Pending Decision

Wireless Services and Communications

Item 10 - Continued Ordinance O-2020-9 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


Live Stream


Staff Memo ( 0.32 MB )
Ordinance O-2020-1 ( 0.11 MB )
Rood Mounted Antennas Alternate Language ( 0.01 MB )
Title 12 Redlined ( 0.8 MB )
Article 10 Redlined ( 1.06 MB )

Comments & Feedback

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

Dr Schoechle submitted a report with the FCC addressing emission standards. Please read this paper.

06/08/2020 12:07 pm
Carol Baum
6 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

No one wants an antenna emitting high levels of radiation outside their home, their child’s school or their place of work. The ‘benefits’ claimed by the telecoms industry come at a very high price.

To understand the hazards of 5G wireless technology, we must look beyond the outdated United States and our 1996 FCC regulations to perhaps more sophisticated and less biased organizations around the world. Why in other countries 5G is being halted until risks are evaluated? 5G rollouts have been postponed in Brussels, Geneva, 5G towers are burning in the Netherlands, Poland and the UK (and more recently in Memphis TN). Cities and other governing bodies in the US are challenging FCC regulations and most recently a major case is being taken up by Michael Mansfield, QC and Hackett & Dabbs LLP in the UK.

I am not opposed to technology, but I am opposed to untested technology and we have ZERO evidence that 5G at full scale will deliver not only on its promised benefits, but it will be safe for those living in our city. These deployments take no account for the cumulative effects of the unseen hazards. Wireless radiation is being imposed on the population without consent and also without regard to the loss of my privacy through intrusive population surveillance and increasing social control, all enabled by large 5G frequency bands.

Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff, Research Affiliate at the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology calls the deployment of 5G “the largest unethical medical experiment in human history. It is unethical because it violates the key ethical medical experiment requirement for “informed consent” by the overwhelming majority of the participants.”

If 5G is genuinely safe, why have over 300 scientists issued an urgent appeal to the UN to stop it? And why are there over 250,000 signatures from scientists, doctors and engineering on the 5G Space Appeal? Why are thousands of peer reviewed studies in medical literature, showing harmful bio-effects from wireless radiation not being taken into account?

Any why would Dr. Nola McDonald, M.D testify at the Larimer County hearing in August of 2019, sounding an alarm of an increase in a particular condition : “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 future health of even your own families" Not all humans are created equal and we must ensure that all residents of Lakewood are protected. There are known cases of EHS in Lakewood.

A 2018 review in the Lancet World Health Journal of 2,000 studies concluded: “The weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks”.

Many regulatory bodies around the world take their guidance from ICNIRP. ICNIRP is a small private group which has been widely accused of having conflicts of interest.

The Court of Turin ruled in February 2020 that ICNIRP should not be relied upon for meaningful guidelines due to bias.

Here in Lakewood, we are left with the outdated 1996 FCC regulations and a State law which abdicated its role in providing residents of Colorado with a safe place to live. As a reminder, the first “smart phone” came on the market in 2007, over a decade following the current guidelines. Our only recourse is a strong ordinance which will take into consideration best practices from cities and counties who have implemented such under similar conditions. Reassurance of safety is currently based on the long obsolete viewpoint that radio frequency (RF) radiation can only cause harm above thermal, tissue heating, levels of exposure. This concept has been invalidated by hundreds of peer-reviewed published scientific papers.

Insurance underwriters such as Lloyds of London and Swiss Re have weighed up the risk; Swiss Re class it as a future ‘high-impact risk.’ In their information to shareholders, telecommunications companies warn about potential loss of share value due to future litigation related to health risks.

While everyone else covered their basis from a risk and liability perspective, the city of Lakewood and its residents are left standing with a large bag of liability.

We must strengthen the language in our ordinance to ensure insulatory protection for the city and to keep Lakewood residents relatively safe.

Therefore, I recommend that the city of Lakewood take a precautionary principle to this ordinance and ensure that the strongest possible guidelines are in place for the time being. As things change and the world learns more about 5G and its effects, we can always go back and update these guidelines. Until then, I will leave you with a cautionary tale of what we once thought was “safe” turned out to be not so safe and these industries lost billions of dollars in the process as citizens came forward and filed liability claims. I am thinking of asbestos, lead paint, tobacco and most recently the opioid crisis. I believe that 5G may be added to the list in the near future.

