Approved

Small Cell

Item 11 - Continued 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

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 )
Document 1 - Clean Document with Lakewood Broadband and Gutwein Edits add ATT. ( 0.98 MB )
Document 1 - REVISED - Clean Document with Combined Edits from City Council ( 1.06 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 )
Document 6 - Additional Lakewood Broadband Edits ( 1.9 MB )
Small Cell Design Manual ( 1.41 MB )

Comments & Feedback

Comments
 

I am a lifelong Jeffco resident and resident of Lakewood. While I don’t know much about the small cell issue - way far above my head - I encourage you to explore the technology and available evidence through subject matter experts and community commentary and make a well thought out, evidence based decisions. That’s all I can expect you to do. Rumor, gut instincts, conspiracy theories have no place. However, I also ask you to follow the money as well and make sure profiteers are not over pushing this idea without thoroughly vetting the safety of the technology. Thank you! Victoria Liebman

07/20/2020 8:34 am
Victoria Liebman
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Hello City Council comment board.
I appreciate this forum being available to the public.
As a fan of both history and science fiction I a generally pretty fearful of new technology. The Romans thought lead was pretty great and the company that sent the Alien crew into space like seven times also meant well I'm sure. I admit the thought of 5g can be daunting, especially distinguishing fact from fiction in online reading so readily available and seemingly all being pushed by folks with a profitable agenda in mind. The indisputable fact here is that the technology in question is already tested and proven safe in the same exact scenario we are looking into using and we desperately need it. My kids, as with many of yours I am sure, noticed the dump in Lakewood's Internet quality when so many of us were forced to work and school from home during this year's Covid epidemic. We need to do everything we can as a town to be ready should a similar series of events transpire again. I support the addition of this technology to our town. I believe anyone with a sensible view and the curiosity to look into the technology itself would vehemently agree. I can empathize with the folks who don't trust it, I'm naturally skiddish myself. The tech they're talking here however is not some crazy new alien thing, it's a more efficient and elegantly run version of what we use already.
Thank you again to those who provide and maintain this forum.
You are appreciated.
Thank you also to everyone who took the time to read.

07/20/2020 12:11 am
Richard Baker
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Small Cell Ordinance:Dear Councilors,

I read the proposed Wireless Ordinance draft to be voted on this at this City Council meeting Monday night.

Why isn't there any requirement for the telecom industry to give notice when a facility is to be placed near one's home or business?

Examples: Denver, Ft. Collins and Aspen require notice to citizens...Are Lakewood residents not deserving installation notice for these facilities?

Best regards,

Francis Sincere
Ward 1
Lakewood CO
PS. See page 11 of attached Aspen City Ordinance re: NOTICE

07/24/2020 11:12 am
Francis Sincere
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Small Cell Ordinance Proposal...Lakewood can and should impose a moratorium on deployment in their local area and freeze the permit process until the COVID-19 emergency is over per FCC and Homeland Security regulations

What's the rush for a vote on this complex ordinance while we still have so many unresolved issues and questions posed by Councilors and citizens? We and other cities are in the midsts of a national COVID 19 emergency. The so called FCC "Shot Clock" does not apply under these circumstances. We need to consider all questions now in play with this ordinance before a vote is taken this Monday, July 27.

TO WIT: The FCC wireless permit rules allow emergency moratoria. Homeland Security guidelines emphasize that maintenance ofexisting communications capability is the priority. But new construction is not “essential.”

The FCC has directly held a local jurisdiction can impose a temporary halt to deployment and permits during emergencies. In the Matter of Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers, FCC 18-111, 33 FCC Rcd 7705, 7784-7785, ¶157 (2018) (“We recognize that there may be limited situations in the case of a natural disaster or other comparable emergency where an express or de facto moratoria that violates section 253(a) may nonetheless be ‘necessary’ to ‘protect the public safety and welfare’ or to ‘ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services.’”)

Homeland Security has declared that local government is on the forefront and can take control over determining whether to temporarily halt all non-essential activity. Homeland Security guidance documents prioritize maintenance of existing Communications Systems, and do not support “essential” status for new construction. See Homeland Security Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Identifying Critical Infrastructure During COVID-19, https://www.cisa.gov/identifying-critical-infrastructure-during-covid-19 (local control); e-Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Support Annex, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-support-cikr.pdf (focus on “protection, response, recovery, and restoration”). Homeland Security, like the FCC, understands that it is essential in an emergency situations justify focusing on protecting, responding, recovering and restoring of existing systems, but new communications facilities construction is and should be deemed nonessential, and subject to lockdown for so long as we are under emergency conditions.

