fixture shall comply with City of Aspen B.U.G. Standards
f. The fixture shall be dark sky compliant
Prohibition on above ground electrical or fiber optic cable connections
All related cabling shall connect to the SCF underground. Above ground connections to the
facility are prohibited.
Engineering Requirements
SCFs and their installation shall be compliant with City of Aspen Engineering Standards and
Right of Way permit requirements. Poles in CDOT rights-of-way may be compliant with certain
CDOT standards upon their request, but this exemption will not relieve the installer of the city’s
aesthetic standards and may require special handling on a case-by-case basis in the event of a
conflict.
Other Utility Requirements
SCFs shall have an on/off switch that is accessible to City of Aspen Utilities and Holy Cross
Energy employees for use during emergencies, maintenance to the SCF or attached luminaire,
or adjacent tree trimming or other similar activity.
HR Green is working with City of Aspen Engineering and Utilities to identify any other
11
Wireless Communications Infrastructure
Design Guidelines Recommendations
DRAFT 5 | P a g e
requirements that would fit under the utilities and engineering sections.
Utility Distribution Poles
All SCF attachments to utility distribution poles that provide aerial support for overhead utility
lines with or without a streetlight attached shall be approved by the City’s Electric
Superintendent or Holy Cross Energy prior to installation. All SCF equipment shall meet the
City’s Electric Superintendent or Holy Cross Energy requirements and all of Aspen’s permit
requirements.
SCF antennas shall be located inside an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet.
SCF ground mounted enclosures, including backup power supply, and electric meters must be
concealed within an existing, previously approved above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-
to-grade underground equipment vault unless otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
City to not be feasible.
All wiring shall be concealed within the pole or in conduit. Color of conduit shall be approved by
the City.
Streetlight Poles
No SCF shall be attached to any existing streetlight pole unless the existing streetlight pole was
specifically designed to support SCF equipment or is approved by a licensed Colorado
Professional Engineer. In all other cases, the applicant shall have the existing streetlight pole
removed. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all costs for removal of the streetlight
pole. The applicant shall place a new combined SCF and streetlight pole in place of the
removed streetlight pole or within 5 feet of the removed streetlight pole and shall be responsible
for the energy consumed by its luminaire.
Traffic Signal Poles
SCFs may be installed on CDOT-owned and City-owned traffic signal poles. This assumes that
the traffic signal pole is not expected to be used for emergency communications or tolling
equipment. No SCF shall be attached to any existing traffic signal pole unless the existing traffic
signal pole was specifically designed to support SCF equipment or is approved by a licensed
Colorado Professional Engineer. In all other cases, the traffic signal pole and mast arm shall
be replaced with a traffic signal pole and mast arm designed to accommodate the SCF
equipment in addition to the required traffic signal and street light equipment. An applicant may
be limited to one traffic signal pole within 300 feet. For example, at a signalized intersection
there are generally 4 signal poles. A single applicant may be approved for only 1 of the 4 signal
poles. Other applicants may be approved for the other poles. Span wire designs are not
permitted without the specific approval of the city engineer in writing.
New Poles
If a replacement pole design is not possible, then a new wireless support structure shall be
designed to minimize the visual and aesthetic impact of the new vertical element and associated
SCFs upon the surrounding area and shall blend in with the surrounding streetscape with
minimal visual impact. The City requires that new wireless support structures to be constructed
of a specific material that will enhance the stealth and concealment of the structure. New poles
shall be designed as monopoles, consistent with the pole designs concepts specified by the
City.
12
Wireless Communications Infrastructure
Design Guidelines Recommendations
DRAFT 6 | P a g e
Related Accessory Equipment
All equipment related to small cell facilities shall be located within the facility’s pole structure or
in an underground vault. Beyond the antenna, related shroud, and luminaire, no equipment may
be attached to the exterior of the pole.
NIER Reporting Requirements
Certification of compliance with applicable FCC regulations, which includes a non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation (NIER) report for the WCF equipment type and model endorsed by a
radiofrequency engineer licensed in the State of Colorado, including a certification that the WCF
complies with all radiation and electromagnetic standards. The report shall specify approach
distances to the general public and occupational workers at the ground and antenna centerline
levels. The report shall include instructions regarding powering off the equipment or contact
information for a person who can power off the equipment. No significant changes to the power,
location, RF emission patterns and/or emitting frequencies may be made without prior
notification and approval. However, non-substantive changes, for example, in-kind
replacements of transmitters of the same frequency, radiation patterns and power are permitted.
The city retains the right to independently verify the RF patterns as installed.