06/08/2020 11:31 am
Eva Milko
7 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Council -
I would like to submit a second version of my report on the benefits and risks of small cells with page numbers and a table of contents. The text is the same as in my original filing, typos and all.
Richard Bennett

06/08/2020 11:28 am
Richard Bennett
8 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

I urge the City Manager, Mayor, Council and Staff to thoughtfully review the Broadband Ordinance revisions (red-lines) provided by Councilor Anita Springsteen and the Lakewood Broadband Task Force. And I further urge you to give priority to the will and protection of Lakewood residents over the empty threats and lax regulations proposed by the telecom industry.

The proposed revisions provide protections for the city as well as its residents. Protections from security breaches, data theft, unsustainable costs associated with 5G wireless, and human and environmental health risks. Additional protections will come from the strict insurance guidelines proposed.

The City of Lakewood cannot afford to gamble with unenforceable insurance provisions. The residents of Lakewood must not be subject to the known health risks of electromagnetic radiation.

Thank you for upholding your responsibility to the residents of Lakewood.


Linnea Hauser
15103 W Harvard Cir

06/08/2020 10:04 am
Linnea Hauser
8 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Re:Ordinance 0-2020-1
From: the Lakewood Broadband Task Force representing 100s of Lakewood citizens.

As you know City Staff is in the process of redrafting codes relating to wireless services and communications for Council's approval in the near future, i.e. Municipal Code Title 12, and Article 10 of Title 17.

In an effort to assure citizen input on this very important issue, our Task Force submitted a red-line draft of these ordinances a couple of weeks ago. These proposed changes are important to the citizens of Lakewood and do not conflict with Federal regulations or State law. However, we have not had any official response to our submittal as of this date.

Therefore, the Lakewood Broadband Task Force requests that the Council assign staff to meet with two members of the Lakewood Broadband Task Force to reach mutual agreement on these ordinances’ rewrite before any vote is taken.

We urge the Council to honor this simple request for citizens to be heard on this critical issue at the Council’s meeting June 8, 2020.

Thank you for your support and service to the citizens of Lakewood.

Contact Francis Sincere, 303 886 3467 C

06/07/2020 9:33 pm
Francis Sincere
8 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

I believe the time has come for the Council to approve the small cells item, amending Article 10 of the Lakewood Municipal Zoning Code and Title 12 of the Lakewood Municipal Code, without the setback provision. This code update, required by state law, is consistent with the interests of Lakewood residents in enjoying the benefits of the next generation of wireless technology.

The item has been delayed in large part because of the Council’s desire to bend over backwards to appease a small but vocal group of petitioners raising health and safety concerns. Even if such concerns were within the city’s purview (which they aren’t,) petitioners propose a course of action inconsistent with their stated goals and threatening to our recovery from the pandemic.

5G is the safest wireless broadband network ever built. Going forward with small cells in Lakewood will reduce the public’s exposure to electromagnetic frequency (EMF) emissions and increase the number of miles of fiber optic cable in the city, the two chief objectives petitioners tout. Petitioners’ failure to realize that they win by losing comes from their lack of understanding of wireless technology fundamentals.

Petitioners have failed to present credible evidence that the intended use for small cells (4G and 5G wireless data networks) is inherently hazardous or that limiting the number and placement of small cells would reduce the public’s risk.

Because EMF exposure caused by 4G and 5G wireless signals does not pose a health risk, the increased exposure petitioners demand would have no health consequences. But it will increase the cost and reduce the performance of the 5G system as a whole. It will also reduce personal device battery life, inconveniencing the public and further stressing the waste disposal and recycling system.

But even if we take petitioners’ health concerns at face value, limiting the number of cells and increasing their spacing would not decrease risk; in fact, it will increase the public’s exposure to EMF emissions from personal devices.

The simple fact is that 99.95% of the EMF energy absorbed by humans in the course of using wireless networks comes from personal devices, the phones we hold to our ears and the laptops and tablets we place on our laps. Because the personal device has to generate a signal strong enough to reach the network at its nearest point, small cells reduce our exposure to EMF by allowing personal devices to transmit at lower power levels.

In other words, when personal devices are close to network cells, they are able to modulate their transmissions to reduce power (amplitude) to a level less than needed to reach a cell farther away. When people are sitting side by side we can whisper, but when we are 300 feet apart, we have to yell.

If one believes wireless signals are dangerous, surely it follows that limiting their power would be a desirable means to the goal of reduced EMF absorption. Wireless signal strength degrades at the 4th power of the distance the signal travels from its source, so the EMF absorption reduction from small cells over large ones is exponential.