Best regards,

Fran Sincere
Lakewood CO
303 886 3467

07/26/2020 8:32 am
Francis Sincere
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Record of Testimony from Larimer County Hearing
Small Cell Ordinance, 9/11/2019

Dr. Nola Macdonald, DO
Family Medicine
Integrative Center for Health
Fort Collins, CO

Nola McDonald: I came tonight to inform you of a growing diagnosis in my practice and the practice of other physicians that I know. This condition has appeared more in our office over the last decade and is growing, so much so that there are now professional development courses available for diagnosing and treating this condition. The condition is electro hypersensitivity (EHS). Individuals who suffer from EHS have increased in recent years and the only treatment we currently have for them is to avoid EMF. While some individuals report mild symptoms and react by avoiding the field as best they can, others are so severely affected that they must work elsewhere and change their entire lifestyle. I have patients who cannot serve on juries because the courthouse wireless system is too high. I have patients working from home and I have patients, who their financial lives have devastated on the verge of homelessness trying to mitigate the exposures to EMF. The worst part of the 5G deployment wireless industry is that it is proposed to be everywhere. There will be little chance to get away from it. Your powers of regulation setbacks give hope to person suffering from EHS and for the health of even your own families by setback residences and creating EMF free park zones could be your consideration. The symptoms of EHS can be very debilitating there are extreme fatigue, headaches, migraines, nausea, sleep disturbance,
insomnia, hyperactivity, itchy burning skin, cardiac arrhythmias including tachycardia severe enough to be hospitalized, anxiety, depression, ringing in the ears, numbness in the face and another body parts, inability to concentrate, cognitive issues, memory issues, dry eye and sight problems. Because people suffering with EHS cannot work in an environment with wireless radiation, they are forced to work from home. As more and more public spaces are filled with wireless radiation and high density, they are limited in the places they can go. Movie theaters, concert, and walk in old town has long been off their list of recreational activities. Parks have been a refuge and of course our homes. If you do not make a minimum setback from any residence regardless of zone 1,500 feet and provide a way for public notice or posting on the county website prior to the installation of wireless facility in their neighborhood, the persons most affected, those suffering from EHS will be forced to leave their homes without notice. Even if one is not diagnosed with EHS, the health effects on all of us are cumulative and real. Consider your powers to regulate wireless radiation away from the homes we heal and sleep in.

07/25/2020 10:55 pm
James Kinney
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

County Council Passes Resolution to Stop 5G

By MICHAEL BRESTOVANSKY Hawaii Tribune-Herald | Thursday, July 23, 2020, 12:05 a.m.

The Hawaii County Council resolved Wednesday to forestall any development of 5G infrastructure on the Big Island until the controversial technology is proven to be safe.

After hearing hours of public testimony decrying the supposed health risks of the new cellular network technology, the council voted 8-1 to approve a resolution calling for “telecommunication companies and public utilities operating in Hawaii County” to halt any 5G development until independent research and testing concludes it is safe for humans

______________________________________
County of Hawa’i, State of Hawai’i; Resolution 67820
The following paragraphs are the closing paragraphs of Hawaii County Resolution 67820 reverenced in the Hawaii Tribune Herald article above:
………..
WHEREAS, this new technology uses existing wireless infrastructure and new types of radio-frequency (RF) microwave radiation to transmit large amounts of data, but requires significantly closer proximity to users, resulting in the dense deployment of antennas near residences, schools, and hospitals; and

WHEREAS, the deployment of 5G enabled small cell antennas in our neighborhoods raises serious questions regarding the potential health and environmental impacts of long-term exposure to untested RF microwave radiation frequencies; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission has not conducted any long-term safety testing of new 5G wireless technologies and has failed to update its human RF microwave radiation exposure guidelines since 1996, despite being advised to do so by the U.S. General Accounting Office, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and hundreds of medical and scientific experts from around the world ;and

WHEREAS, telecommunications industry leaders have publicly admitted that they have not conducted any safety tests to determine the possible adverse health and environmental effects from exposure to RF microwave radiation emitted by 5G-enabled small cell antennas; and

WHEREAS, a significant body of published, peer-reviewed, independent science links exposure to RF microwave radiation with serious environmental and biological harm, including increased risk of cancer, reproductive problems, and neurological impairments can be found at https://www.5gerisis.com/scientific-studies; and

WHEREAS, populations especially at risk from this exposure include pregnant women, children, the elderly, and individuals with implanted medical devices, or cardiac or neurological problems; and

WHEREAS, in the 2019 SONAR Emerging Risk Report, which focuses on systematic observation of notions associated with risk, Swiss Re, the second-largest re-insurance company in the world, called 5G a `'high impact" liability risk due to health risk; ;and

WHEREAS, the theory that exposure to RF microwave radiation is harmless, which has been the underlying principle of all federal legislation and regulations regarding wireless technologies for more than twenty years, has now been proven false; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that it calls upon all telecommunications companies and public utilities operating in Hawaii County to cease the buildout of 5G-enabled small cell antennas until such technologies have been proven safe beyond a reasonable doubt through independent research and the public health and welfare can be assured.

