City Council
Feb 10, 2020 7:00 pm

Item 11 - Ordinance O-2020-3 Amending Certain Provisions of Title 14 of the Lakewood Municipal Code to Authorize Temporary Shelters in Places of Religious Worship
0
CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2020 - Ordinance O-2020-1 Amending Lakewood Municipal Code Title 12, and Article 10 of Title 17, to Reflect Changes in State and Federal Law Relating to Wireless Services and Communications
4
CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2020 - Resolution 2020-9 Establishing Certain Fees for Placement of Wireless Carrier or Small Cell Facilities Within City of Lakewood Public Way
0
Pending Decision

CONTINUED TO APRIL 27, 2020 - Ordinance O-2020-1 Amending Lakewood Municipal Code Title 12, and Article 10 of Title 17, to Reflect Changes in State and Federal Law Relating to Wireless Services and Communications

Videos

Applicant Presentation

Staff Presentation

Files

Staff Memo ( 0.12 MB )
Ordinance O-2020-1 ( 0.07 MB )
Title 12 Redlined ( 0.23 MB )
Article 10 Redlined ( 0.33 MB )
Rood Mounted Antennas Alternate Language ( 0.01 MB )

Comments & Feedback

Comments
 

Dear Mayor and City Councilors,

I want you to know that there are things other towns and cities are doing to push back in regard to small cell.  An example of what was done in a village in Illinois is linked here: http://www.wsprings.com/DocumentCenter/View/6788/Crown-Castle---Application-1---Village-Response-12-26-19. As a result of the detailed requirements outlined in the letter from the Village of Western Springs, the application was withdrawn. A similar approach could be adopted by the City of Lakewood.

01/25/2020 7:27 pm
Carol Baum
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

These comments are for the agenda of the retreat this Saturday, February 1, 2020.

There was some effort to do a parking management study last fall by Counselor Skilling and others. I have not heard anything since.

Most higher density apartment and condo buildings do not have enough parking. Example: West Line Flats, Sunpointe etc. Parking is free on city streets. The result is parking overflow into single family neighborhoods. Currently the single family neighborhood has no recourse to prevent the 40-50 cars from clogging the streets. The benefits of neighborhood watch are not possible since one cannot identify the strange cars parked on the street every night.

The city has studied a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program for many years. Other cities have already introduced these permits with success. The enforcement can be done by the affected neighborhood. The cost can be paid for by fines and to charges for issuing the permit. With the building of more multi family communities with inadequate on site parking, the problems are getting worse with the adjoining neighborhoods being helpless.

I would encourage the City Council to put this on the agenda February 1, 2020 requesting an update to the Parking Management Plan.

Charlie Oleson
Emjay Paulsen
1888 S Lamar Ct.
Lakewood, CO 80232

01/28/2020 10:30 am
Charles Oleson
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