Small cell transmitters also broadcast lower levels of power than do traditional cells. A small cell across the street from my house will transmit a power level roughly comparable to a Wi-Fi access point. As I am not worried about the four Wi-Fi access points inside my house, I will certainly not be worried about having an equivalent radio outside the house.

Small cells also force carriers to install more fiber optic cable, consistent with another stated goal of petitioners. While they may insist that networks that are part fiber optics and part wireless are undesirable, they skate on thin ice if they believe the people of Lakewood are willing to abandon cell phones. Wireless networks are here to stay and the entire community of network suppliers, service providers, and users is – and always has been – committed to safety.

Investment in small cell, 5G technology is critical to the post-pandemic recovery. It’s wise to encourage that investment rather than to throw roadblocks in its path.

I have attached a document examining these questions in more detail and providing references.

06/07/2020 8:23 pm
Richard Bennett
8 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Re: 5G Microwave Cell Tower deployment
Mayor and Councilors,
Thank you to Ward 1 Councilors for holding a Q & A meeting on the 5G microwave cell tower issue. I would urge all Councilors to hold this same forum in your own Wards as it was highly informative.
I direct several liability questions to Council and Ben Goldstein that is of concern and were left unanswered for me. Mr. Goldstein mentioned the city’s inability to regulate the rollout of the towers based on any potential safety and health impacts.
1. Although you have regulation restrictions on the roll out of these towers, are you also restricted by the coverage of insurance that will allow protection for the city should potential lawsuits arise from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) injuries or harm? Can you address this? Other cities are requiring their insurance to cover EMR exposure. I can provide you with this information if you wish.
(Just a note : EMR effects are growing in concern and more research is being documented and treatments being performed. In fact, there is a world leader in research and treatment of this condition in Dallas (The Environmental Health Center) Sadly, there is still an illusion (mostly promoted by Industry) that this is not a real condition, yet I question why as far back as 2009, our own Governor, Bill Ritter, issued a Proclamation declaring the Month of May as “ Electromagnetic Sensitivity Awareness month”. The proclamation included the symptoms of EMS and the fact that is was recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the US Access Board and numerous commissions.)

2. In addition, it was stated by City Staff, that since the City doesn’t regulate the operations of the tower, or monitor the emitting radiation, should a Citizen be impacted or injured in some way by EMR exposure, they would have to contact the tower Operator . Is that correct? Although you may not regulate whatever is spewing out from these antennas, doesn’t the city want to hold the cell tower/antenna operators or the FCC accountable by making sure that they are operating under the current FCC regulations? Without this accountability how does the city or citizens ever know what level of EMR these 5G microwave towers are emitting, and whether or not they are within FCC regulations and guidelines? Wouldn’t this create a serious potential liability for the City and a potential major health risk to its citizens if the regulations are NOT being met? If a resident suffers from documented EMF/RF sensitivity effects, can that citizen ‘OPT OUT’ from a pole being placed near them? How do they go about doing that? If they can’t opt out, what are their options?

 Lastly, from my understanding, these 5G microwave cell towers will require enormous amounts of energy use. How does Council square this with our Sustainability program? How do we now tell our community that while Lakewood promises to become a leader in sustainability, they are proposing to put in massive energy hogs. What are we sustaining?

Please reply to my questions and concerns at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.
Diana Losacco
Ward 3 Resident

06/07/2020 7:24 pm
Diana Losacco
8 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Regarding 12.04.150 Relocation, location responsibilities and protection of utilities.

Before any permittee begins excavation in any public way, he shall verify the location of existing utilities. For information, contact the Utility Notification Center of Colorado and, 1-800-922-1987 or 811. A permittee shall additionally make inquiries of all ditch companies, utility companies, districts, municipal departments and all other agencies that might have facilities in the area of work to determine possible conflicts. The permittee shall contact the Utility Notification Center of Colorado and request field locations of all facilities in the area at least forty-eight hours in advance. Field locations shall be marked prior to commencing work....

Comments: Frontages of residential planned developments that cross local streets, minor collector streets, major collector streets may have irrigation supply lines and electrical conduit under these roadways. The residential developments irrigate development landscaping and illuminate entrances to developments.

it is not clear that these would be picked up by any electrical or water utility because these "lines and conduit" are privately owned. The wording of this section only relates to inquiries of "public" entities.

Suggest adding to the 1st paragraph - second sentence after ...all other agencies "and nearby neighborhood organizations and associations"...that might have facilities in the area of work to determine possible conflicts.

06/06/2020 1:14 pm
Laurie E Graves
8 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment

Your Question has been submitted.