07/25/2020 4:38 pm
Jim Kinney
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

I hope when Lakewood City Council makes decisions, they are based on the best information possible and the safety and health of the citizen is the highest priority.

Technology moves at such a fast pace, and whenever something becomes faster, better, stronger, there will always be demands that it become yet more faster, better, stronger. At some point there's a tradeoff between the opportunity to become state-of-the-art and the hidden costs of pursuing it. Humanity has embraced some things (i.e., lead pipes) only to regret long-term effects in hindsight.

As a person with a tendency toward auto-immune diseases, please move cautiously when you make decisions to increase the public's exposure to EMF radiation. Once 5G is set up, it will be the devil to take away. Don't sacrifice citizen health in a race to be the fastest.

07/25/2020 12:50 pm
Denise Luepschen
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

I've already shared this information with council, but I'd like to repeat it for the benefit of Jim, Denise, and Francis who have formed strong views on the small cell issue without reading the science and engineering literature well known to lawmakers and regulators.
.
First, cities don't have the legal authority to regulate 5G or any other essential communication technology. The city is required by state and federal law to approve small cell permit applications that conform the city's lawful process for appearance and location. The state and the nation have decided to make the US a leader in 5G deployment, just as we led the world on 4G. We gained substantial benefits from 4G - mobile apps like Uber and access to services like Netflix, Google, Facebook, and Amazon. We also gained the ability to do things like call an ambulance from a smart watch, a very good thing for seniors like me in case we fall and break a hip outdoors. The enemies of small cells would take this capability away from me and I don't approve of that.
.
5G will not increase the level of RF energy anyone absorbs, it will radically reduce it. We absorb much more energy from personal devices than from towers and small cells. Having a small cell on your lot means your phones and watches don't need to transmit as strong a signal as they do today. Transmission power increases at least at the square of the distance the signal has to travel and a small cell radio has about the same emission level as a WiFi router.
.
None of the measures proposed by the local activist group will have the effect of making networks safer. They will, in fact, require both networks and devices to consume more electric power and to transmit more RF energy. This is the opposite of their stated goal and a reflection of the activists' glaring ignorance of radio engineering. Ofcom, Britain's FCC, audits cellular emissions. Their latest study found that 5G signals measured in the environment are only 2% as strong as 4G signals. 4G itself is only 1.5% of the safe limit in any case.Britain and the US have the same safety guidelines.
.
Green Mountain and other parts of Lakewood have spotty cell service today because large cells don't get the job done in hilly areas. Small cells will fill in the coverage gaps and make us safer.
.
The safety of radio networks has been studied for 100 years and there are 33,000 peer-reviewed studies indexed by EMF Portal alone. While science continues to study the safety questions, regulators in the US, Europe, Australia, Africa, Latin America, and Asia have all concluded that these networks are safe under existing guidelines according to the preponderance of existing evidence.
.
You can learn more about these issues by reading the attached document and by reading the High Tech Forum website, https://hightechforum.org. Don't be a victim of the misinformation spread by under-educated activists scraping the bottom of the barrel for junk science, pseudo-science, and blatant fraud.

07/26/2020 12:20 pm
Richard Bennett
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

A letter to all Lakewood residents and the City Council and Mayor submitted by Dr. Scott Cunningham, MD, a local Integrative Internal Medicine physician, requesting City Council to postpone the vote on the Small Cell Wireless Ordinance scheduled to take place at the Lakewood City Council Meeting scheduled for July 27, 2020 has been delivered to City Councilors.

Dr. Cunningham states, "My purpose in writing this letter is to provide scientific context to the safety issues relevant to the implementation of any wireless telecommunications system so that the Council and Mayor can create a Small Cell Wireless Ordinance that will protect the health of the citizens of Lakewood."

For the benefit of our effort to discuss and update our Wireless Ordinance, Dr. Cunningham has categorized and summarized the results of thousands of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed science and medical journals analyzing the impact of microwave radio frequency radiation on a wide variety of biological systems, including humans. Dr. Cunningham has highlighted a small number of these studies, with summaries written in layman’s terms, along with links to the original articles. What do these scientific studies say about the effects of microwaves on biological systems? The conclusion arrived at by theses thousands of recent scientific and medical studies conducted throughout the world, is that the 5G system has raised adverse biological issues and has, therefore, not been proven safe to deploy at this time. Dr. Cunningham has included summaries and links to the some of the studies in his letter.