Public Safety
The wireless provider shall comply with all applicable FCC, state, and local codes, provisions, or
regulations that concern public safety. WCFs must not result in human exposure to radio
frequency radiation in excess of applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR Rule
1.1307(b), or as specifically amended by the FCC. After transmitter and antenna system
optimization, but prior to unattended operations of the facility, the wireless provider or its
representative must conduct on-site post-installation RF emissions testing to demonstrate actual
compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety rules for general
population/uncontrolled RF exposure in all sectors. For this testing, the transmitter shall be
operating at maximum operating power, and the testing shall occur outwards to a distance
where the RF emissions no longer exceed the uncontrolled/general population limit. The
wireless provider shall submit documentation of this testing to the City within ninety (90) days
after installation of the facility. RF emissions testing shall be conducted annually.
Notice Requirements – at complete application
At the issuance of a completeness letter for an application for a new SCF installation, the
following procedures for public notice will be followed by the applicant:
Within 15 days of the completeness letter being issued, the following notice materials are
required:
1) A 24x36 poster will be placed at the location of the proposed facility. The poster will
include the following information:
• A photo simulation of the proposed facility.
• A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal that is emitting
from the facility
• Contact information for the applicant.
• Contact information for city staff.
2) A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The
mailed notice will include the information required by the on-site poster – and shall
additionally include text that better explains what a SCF is.
13
Wireless Communications Infrastructure
Design Guidelines Recommendations
DRAFT 7 | P a g e
3) Newspaper Notice – City of Aspen Community Development will facilitate.
4) Location information shall be provided so that City of Aspen GIS can update the
location in a layer on Map Aspen identifying Existing and Pending Wireless facilities
City of Aspen Community Development Department will assist the applicant in the provision of
notice. Any delays in the provision of necessary materials for public notice by the applicant will
result in a hard stop on the shot clock tolling. All costs associated with the issuance of public
notice shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
14
EXHIBIT B – Summary of Public Outreach Efforts – Page 1 of 4
Communications
+Press release about small group workshops
+Press release about Feedback Forum (event at the Limelight)
+Paid advertisements on Facebook throughout the workshop period and
Feedback Forum
+Advertisements in Aspen Daily News and Aspen Times
(November 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,12, 19, 21)
+Aspen Daily News articles – November 12, 2019 and November 27, 2019
+Aspen Public Radio stories – November 10, 2019 and December 19, 2019
+Aspen Community Voice – information and portal to receive comments
+Social Media posts November 1, 4 ,5, 26, December 2
Events
+Tabling at Aspen Saturday Market
+Project introduction meetings with: ACRA, CCLC, P&Z, HPC
+Discussion sessions with staff representatives of Town of Basalt, Town of
Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County
+Small group forums/workshops (1 hour – 1.5 hours each) a total of 8 sessions
Held at APD, Redbrick, and City Hall November 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 (2 sessions),
13, and 21 (total of 8 sessions)
+Feedback Forum – Limelight – December 4 – 11a - 1p and 4:30p - 6:30p
While the number of attendees at the small group forums was modest, staff had very
good conversations with members of the community who have been most concerned
about potential health impacts of the new technology. Additionally, we received useful
feedback on the individual elements of the design guidelines. Moving forward, staff
sees this tool as having great potential with other community discussions.
15
EXHIBIT B – Summary of Public Outreach Efforts – Page 2 of 4
P&Z and HPC comments
Two primary comments emerged from discussions with P&Z and HPC. First, HPC was
particularly concerned about potential visual impacts to Main Street and the Commercial
Core Historic Districts. They recommended that staff identify alleyways as a preferred
location for small cell facilities. Secondly, both boards asked questions related to the
design of the luminaires (street lights) that will be attached to small cell poles. While staff
agrees that both topics likely need further discussion and study, staff recommends that
for the time being, the proposed location and street light design guidelines be adopted as
presented.
Summary of Public Comments – primarily from small group forums and Limelight
event
Question:
Do you support additional wireless facilities in Aspen if they would improve coverage /
service / speed of your wireless devices?
Responses:
• Don’t have a choice so yes.
• “they’re already here, just a different way of delivering the service”
• A lot more street lights – density makes it different in telecommunication
• Impossible to ignore pace of technology
• “necessary evil”
• Make it happen in a responsible way
• If aspen gets driverless vehicles, I am all for it. If only for the internet, then no
• Need to take case of customers
• Need guaranteed emergency contact
• Make parameter box too hard
• 1) health/safety, 2) aesthetics, 3) how tech we need?
