HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 02.09.2015Board of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits
Limited Impact Review
Applicant is Rifle Creek Estates Homeowners Association
�N.S<G,ec(/ / /
eals—
February 9, 2015
(File LIPA-8155)
Exhibit Letter
(Numerical)
Exhibit Description
1
Public Hearing Notice Information
2
Proof of Publication
3
Receipts from Mailing Notice
4
Photo evidence of Public Notice Posting
5
Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended
6
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
7
Application
8
Staff Report
9
Staff Presentation
10
Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (dated January
13, 2015)
11
Referral Comments from Colorado River Fire Rescue (dated January
27, 2015)
12
Referral Comments from Garfield County Vegetation Management
(dated January 27, 2015)
Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge (dated
January 26, 2015)
13Referral
14
Letter and Research from Jose Luis Rodriguez, MD (dated January
27, 2015)
15
Final Plat of Rifle Creek Estates Filing 2
16
Protective Covenants and maps regarding maintenance of Mesa Drive
17
Referral Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (dated January
26, 2015)
18
Referral Comments from Garfield County Environmental Health (dated
January 27, 2015)
19
Email from Justin Dunn (dated January 19, 2015)
6,,„., / c( /A L yrc(SO OUti c, 'le Q,tlJc 4 /
BOCC 2/9/2015
File No. LIPA-8155
DP
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER
TOWER OWNER/OPERATOR:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PARCEL ID
PROPERTY SIZE/SITE AREA
LOCATION:
ACCESS:
ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Limited Impact Review — Telecommunication
Facility (LIPA 8155)
Rifle Creek Homeowners Association
AT&T
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc.
2129-244-03-008
3.5 acres /.03 acres
600 County Road 257 (Mesa Dr.), Rifle
Mesa Drive and CR 257
Rural
Residential Medium High (2 to <6 DU/AC)
I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant proposes to construct a self-supporting, unlit 60 foot tall communication
tower within a 3.5 acre parcel located at the end of Mesa Drive. The communication
facility will be situated within a graveled 0.03 acre leased area and contain an 11'-5" x 28'
(322 square foot) equipment shelter. The subject site will be enclosed by a fence and will
be accessed via a realigned access road and new access easement off of Mesa Drive.
The parcel is within the Rifle Creek Estates subdivision and is owned by the Rifle Creek
Estates Homeowners Association. The facility is to be constructed and operated by AT&T.
AT&T is developing the facility to improve the carrier's wireless communications network
in the Rifle area which is currently at capacity. The site will also provide enhanced E-911
coverage to all wireless users in the area.
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
Subject Parcel
Vicinity Map
2
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
Aerial Photo of Subject Parcel
3
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
Site Plan
4
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
•
[rot.r.,_Luirz:
Facility Elevation
0
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
Subject Site Access Road and Power Line Tower
6
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
Subject Property (Circled) and Mesa Drive Looking West and South
Subject Property (Circled) and Mesa Drive Looking North and East
II. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located off of Mesa Drive and CR 257 and north of the City of Rifle.
The subject property is undeveloped but contains several water storage tanks and an
overhead electric line. These water tanks are north of the proposed telecommunication
facility and the overhead electric line is approximately 35 feet north of the subject site
perimeter fence. The nearest property line, also to the north, is approximately 50 feet from
the subject site. The nearest residence to the northeast is approximately 90 feet from the
proposed telecommunication site while the residence to the south is approximately 110
feet away.
III. ZONING AND ADJACENT LAND USES
The subject property is zoned Rural and is designated as an open space parcel of the
Rifle Creek Estates subdivision. The surrounding properties are zoned Rural (north,
south and east) and Public Lands (west). The surrounding land uses consist of residential,
and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
Public Notice was provided for the Board of County Commissioners public hearing in
accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code as amended.
Comments from referral agencies, County Departments and from the public are
summarized below and attached as Exhibits.
1. Colorado Parks and Wildlife: (See Exhibit 10)
• Noted that no adverse impacts to flora or fauna are expected as a result of the
proposed facility.
7
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
2. Colorado River Fire Rescue Fire Protection District: (See Exhibit 11)
• Requests the road surface be at least 16' wide and redesigned to
accommodate a fire truck.
• Requests access to all gates to the facility using a Knox Padlock.
• Requests that facility have a defensible space around the facility.
• Requests an area at the end of the driveway to allow for fire truck tum around.
• Requests the property be posted with an address sign.
• Requests that a fire extinguisher be conspicuously placed inside the building.
• Requests signage consistent with NFPA 704, a Hazardous Material declaration
consistent with the CRFR and Material Data Safety Sheet (MSDS) be displayed
outside the building door.
3. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: (See Exhibit 12)
• Requests the Applicant survey the property for County noxious weeds and
provide a management plan should listed weeds be identified onsite.
• Requests that the site be monitored annually and weeds be treated as
necessary.
• Requests that the Applicant provide a seed mix with common and scientific
names of species listed.
4. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: (See Exhibit 13)
• Noted that the very small increase in traffic will have insignificant impact on the
County road system.