Dr. Cunningham concludes at the end of his letter:
"In closing, it is imperative that a pause be placed on the preparation of the Small Cell Wireless Ordinance and that the Study Session be continued until fundamentally adequate precautions can be integrated into the Ordinance.

At minimum, a review of the Ordinance from a technical perspective should be performed by a certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist through the Building Biology Institute such as Riun Ashley, to certify its safety to the public."

Even though Dr. Cunningham’s letter is in .docx file format, Lakewood Speaks will not allow it to be attached to this comment at this time. So please contact your City Council member or the citizen group - Lakewood Broadband, to obtain a copy of the letter.

Thank you.

07/27/2020 12:45 am
James Kinney
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

An Open Letter to Lakewood City Council and Mayor Adam Paul
From: Lakewood Broadband LLC
Re: Please POSTPONE an upcoming vote on 5G Wireless

WHY SHOULD THE VOTE BE POSTPONED?

• The Small Cell Wireless Ordinance is unknown, or only vaguely understood, by the majority of Lakewood residents whose health, data security, and safety it purports to protect. Lack of awareness does not imply approval. Council Members, a vote at this time would be a violation of your duty to hear and address citizen concerns about their health, data security and safety.

• Mayor Adam Paul solicited comments from AT&T in late 2019, long before the community knew that changes to the Wireless Ordinance were being considered. Mr. Paul, This was a violation of your oath of office and a blatant disregard of the rights of Lakewood residents.

• City staff has declined to meet with Lakewood Broadband Task Force members to discuss their ordinance suggestions for the protection of citizens and the city. This begs the question: Is the City’s priority to residents or to the telecommunications industry?

WHY IS FURTHER STUDY OF 5G SMALL CELL WIRELESS PRUDENT BEFORE A WIRELESS ORDINANCE IS APPROVED?

• 5G has not been tested for safety
• Neither the FCC, nor Telecom companies, will certify the safety of 5G - they know they cannot prove it’s safe.
• 5G is neither green nor sustainable; it uses 10 times more energy than fiber optic cable
• 5G is not secure; most banks and government buildings opt for fiber optic cable instead
• 5G causes numerous documented health issues, including EHS (electro-hypersensitivity)
• An estimated 30% of the population suffers from EHS illness, and 6% is disabled by it
• EHS is a protected ADA illness https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/6/1915
• 5G presents safety hazards to telecommunications workers as well as the public due to the possibility of falling ice and debris, collapsing towers and fires.
• 5G installations should carry valid insurance and liability coverage for residents and the city - which the telecom industry is unwilling to provide
• The city must require initial, as well as annual and random, assessments of Radio Frequency emissions before permits can be issued or renewed
• Numerous US cities have recently enacted provisions to limit or halt 5G implementation and to stand up to the baseless threats of the FCC

LAKEWOOD RESIDENTS DESERVE A VOICE IN THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE - PLEASE FACILITATE OPEN, HONEST DIALOG IN ADVANCE OF THE DRAFTING OF A CITIZEN-FRIENDLY SMALL CELL WIRELESS ORDINANCE.

“The greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.”
EMF pioneer and Nobel prize nominee Dr. Robert Becker

07/26/2020 4:17 pm
Linnea Hauser
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Lakewood Broadband Task Force thanks City Council for your efforts to protect residents and the city from harm - and would like to remind you of the 4 key Ordinance provisions that are critical to this goal:

ONE:

17.10.3 Operational Standards
Public Notice Requirement

**To be placed / added in Document 1 – Under Operational Standards 17.10.3 (K,I,J)
K. Notification to Adjacent Property Owners. After an application to allow the installation of a wireless facility subject to the approval of a WCF permit is complete, the Applicant shall provide property owners notice of such installation. Failure of the city to provide notice pursuant to this subsection shall not be grounds to challenge a determination provided that the notice otherwise required by law has been provided.
I. Upon execution of any administrative decision approving or approving with conditions the application and prior to any construction, notice shall be sent by mail of the administrative approval by the Applicant to all property owners within a 1,300-ft radius of the facility, using names and addresses appearing on the latest adopted tax roll of the county. The notifying radius shall be measured from the outer boundary of the subject parcel, or for those facilities in the public right of way, from the outer boundary of the closest parcel adjacent to the subject public right of way site. Notice shall be sent no later than 15 day after such decision has been made by the City.
J. Notice of the administrative approval shall also be made within 15 days of such decision by posting a notice in a publicly visible location on the property in question.

