Item 4 - Small Cell

Item 4 - Presentation/Discussion - Small Cell

Videos

Live Public Hearing

Files

Staff Memo ( 0.32 MB )
Ordinance O-2020-1 ( 0.11 MB )
Roof Mounted Antennas Alternate Language ( 0.01 MB )
Title 12 Redlined ( 0.8 MB )
Article 10 Redlined ( 1.06 MB )
REVISED-Document 1 - Clean Document with Lakewood Broadband and Gutwein add ATT ....pdf ( 0.98 MB )
Document 2 - Lakewood Broadband Edits ( 1.28 MB )
Document 3 - Council Member Gutwein Edits ( 0.01 MB )
Document 4 - ATT Comment Letter ( 0.47 MB )
Document 5 - Combined Edits ( 1.3 MB )
ADDED-Document 6 - Additional Lakewood Broadband Edits.pdf ( 1.9 MB )
Resolution 2020-9 Small Cell Permit Fee Staff Memo ( 0.29 MB )
Resolution 2020-9 Small Cell Permit Fee ( 0.01 MB )

Comments & Feedback

Comments
 
This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.

Successful challenge carriers on the size and shape of the 5G cells.
In a legal challenge to the FCC’s current rules undertaken by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, the D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled against the FCC, asserting, among other things, that 5G “small cells” aren’t nearly as small as advertised.
In its brief, the industry has said these new antennas are only as big as a pizza box, and that in other respects they are comparable to home Wi-Fi routers. But the court said that, especially when they sit atop newly installed towers, they are in fact big and obtrusive enough that they require a review of their environmental impact, and that they are subject to historic-preservation rules.
“Even if only 20% of small cells required new construction, as one wireless company estimates and the FCC highlights in its brief…that could entail as many as 160,000 densely spaced 50-foot towers,” writes the court.

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. FCC, No. 18-1129 (D.C. Cir. 2019)United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. FCC, No. 18-1129 (D.C. Cir. 2019)

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/18-1129/18-1129-2019-08-09.pdf?ts=1565362829

07/06/2020 12:00 pm
Jim Kinney
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Thank you for the difficult work you have done - and will continue to do - to protect our city and its residents by adopting the most favorable Small Cell Ordinance language. I would like to remind the Mayor and Council that your first and foremost obligation is to the well-being of the constituents who elected you to represent us. I am disappointed that comments were solicited from the wireless industry in 2019 - long before residents were informed that Ordinance revisions were on the horizon. Please work to remedy this inequity as you prepare to vote on the new Ordinance.

Linnea Hauser
15103 W Harvard Cir

07/06/2020 11:59 am
Linnea Hauser
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Regarding Diana Losaco's quote from Dr. Manville, regulators are familiar with his work and have considered it. The issue is that his methods don't adequately isolate 5G radio emissions - mid-band and mmWave - from all the other things that harm birds, such as loss of habitat and the decline of insect and vermin populations.

He's also inclined to rash statements, such as "the military has already developed classified technologies (e.g., crowd-dispersing and anti-terrorism devices to break up gathered groups) and done classified studies on impacts from 5G which are not available to the public."

DoD has developed a crowd control system called Active Denial System or ADS. It uses very high power level to bounce EMFs off human skin, creating the feeling of being in fire without doing any actual tissue damage. ADS uses a 95 GHz signal. two to three times higher than mmWave 5G.

This is actually a strange topic to bring up because ADS is neither harmful nor similar to 5G in any genuine sense.

07/06/2020 11:58 am
Richard Bennett
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Citizens all over the country are objecting to 5G expansion into their neighborhoods! Lawyers expect a plethora of lawsuits from citizens especially when cell towers are erected in close proximity to their homes. That is why Larimer County adopted pole spacing distances of 1,000 feet and setbacks of 250 feet from residences in their code. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, design standards and aesthetic code provisions are legal under the City’s police powers! Our state law (HB 17-1193) also recognizes the “police powers” of cities to protect the safety of residents and the aesthetics and property values of our City.

In addition, the FCC delegates oversight of the operations of wireless facilities to cities. Why do FCC emission limits exist unless they can be enforced? Ongoing unannounced emission testing can be ordered by the City, and delegated to an outside independent certified RF engineer. If wireless facilities are determined to be out of compliance with FCC limits for 24/7 General Population exposure (which occurs 60-80 percent of the time according to experts with knowledge), the City can fine the wireless operator, which will be a tremendous source of revenue for the City of Lakewood!!!

Several issues regarding wireless “small cells” (future 5G installations) are pertinent and concerning:

1) Sustainability- Tremendous drain on our energy use (10-20 times higher energy use than fiber optic). Densification of small cells will cause an escalation in energy use. How will Lakewood meet its mission of Energy Sustainability by 2024 with 5G?

2) Protection of Property Values versus Loss of Revenue for Lakewood. Council Members have a duty to protect residents’s property values under your oath of office and your police powers. In addition, the National Building Act gives you this authority!! A survey by Realtor Magazine states a nearby cell tower or small cell pole can decrease property values by 20% and even render homes unsaleable! 94% of home buyers would pay less for a home near a cell tower or antenna and 79% of survey respondents said they would never purchase or rent near a cell tower! Expansion of small cells into Lakewood neighborhoods could cause an exodus and loss of revenue.

3) Safety-Worker safety and 24/7 exposure for residents. 5G is an untested technology. Workers and firemen in close proximity to wireless facilities have experienced headaches, insomnia, and difficulty concentrating. Andrew Campanelli knew a cell tower worker in his twenties who experienced a rare cancer and we have two examples in our group. Sharon Goldberg, an MD, testified about RFR effects on increasing chronic and autoimmune diseases. Radiofrequency radiation (though non-ionizing) can cause heart arrhythmias and damage medical devices, such as pacemakers. Liability insurance without pollution exclusion must be required to cover losses or death from ice and debris fall, fires from lightning strikes, and possible wind damage in addition to negative health results.