5. Letter from Jose Luis Rodriquez, MD: (See Exhibit 14)
• Provided research surrounding the risk of radiation to humans.
• Noted that Mesa Drive is maintained by the HOA within Rifle Creek Filing 2.
• Noted the wildlife presence in the area and stated concern of radiation on
animals.
• Requests that the application be denied.
6. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering: (See
Exhibits 17)
• Requests that the Applicant provide a calculation of the total area of disturbance.
• Requests that the Applicant provide an erosion control plan.
• Requests that the Applicant address how the access road and proposed grades
compare to the roadway standards.
• Requests that the Applicant address the concerns of the proposed road surface
and site soils as outlined by Chief Moon (see Exhibit 11).
7. Garfield County Emergency Management:
• Chris Bornholdt indicated that he has no concerns.
a
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
8. Garfield County Environmental Health: (See Exhibit 18)
• Dust mitigation should be conducted during construction.
• Stormwater management best practices should be used during construction to
minimize sediment leaving the area.
• Requests that a Radio Frequency (RF) radiation exposure limits analysis be
conducted to ensure compliance with FCC regulations.
9. Letter from Justin Dunn: (See Exhibit 19)
• Concern regarding impact on property values.
• Concern regarding risk negative health effects of RF radiation exposure.
• Requests application be delayed until FCC completes updated rulemaking on
RF radiation exposure limits.
10. Other agencies that did not submit comments include: (a) the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment (Water Quality Control Division), (b) Rifle Creek
Estates HOA and (c) the City of Rifle.
V. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided
detailed responses to the Submittal Requirements and applicable sections of Article 7,
Divisions 1, 2, and 3, including Section 7-1102 Telecommunications Facilities. The
Application materials include an Impact Analysis and related consultant reports, technical
studies, and plans.
7-101 - 103: Zone District Regulations, Comprehensive Plan & Compatibility
The proposed use demonstrates general conformance with applicable Zone District
provisions contained in the Land Use and Development Code and in particular Article 3
standards for the Rural zone district.
The Comprehensive Plan 2030 designates the site as RM (Residential Medium High
Density). Excerpts from the Land Use Description Section Chapter 2 are provided below.
Chapter 2 - Land Use Designations
Residential Medium High (RMH): Small farms, estates, and clustered residential
subdivisions; density determined by degree of clustering and land preserved in
open condition:
0% open land = 1 du per -6 acres
50% open land = 1 du per 4 acres
70% open land = 1 du per 2 acres
Density of residential uses: 1 du per 2 to <6 acres
9
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
Key factors that affect business recruitment include:
- E-commerce and access to technology infrastructure.
Goals:
1. Maintain a strong and diverse economic base (for both employment and income
generation).
The location and design of the proposed facility is in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan Policies subject to proper mitigation of impacts.
The Application has also provided information indicating the character of the area and
adjacent land uses. The request suggests general compatibility with adjoining uses that
are primarily residential and agricultural in nature. It is worth noting that, consistent with
most telecommunication facilities, this facility will have visual impacts that are not able to
be fully mitigated.
7-104 & 105: Source of Water & Waste Water Systems
The Application represents that the facilities will be operated with minimal staff activities.
The site will be unmanned with visits to the site one to two times per month for
maintenance and inspections. As the facility is to be unmanned, water and wastewater
facilities are not proposed.
7-106: Public Utilities
No public utilities are required for operation of the facility. The facility will only require
electricity for operation, which is available to the site.
7-107: Access & Roadways
The Applicants access their property from Mesa Drive via a private access road. The
submittals include general descriptions of the roadway as it is to be realigned and
indicates that the access road meet the standards as outlined in Section 7-107. The
Applicant has executed a new access easement for the proposed facility which will
realigned a small portion of the access road.
County Road 257, along with County maintenance, ends at the north portion of Rifle
Creek Estates Filing 1. The approximately 175 linear feet of roadway north of CR 257 is
within Rifle Creek Estates Filing 2 (See Exhibits 15 and 16). This section of roadway
which leads to the private access to the site has been dedicated to the public as a part of
the initial subdivision, which provides legal access to that point, but was not installed or
maintained by the County. Public comment has been received expressing concerns that
the increased traffic will impact this stretch of roadway, which is not County maintained
(See Exhibit 14).
10
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
Orrin Moon of Colorado River Fire Rescue has expressed some concerns about the
access road as it is proposed. Notably, Mr. Moon indicated that the road base as
proposed could not support a fire truck, the roadway should be at least 16' wide, the road
should have a turnaround at the end sufficient for a fire truck, and determine appropriate
locks and gates that may be accessed by the District in the case of an emergency. Staff
recommends that the Applicant revise the proposed road base to accommodate a fire
truck and consult Colorado River Fire Rescue to construct a tumaround. In addition, Staff
recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant consult with Colorado River Fire
Rescue to determine gate design and locks that can be accessed by the District in the
case of an emergency.
The Applicant submitted a Basic Traffic Analysis that indicates that the site will have a
traffic demand of one to two round-trip (2 — 4 ADT) of a light vehicle (pickup truck) per
month. The application indicates that construction will have a crew of three to eight that
will generate an average of six to sixteen daily trips. Construction is expected to take six
to eight months.