NOTE for Council: The City and Co of Denver has created procedures that will ensure the applicant has notified adjacent property owners at each proposed pole location during the permitting process. Lakewood should require the same procedure. Attached is Denver’s form:

https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/730/documents/ROWServices/Small-Cell-Submittal-checklist-2019.pdf
FREESTANDING, PRIVATELY-OWNED SMALL CELL ANTENNA POLE (SMALL CELLS) ROW PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST- Submittal Form: “notification of new small cell pole location adjacent to your property”
PWES-016.1 Small Cell infrastructure design guidelines. City and County of Denver

TWO:

17.10.4 Review Procedures and Requirements

Insurance Requirement

**To be placed / added in Document 1 – Under 17.10.4.C. Insurance Requirement
C. Insurance Required:
1. The Permittee shall maintain insurance for the Premises during the term of this Permit, issued by a company authorized to transact business in Colorado with a rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger), in at least the following amounts: (i) workers’ compensation insurance providing statutory benefits and employer’s liability insurance in an amount not less the $1 million; (ii) commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than $2 million per occurrence and $4 million general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage; (iii) contractor’s pollution liability insurance, in an amount of no less than $3 million, for contractors or subcontractors performing construction work providing coverage for liability arising out of a sudden, accidental and gradual pollution; and (iv) Pollution legal liability, of no less than $1 million, applicable to bodily injury; property damage, including loss of use of damaged property or of property that has not been physically injured or destroyed; cleanup costs; and defense, including costs and expenses incurred in the investigation, defense, or settlement of claims; all in connection with any loss arising from the Premises. The City (i.e., its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers) shall be named as an additional insured on all insurance policies required by this section.

2. Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

3. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of Colorado, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager.

NOTE for Council: This was taken from the Newport Beach, CA ordinance. Mark Pollock is an environmental lawyer from California. It is a good practice to extend broader insurance requirements to all contractors delivering contracts to the City.

07/27/2020 10:58 am
Linnea Hauser
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Council members - this is page 2 of the key Ordinance provisions submitted by Lakewood Broadband Task Force:

THREE

17.10.4 Review Procedures and Requirements

RF Emission Testing Requirement

**Replace in Document 1 – Under 17.10.4.B. Submittal Requirements (section 1b)

b. Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) Study: For the sole purpose of verifying compliance with the FCC radio frequency emission standards, an emissions report shall be submitted which measures the predicted and actual levels of electromagnetic field radiation emitted by the proposed facility operating alone and in combination with radiation emitted from other existing or approved facilities that can be detected at the proposed facility site. Radiation measurements shall be based on all proposed (applications filed and pending), approved, and existing facilities operating at maximum power densities and frequencies within a minimum 1200-foot radius of the proposed facility. The RFR Study shall identify the following:
(a) the existing and predicted electromagnetic field radiation in table form, specifically delineating both the General Population Exposure and Occupational Exposure
(b) any measures required to comply with the FCC standards for predicted exposure levels
(c) a summary of the conclusions of the report, and
(d) details for any signage, barriers or similar mitigation that is recommended or required.

The RFR Study shall be prepared by a qualified third-party expert. If mitigation is required by FCC radio frequency emission standards, the details for signage, barriers or other physical improvements shall also be included on the project plans prepared for the facility. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to determine the location and power of existing facilities.

**To be placed / added in Document 1 – Under 17.10.4.D. RF Emissions Testing Requirement
D. RF Emissions Testing Requirements.
1. Per Submittal Requirements within this Article, any new facility application or request involving a substantial change to an existing facility will be required to provide a statement of Radio Frequency Radiation Study (RFR) confirming current assessed Radio Frequency (RF) exposure limits if such new WCF or substantial change to an existing WCF increases Radio Frequency from its own facility, or increases Radio Frequency in combination with other facilities.

2. The City reserves the right to require an annual Radio Frequency report to be provided to the Department of Public Works upon request for any facilities subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

3. The City and/or its assigned agents reserve the right to measure, at random, the radio frequency emissions of any facility and to review or revoke any permit under this Article if a wireless cell facility demonstrably increases signal output above the Uncontrolled/General Population Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits imposed by the FCC (47 CFR Sec. 2.1)

4. Any operational or technological changes to an approved WCF that affects the facility’s radio frequency emissions beyond it standard limits shall be reported promptly to the City within 30 days.

Note for Council: as adopted from Larkspur, CO
The FCC sets limits on EDMF emissions to protect the safety and health of residents and to avoid potential adverse health effects caused by overexposure of citizens to RF radiation emanating from a wireless facility. Overexposure can occur when a facility exposes the public to levels of RF radiation that exceed the maximum safe exposure limits adopted by the FCC for "General Population Exposure/Uncontrolled Exposure." (24/7 exposure).