After listening to Ken Feldman on Lakewood Speaks, everyone should be asking themselves this question, "WHEN DID WE ALL BECOME SO IRRELEVANT"? Industry and the FCC would want you to believe, (and rightly so since they did the rule making), that there is absolutely nothing you, as citizen legislators, and we, the citizens of our cities and towns can do to decide HOW WE CHOOSE TO LIVE with regards to this technology--the only thing they've left you to decide and weigh in on is SITING and Attachment FEES -which is the least of our worries.**( Rather like a doctor who is more worried about how a cast looks on your arm rather then the broken bones below) Council might as well go home and let Industry do as they wish..Even if Council could find some way to say NO to the federal Bullying and postpone in order to allow them time to truly assess the enormity of this technology and its impact on it city and citizens, it would be seen as a failure to comply and deemed APPROVED!! When Mr Feldman talked about Shot Clock he might as well have accidentally said shot gun--because THAT is what is being held to our heads regarding the implementation and roll out of 5g. Mr Feldman noted that he and Staff met with Industry numerous times to come up with something ACCEPTABLE to INDUSTRY. What about the citizens- Who is asking the question what is acceptable to us,HOW DO WE WANT TO LIVE? Well, 1,000's of citizens, city leaders, doctors, scientists, senators and others in Congress have and are asking this question. Mr. Feldman noted that FCC standards have not been updated for years and that more research is necessary. He's correct. That is why in Feb of 2019 during a Senate Commerce Hearing, Senator Blumenthal blasted the FCC and the FDA for failing to conduct any research into the safety of 5g and instead where engaging in bureaucratic finger-pointing and deferring to industry. During an exchange he had with wireless representatives, he asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G and the industry rep's conceded THEY HAVE NOT. At the end of the exchange, he concluded "So, there really is no research ongoing. We're kind of flying blind here, as far as health safety is concerned". (you can find the full video on the gov'ts website dated feb 7 2019 "senate commerce hearing Blumental raises concerns on 5g....") There are dozens and dozens of ongoing lawsuits as I write this, not just about health safety, but also regarding fee structure and how they may adversely affect the city-Not only do you, our city get little to say in this, but we're practically subsidizing Industry. ** When I mentioned that siting and fees are at the least of our worries, there are also GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT CYBERSECURITY relative to 5g. It was pointed out in a Brookings institute article, (which by the way was co-written by FORMER FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler) that 5G EXPANDS CYBER RISKS - it goes in length to explain why - to that regard, S893, The Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2019 report on 12/19/2019 was submitted to Congress - the purpose of the bill is to require THE PRESIDENT to develop a strategy to ensue the security of 5G - he's yet to provide any. Then we have weather forecasting concerns: In a Letter dated May 13 2019 to FCC from Ranking Members Ron Wyden and Maria Cantwell it begins with "we write with a straight-forward request: Don't allow wireless companies to operate in a 24GHz band until vital weather forecasting operations are protected" That's yet to be done. The point I make to all of this can be best said in the Brooking Article by former FCC chair Tom Wheeler "the race to 5G is on and America must win" Pres Trump said....For political purposes that "race" has been defined as which nation gets 5g built first. IT IS THE WRONG MEASUREMENT...borrowing on a philosophy of Admiral Burke in world war II: speed is important, but speed without a good targeting solution can be disastrous......"

You, our Council members are put in an almost impossible situation. However, when it comes to bullying (as is happening here with Industry and Washington) my saying is that sometimes you have to TAKE A STAND and punch a bully in the nose! I'd ask that every one on council do all that you can do to understand all the ramifications, and to allow your citizens to weigh in on this - there are 1,000's of us in your city who would be happy to take a stand with you. There are dozens of other cities that are banning together to sue the FCC over these regulations" Isn't it time we find a way to put us, the citizens first and Industry last - shouldn't we have the rights to decide how we live?

01/31/2020 3:05 pm
Diana Losacco
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

I understand that placement of 5G-capable "small cell" facilities must be more dense than previous technologies, and in the City's very limited authority to regulate them, the City prefers when possible these cells be installed on boundary lines between properties to minimize the visual intrusion. There will be numerous property owners affected.

I don't understand how the placement gets done - does the wireless company get an agreement from the property owner(s), or do wireless companies get to place these things at will? If I'm consulted by the company and agree but the neighboring property owner does not, what happens? Does the facility get placed smack in front of my property?

I see some consideration for trees - a mention of protection for mature ones. The cell must be 15 feet from any trees. What are the implications for property owners who wish to plant trees on their own property? Is there a "protected-zone" radius from the cell where if any existing or new trees eventually grow big enough to infringe onto that 15' radius, the wireless company has the right to come whack off parts of the tree as they wish? That would mean property rights are curtailed far more than a 15' circle around the cell. A beautiful young specimen could be totally disfigured, just as Xcel has pruned off entire sides and tops of trees to protect their lines. When property owners are pressed to agree to cell placement (in case we're even asked!), will they understand the full implications and what it might mean to the rights of their neighbors?

02/04/2020 12:27 pm
Denise M. Luepschen
4 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Ask City Staff a Question

Cancel

Ask Applicant a Question

Cancel

Staff Responses

No staff responses yet...
You have subscribed for updates with email address: {{ subscribedEmail }}

Your Question has been submitted.