4) Security- 5G and other wireless connections have an “Achilles heel”- they can be easily blacked into. (See Zuboff’s book) This is why many of the largest companies in Lakewood (esp those using medical or financial data) use fiber optic internet instead of wireless! Congress is concerned too.

Thank you for your consideration of these important issues and citizen amendments!!! Citizens implore you to consider their welfare and that of Lakewood, rather than just the comments from representatives of the wireless carriers and site developers. Please note the ONLY remedy they wireless companies can get is a permit. You as our City Council retain “police powers” over safety and aesthetics under both state and federal law.

Sincerely,
Lynn Judson

07/06/2020 11:56 am
Lynn E. Judson
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

As council begins the hard work of drafting the final version of the ordinance surrounding 5G wireless deployment, I want to thank Council ahead of time for doing all they can to write the most PROTECTIVE citizen and city ordinance. As you work through the ordinance to apply protective provisions for your citizens, communication workers, and our beautiful city, I would like to speak up for a voice that always seems to get left out of this discussion and who also needs protections. That is Nature! And, how our love of all things electronic and in particular to the issue surrounding wireless effects her. Nature and ecosystems have the right to exist, thrive, and evolve. Nature should be able to defend its rights in court, just like people can, but that doesn't exist YET. I forward to you just a small part of statement made to the FCC this past month by Dr. Manville from John Hopkins : Comments Submitted for the Record Re: 19-226, June 3, 2020 To Whom It May Concern at the Federal Communications Commission: As the Federal agency lead from 1997 to 2014 — when I retired from the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service — on all things human impacting migratory birds, I led my agency by responding to impacts from radiation to migratory birds and other wildlife. This included testimony I presented to the FCC, comments I presented at scientific and technical conferences, comments at meetings with industry groups (e.g., I chaired the Communication Tower Working Group on behalf of USFWS), publication of peer-reviewed scientific papers and a wildlife book chapter, technical comments provided from the Department of Interior to the Department of Commerce on radiation and NEPA, and comments presented on behalf of USFWS in PowerPoints, among others. Now as a private wildlife consultant and part-time adjunct professor for Johns Hopkins University, I also continue to study the impacts of radiation on human health, welfare and safety, including impacts from millimeter-wide radiation frequencies on humans from 5G. The race to implement 5G and the push by FCC to approve the related 5G license frequencies to industry are very troubling and downright dangerous. As the coauthor of a pending peer-reviewed scientific paper on impacts from non-ionizing radiation on flora and fauna, frankly we still know very little about the safety and other impacts from 5G, although the military has already developed classified technologies (e.g., crowd-dispersing and anti-terrorism devices to break up gathered groups) and done classified studies on impacts from 5G which are not available to the public. Safety testing of the impacts of 5G has clearly been neglected, most certainly by the FCC.

You can find the entire brief to the FCC here: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1060315601199?fbclid=IwAR07JVdxvxUog0Be0kCxPsvVvUcm91zdGGnVVgvywtl-zUgKdAM5e2ROFKo

07/06/2020 11:41 am
Diana Losacco
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Adding the High Tech Forum post on our podcast with FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson on challenges to FCC authority first articulated in 1934:

"COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
AN ACT To provide for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and
radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide,
and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable
charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more
effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several
agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire
and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal
Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall
execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."

A recent submission to the Council by Judson's and Baum's attorney, anticelltowerlawyers.com, questions the FCC's authority to "execute and enforce the provisions of this Act;" it cannot be taken seriously.

The High Tech Forum post includes information about EMF emission standards expressed by IEEE Standards Association, FDA, FCC, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. It also links to both the audio and video formats of the podcast: "Attack of the 5G Truthers!", https://hightechforum.org/attack-of-the-5g-truthers/

I'd also like to recommend a useful guide for distinguishing good science from bad, "Health effects of
radiofrequency electromagnetic energy" by Mark Elwood and Andrew W Wood. Wood is a lead contributor to ICNIRP, and performs 5G safety studies as part of his job as Professor of Biophysics, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. https://hightechforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Andrew-Wood-overview-NZMJ-1501-FINAL.pdf.

07/05/2020 5:26 pm
Richard Bennett
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Attached find suggested edits to clean copy without Baum/Judson redline.

07/04/2020 1:14 pm
Richard Bennett
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Attached find comments on improving cell service, power consumption, EMF emissions, and aesthetically-pleasing designs for small cells.

07/03/2020 8:59 pm
Richard Bennett
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

I'd like to share a video podcast I recorded this week with Thomas Johnson, Chief Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Johnson published at op-ed in the Washington Post on June 4th titled "5G conspiracy theories threaten the U.S. recovery." This op-ed explains the FCC's position on the importance of 5G to the economic recovery following the pandemic.
.
Our video podcast explores the nature and motivation of the 5G Truther Movement represented in Lakewood by a group calling itself the "Lakewood Broadband Alliance." I explained LBA's activity around delaying the rollout of the small cells that are critical to the success of 5G, and he explained to me the FCC's position and involvement with 5G Truthers in the cities where they have a presence.
.
The podcast, titled "Attack of the 5G Truthers!" is available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v-IV1DM-pw
.
It is also on Facebook at the High Tech Forum page: https://www.facebook.com/hightechforum/
.
It will be good for the council to know how the FCC views the need for cities to work with wireless network operators in a positive, constructive, and lawful manner.

06/28/2020 1:44 pm
Richard Bennett
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Your Question has been submitted.