Radiofrequency Radiation (by FCC Definition) is electromagnetic waves with frequencies between 3 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz) FCC OET Bulletin 65, Supplement B.

Federal and state laws both delegate the right to protect the safety of citizens to local municipalities. Many wireless facilities tested have exceeded maximal FCC limits by 1000 percent of more (commonly 600-700% up to 1700%)

07/27/2020 11:05 am
Linnea Hauser
9 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Residential Neighborhood Restriction From Fort Collins:

Municipal Code section 23-174, Preferred Locations:

“To the maximum extent feasible, in all zoning districts, the Preference of the Article shall be that all CFs be located on main corridors and arterials, and NOT on residential streets, unless necessary for network operation.”

07/27/2020 12:00 pm
Lynn E. Judson
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

This is the third and final page key Ordinance provisions proposed by Lakewood Broadband Task Force

FOUR

17.10.5 Design Standards

Setback and Spacing Requirements

**To be placed / added in Document 1 – Under 17.10.5.9 Spacing and Setback Requirements

9. Spacing Standards: No new free-standing small cell facility shall be within 1,200 feet of another free-standing small cell facility in residential zones. These separation requirements do not apply to attachments made to existing alternative tower structures.

a. Setbacks
1. The following minimum setback requirements shall apply to all WCFs except for Alternative Tower Structures in the Right-of-Way; provided however, that the City may reduce standard setback requirements if the Applicant documents a Significant Gap in Service which cannot be remedied by any less intrusive means. Setback requirements shall be measured from the outer boundary of the subject parcel, or for those facilities in the public right of way, from the outer boundary of the closest parcel adjacent to the subject public right of way.
2. Non-Residential Zones: A Tower shall meet the greater of the following minimum setbacks from all property lines;
A. The setback for a principal building within the applicable zoning district; or twenty-five percent (25%) of the facility height, including WCFs and related Accessory Equipment.

3. Residential Zones and Parcels: Any WCFs adjacent to Single Family Residential Uses shall be sited in a manner that evaluates the proximity of the facility relative to residential structures. Unless Applicant demonstrates that there is no other technically feasible alternative, WCFs over 30 feet in height shall have a minimum setback from all adjacent residential property lines of one (1) foot for every foot in height, or a minimum setback of 500-feet from any residential structure’s outer boundary, whichever is greater, unless the Applicant can prove that a shorter distance is necessary to provide service If a shorter distance is necessary, the greatest setback distance that will accommodate service shall be employed.
a. When placed near a residential property, the WCF shall be placed adjacent to the common side yard property line between adjoining residential properties, such that the WCF minimizes visual impacts equitably among adjacent properties.
b. In the case of a corner lot, the WCF may be placed adjacent to the common side property line between adjoining residential properties, or on the corner formed by two intersecting streets.
c. If these siting requirements are not reasonably feasible from a construction, engineering, or design perspective, the applicant may submit a written statement to the Public Works Department requesting the WCF be exempt from these requirements, and offer alternative locations reasonably meeting the intent of this section.
d. WCFs shall not be placed on buildings used principally for residential purposes.

**To be removed in Document 1 – Under 17.10.5 Standards for Approval
A. Setbacks. The following minimum setback requirements shall apply to all WCFs except for Alternative Tower Structures in the Right-of-Way; provided however, that the City may reduce standard setback requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the goals of this Section can be met through Performance Options or through Alternative Compliance, or through a Variance process. A Tower shall meet the greater of the following minimum setbacks from all property lines;
a. The setback for a principal building within the applicable zoning district; or
b. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the facility height, including WCFs and Related Accessory Equipment; or
c. For sites within 100 feet of residential uses, facilities over 30 feet in height shall have a minimum setback from all adjacent residential property lines of one (1) foot for every foot in height.

Note to Council: Larimer County adopted 1000-foot pole spacing (distance between poles) to reduce “pole clutter.” Larimer County adopted setbacks of 250 feet. Larimer County includes the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. It is in the City’s interest to protect aesthetics and residents’ property values. Property taxes are one of the largest sources of revenue for local governments, according to the Urban Institute.
Cell towers and small cell wireless facilities (WCFs) can reduce residential property values by 20% and render properties unsaleable, according to a survey published in Realtor Magazine (cited by Americans for Responsible Technology). Survey results revealed 94% of home buyers would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna, and 79% of respondents would never purchase or rent properties located near a cell tower or antenna.
Other jurisdictions in Colorado, such as Greenwood Village, have also adopted spacing requirements. There has been no legal challenge to these, since the City can exercise their “police powers” over aesthetics and safety, under both state and federal laws, including 17-1193.