• Not to lose “Aspen aesthetics” and turn to suburban America
• Nice to have better coverage but not at a cost
• Tourists have expectations to be up to date
• Big events cause interruption in service
• Concerned about density
• Service seems fine now, so no support to more
• “I’m fine with my cell service right now.” (i.e., as it is)
• “Speed is important for my work with video surveillance cameras, but overall health is
more important than everything else.”
• Do not support yet
• Need a case where it was worth it
• Do I need to download a movie super fast? No.
• Horrified, could care less about speed. Concerned about health and items in front of
house. Aspen worked hard not to have things in way, open to petitioning this off.
16
EXHIBIT B – Summary of Public Outreach Efforts – Page 3 of 4
• Not important if improved. Can see how this might benefit others for example the
hospital.
• On both sides. No one asked us if we want it and health is a concern. 82% of people
interact with Parks on cell phones, affluent town and computer savvy, people on calls
are driving this endless no frontier. Don’t think we have a choice, mitigate best we can.
Think more yea the nay people
• Work on mitigation and carrier control. Quality of life feelings affected, being invaded.
Doesn’t feel right.
• “No, I don’t support additional small cell facilities due to aesthetic and health concerns”
• “ “No, I will use WiFi or a wired/fiber connection if I need better broadband”
• “I don’t care what it looks like. I don’t want it in my neighborhood.”
• No don’t care about improved service
• Put aside a fund to fight and lobby
• Aspen hasn’t done anything about it like other communities have
• Towers in China with face recognition. We should just say NO
• Make the best of this non-great situation
• No – 13 separate responses
• It’s fine for now but can it handle more growth? That’s intangible.
• Mine is working fine now
• It is fine now
• Absolutely not!
Question:
If health is your primary concern with small cell facilities, please discuss with your group
the issues that concern you the most and why?
Responses:
• A lot like politics, liars don’t figures….done tests with rats when you go to health side you
get fear (microwave oven/ atomic bombs), cherry picking of information, not enough
research
• Nick DeWolf – people next to tower freak out, they say sun is worse, 5G is same as
pickled vegetables, undusted concerns but not overly, believe concerns if can.
• Lack of data on knowing what impacts might be
• FCC isn’t commissioning studies – frustrating
• Lobby federal gov. to do studies
• Equating federal gov. to big tobacco “this is fine”
• Not enough info yet
• Shouldn’t be moving forward until there is more info
• Failure to have info is suspicious
• Work with the state for info
• If there is enough community will, maybe companies wouldn’t want the negative publicity
• Frustrated by the lack of control
• “Tower density and potential health impacts”
• “Get more providers on each pole/tower, multiple carriers and competition will result in
better service”
17
EXHIBIT B – Summary of Public Outreach Efforts – Page 4 of 4
• The failure of having reliable health information is concerning
• I heard there are potential risks to health. So hold off if we can?
• I would like council to work with state
• How long can we delay this?
• I would like more information mater about health
• There is not enough information regarding health
• There is a good and a bad side. Do you want to give the tourist business to Vail because
you don’t have high speed internet?
• Push back in Europe
• I am a healthcare provider, read about studies but there are major health concerns.
Maybe not anything we can do
• Maybe a mass petition, but aren’t confident it’s going to happen
• Money is too large to change
• GMO is example to look at
• Support council to lobby against
• “Yes, because the radio frequency engineers are concerned with being in close
proximity to these facilities”
• Yes, health concerns, closer proximity of facilities and use of new RF bands (e.g.
millimeter wave)”
• “Aesthetics are important but health effects are my primary concern”
• Seriously concerned about how bad health impacts are
• Get safety study first
• “Health above all”
• “Who doesn’t want faster service? But who wants cancer, brain disease, other health
impacts?”
• Huge health risk
• Need to educate people
• Huge concerns, there are no safety studies! We do not want to be guinea pigs
• I have no technology. Please do not contaminate my world outside my door! This can
not be safe! Do I have to move out of these cell towers?
• Absolutely a concern due to higher levels of radiation proven unsafe. All of Europe is
fighting it. Why should we accept it?
• Concerns appears to be emerging through zero studies on health but legitimate issues.
• Please, please consider the long-term health impacts of radiation exposure. I don’t carry
a cell phone everywhere exactly for this concern.
• Yes, a concern, so wait.
• It’s our main concern in the health of the community, children and grandchildren.
• Not a concern
• Limit to extent possible near homes and schools
• A concern since no real data suggests it’s safe after long term exposure
• Put down your cell phone
• Huge concern- stop- delay
• New poles are a clutter. Use existing vertical segments
• Let’s get real health data – until then, wait
• Please wait. Bad for people and animals
• 5G at close proximity is more like a microwave not a radiowave
18