Wireless facility code amendments

Urged rejection of the wireless amendments, saying they gut concealment and mock-up requirements and would allow small cell facilities every 251 feet with only ministerial review.

A lifelong resident and realtor credited the current mock-up and notification requirements for resolving a Crown Castle dispute at his home and warned removing them invites industrial blight.

Said the amendments authorize visual blight by right, warned of mechanical hum near homes, questioned whether coverage gaps exist, and asked for independent verification of carrier data.

An emergency medicine physician cited visual blight, property values, and RF/EMF exposure concerns — especially for children — and asked that equipment be placed in underground vaults.

A resident since incorporation, she opposed allowing more towers with less oversight and asked the council not to bypass public review by changing technical definitions.

A resident since 1963 with a cell site in front of his home, he described equipment larger than promised, constant fan noise, and RF fears, and implored the council to reject the amendments.

Supported 5G for emergency services but urged underground installation, noting neighborhoods without buried utilities would bear additional above-ground boxes.

A 26-year resident who said for-profit carriers have no incentive to protect the city's character and urged the council to keep local control.

AT&T's representative said the city had removed burdensome requirements, but flagged remaining concerns: definitions must track federal law, coverage maps are unlawful for eligible facility requests, and location limits could be deemed prohibitions.