17.10.5.A Design Standards

**To be modified / added in Document 1 – Under 17.10.5.A Review Requirements

Delete “provided, however, that the City may waive these requirements if it determines that the goals of this Chapter are better served thereby.” (

Delete: "Notwithstanding the foregoing".

Add after "to be modified": Before this Ordinance becomes effective, a list of titles of every design standard that might be used during performance of any and all activities performed under the requirements of this ordinance will be compiled and submitted to the City Council. At that time the administrator responsible for approving each standard on the list will verify and attest that any use of that standard will comply with all requirements of this Ordinance. At that time Council will provide the City Manager with a list of specific key Ordinance-related standards (i.e. distance between poles, offsets, critical minimum and maximum distances, shroud requirements). The City Manager will state where within the Standards each of these key values is located. City Council will approve these values before the Ordinance becomes effective and Council approval will be required to change any of the values on this list".

Note: The City should never "decide" to disregard requirements established in an ordinance because anyone determines something can be done better if the Ordnance is disregarded.)

07/27/2020 11:08 am
Linnea Hauser
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Fort Collins Municipal Code, section 23-175 provides an example the city’s right to measure emissions:

Radiofrequency Standards:

“All CFs (cell facilities) shall comply with federal standards for RF emissions. An MLA (Master License Agreement) may establish methods to demonstrate compliance with RF (Radiofrequency) emissions standards and require reimbursement by the applicant of reasonable costs incurred by the City to verify such compliance.”

07/27/2020 11:14 am
Linnea Hauser
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

I urge Council to pass a clean ordinance and to commit to updating design standards to reflect learning about radio propagation
The Pandemic has underscored the importance of the connected society, and I believe life will never again be as it was. Small cells are good, making our connections faster, safer, and more secure.
.
People in my business enjoy the thought experiment where we try to imagine what the pandemic would have been like if it had struck before we became a connected society. It’s not a pretty picture.
.
The connected society is chiefly wireless. Even before the pandemic, wireless data volume crossed the threshold, exceeding wireline data by a couple of percent.
.
While the norm for personal computing was once desktop computers on wired networks it’s now smartphones, tablets, and watches. Tech firms have adopted a “mobile first” strategy: Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Uber design for mobile users. Firms aren’t forcing this on us, consumers made it happen.
.
No home buyer ever told a realtor to find them a house with the spotty cell service we have around Green Mountain. While wireless networks are much less costly to deploy than wired ones, they’re not free.
.
And the engineering problem of covering a heavily wooded, hilly area with 4 bar service when you have no tools but far-away towers is practically impossible to solve.
.
With small cells we finally see light at the end of the tunnel. Small cells were not specifically designed for our conditions; their primary purposes are to enable spectrum re-use and to reduce the overall EMF emission load; but they’re also much cheaper than towers. Small cells fill coverage gaps, something we have in abundance.
.
We need updated design guidelines tailored to small cells.
.
Historical guidelines reflect intuitions about the dimensions of city blocks, the ability of 40-watt 4G networks to provide service to subscribers, and other agendas and grievances.
.
We need guidelines that facilitate the advanced cellular services we want – reliable calls and big data – without bias. Bearing in mind the limited propagation of 2 watt, WiFi-like small cell radios in place of traditional ones, we should strive to make the construction of additional towers unnecessary. Good guidelines will allow small cells to do this new job without more towers.
.
Here's to hoping tonight's meeting is collegial, respectful, and productive.

07/27/2020 11:17 am
Richard Bennett
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

One more US city that passed a Resolution challenging the FCC's 2018 Order:

Resolution No. R2018-20 in November 2018: The Board of Trustees of the Village of Greendale, County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin, passed Resolution No. R2018-20 in opposition to the FCC’s September 26, 2018 Order because the Order s an unprecedented attack on local control of Greendale’s largest asset, the public rights-of-way, for 5G technology; threatens the Village’s responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and threatens the Village of Greendale’s designation as a National Historic Landmark.

The Village asked the FCC for changes that maintain a reasonable level of local control. The Resolution was sent to the FCC and State and Federal officials.Resolution No. R2018-20 Greendale Wisconsin RESOLUTION RELATING TO EXPANDED USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BY WIRELESS PROVIDERS FOR 5G TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER WIRELESS SERVICES, AND ASKING FOR CHANGES THAT MAINTAIN A REASONABLE LEVEL OF LOCAL CONTROL

07/27/2020 11:25 am
Linnea Hauser
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

What follows is only a VERY BRIEF number of cities and states across this country who DO care about the health and safety of their citizens regarding 5G microwave technology- They have either passed a resolution to BAN 5G "until proven safe", or to create Commissions to study the health and environmental effects of 5G (since not a SINGLE pre-market study has been done by the Industry!) Why is Colorado NOT on this list? Why is the city of Lakewood NOT on this list??No one is against the technology - but shouldn't EVERYONE want it to be safe? Why would anyone assume that Telecom is even complying with existing FCC radiation standards? Will OUR city require periodic testing ? Why would we NOT want it? Why does Industry not want them to require it? And, in order for THIS technology to work it requires DENSITY!! WHY in the world would any of us want 30-40' cell towers placed EVERY 250' apart in every neighborhood (that's about every 5 houses!!) and less then 25' from your residence? The DENSITY is criminal! Really, THIS is what people want? WAKE up Lakewood citizens, for those of you who say you 'want this'...You can have mine - in fact, you can have all 80 homes in our residential community that don't want them.
(*Note, there were too many resolutions against 5G in California to even mention them- it would fill too many pages)

Apparently all these city legislators from these States listed below are just 'conspiracy theorists' ??

HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL PASSED RESOLUTION BANNING 5G UNTIL PROVEN SAFE
Jul 8, 2020

EASTON CONNECTICUT PASSES RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A HALT TO 5G
Breaking News May 20, 2020

LOUISIANA BECOMES FIRST STATE TO CALL FOR STUDY ON HEALTH IMPACTS OF 5G
7 June 2019

2020-ALASKA SB 142 “An Act Relating To Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure In Schools” modeled after Oregon’s emergency bill, SB 283

CHICAGO: Senator Hilton to introduce legislation in 2020 to form a task force to examine 5G health and environmental impacts
MONTANA: House Joint Resolution No. 13: A joint resolution urging Congress to amend the Federal Telecommunications Act to account for health effects of siting small cell network equipment in residential areas
NEW HAMPSHIRE: HB 522 introduced to address the health and environmental effects of 5G technology
NEW JERSEY: June 15, 2020 A JOINT RESOLUTION creating a commission to study the health effects of 5G wireless technologies.

NEW YORK: March 2020 a bill directing the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Conservation, in cooperation with the Office of Technology Services, to "...jointly study and evaluate the health and environmental impacts of the implementation of fifth generation (5G) and future generation wireless systems technology and small cell distribution antenna systems in the state."
OREGON: Senate Bill 283 is an emergency law directing the Oregon Health Authority to review the independent microwave radiation science and make recommendations. The Department of Education is then to make recommendations to reduce students' exposures in schools:
RHODE ISLAND: House Bill 5992 Relating to Health and Safety - The Geoengineering Act 2019 is the first in the nation to compile all the hazardous emissions into one bill for comprehensive monitoring and prohibition. Page 4, line 27 addresses emissions from all generations of cell phone towers.

07/27/2020 11:31 am
Diana Losacco
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Quoting Marie Newman, Democratic Nominee for Congress, Illinois 3rd District

July 7, 2020: American opposition to 5G is not limited to biological and environmental risks from radiation emissions. Federal agencies have warned that it can threaten national security, public safety, and weather forecasting accuracy.

07/27/2020 11:34 am
Linnea Hauser
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Fort Collins’s wireless ordinance allows for monitoring of emissions from small cell wireless facilities:

Section 23-175 Radiofrequency Standards from Fort Collins reads:

“All CFs (cell facilities) shall comply with federal standards for RF (Radiofrequency) emissions. A MLA (Master License Agreement) may establish methods to demonstrate compliance with RF emission standards and require reimbursement by the applicant of reasonable costs incurred by the City to verify such compliance.”

07/27/2020 11:37 am
Lynn E. Judson
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Jurisdictions in Colorado with legal restrictions on wireless design:

Larimer County- 1000 foot spacing
distance between small cells to avoid “pole clutter.”

Larimer County- 250 foot setbacks from property lines for small cells

Fort Collins- “Preferred Locations” do NOT include residential streets, only main corridors and arteries

Greenwood Village- 600 foot spacing

Jurisdictions with Emissions Monitoring requirement:

Fort Collins, CO (Section 23-175)

Burbank, Berkeley and Davis, CA

Jurisdictions Requiring Liability Insurance including pollution coverage:

Calabasas or Santa Barbara, CA

FYI: Federal lawsuit vs FCC on the need for Liability Insurance

Jurisdictions Requiring Notice to neighbors before building a SCF:

Aspen, CO

Fort Collins, CO

Please incorporate as many of these points in our ordinance as possible to protect our residents and community!

07/27/2020 11:54 am
Lynn E. Judson
5 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Ask City Staff a Question

Cancel

Ask Applicant a Question

Cancel

Staff Responses

No staff responses yet...

Your Question has been submitted.