7-108: Natural Hazards
The Application provides mapping information on natural hazards including information
on soils, geology, and slopes associated with the site. The information supports a
determination that the proposed use is not subject to significant natural hazard risks.
7-109: Fire Protection
The site is not located in an area identified as having a high wildland fire susceptibility.
The Application was referred to Colorado River Fire Rescue who has indicated that they
have several issues with the proposal. Notably, Colorado River Fire Rescue requests the
road surface be at least 16' wide and redesigned to accommodate a fire truck, that all
gates to the facility use a Knox Padlock, that a defensible space around the facility be
maintained, that an area at the end of the driveway be developed to allow for fire truck
turn around, that the property be posted with an address sign, that a fire extinguisher be
conspicuously placed inside the building and that signage consistent with NFPA 704, a
Hazardous Material declaration consistent with the CRFR and Material Data Safety Sheet
(MSDS) be displayed outside the building door. Staff suggests conditions of approval to
allow the Applicant to discuss these issues with the District.
7-201: Agricultural Lands
The property is not currently in agricultural production. In addition, the facility is not
expected to have negative impacts on any adjacent agricultural lands or operations.
11
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
7-202: Wildlife Habitat Areas
The application was referred to Colorado Parks and Wildlife who stated that "The
proposed tower site does not contain any known critical habitat types, nor does it provide
habitat for any threatened or endangered species."
Public comments noted significant deer populations and even the sighting of a lynx in the
area. Concerns from the public regarding wildlife related to impacts from radiation (See
Exhibit 14).
7-203: Protection of Water Bodies
The site location is not in close proximity of an active water body. No wetlands or
floodplains are within the vicinity. The nearest water feature is Rifle Creek which is located
approximately 800 feet from the subject area. Due to this distance, impacts to water
bodies are not anticipated.
7-204: Drainage and Erosion (Stormwater'
The Applicant has stated the site will be approximately 0.03 acres. In accordance with
CDPHE storm water management and grading requirements, land disturbance and earth
movement thresholds are not met since the total disturbance is anticipated to be less than
1 acre. Further, since less than 10,000 sf. of the ground surface will be impervious,
Garfield County storm water runoff thresholds are not met (Section 7-204(C)). In addition,
the Applicant has provided a topographic map of the subject site that demonstrates
overall positive drainage away from facilities.
In order to confirm total disturbance area, Staff suggests a condition of approval requiring
a calculation of total disturbance to be reviewed by the County Engineer. This calculation
should take into account disturbance associated with the access road realignment and
improvements as well as construction and installation of the telecommunication facility.
In addition, the Applicant should submit plan view drawings of all erosion and sediment
control measures approximate locations and site drainage patterns for construction
phases and final design elements. The erosion plan and disturbance calculations should
be reviewed by the County Engineer prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
7-205 Environmental Quality
Any hazardous materials onsite are required to be installed and labeled in accordance
with applicable local, state and federal laws. Such labeling and signage is required in
accordance with the international Fire Code (IFC) and International Building Code (IBC).
Colorado Fire Rescue has requested signage in conformance with the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 704 rules.
12
AT&T Hwy 1.3 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
The facility will not generate air emissions except for those typical of motor vehicles
accessing the site. To this end, the facility is not expected to impact air quality, with
exception to dust during construction, and does not require a permit from the CDPHE.
7-206: Wildfire Hazards
The facility is located within a "low" wildland fire susceptibility designation according to
Map 7 of the Garfield County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. In addition, the Garfield
County 30 meter wildfire hazard mapping identifies that area as having a low wildfire
danger. The application was referred to Colorado River Fire Rescue who has indicated
that they have several issues with the proposal, including defensible space around the
facility (See Section 7-109, Fire Protection). Staff suggests a condition of approval to
address the Districts concerns.
7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards
See Section 7-108, above.
7-208: Reclamation
As the site disturbance is less than 1 acre, a full reclamation plan is not required. The
application was referred to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager who has requested
that the Applicant perform a weed survey of the property. Should any County listed
noxious weeds be found on the site, the Applicant should then create a management plan
for those species. In addition, a seed mix with common and scientific names which is to
be used for revegetation is requested. Staff suggests that a condition of approval be
added addressing these concems.
7-301 & 302: Compatible Design, Parking, and Loading
The proposed use will be visible from all surrounding properties. As a 60' monopole, it will
be approximately the same height as the nearby electric line tower and have a similar
visual quality. It is anticipated that the monopole will have 12 antennas on the tower,
however the facility will be unlit and will not require guy lines. Due to the nature of the
facility, screening is not a viable option. Staff does recommend a condition of approval
that the facility be painted a neutral, non -reflective color to help minimize visual impacts.
Adequate parking and loading are available for this use.
7-303: Landscaping
No landscaping is proposed, although the ground level facilities are proposed to be
fenced. At a minimum, the Applicant will need to reseed all disturbed areas with a native,
non-invasive seed mix in order to prevent the introduction of invasive species and limit
erosion.
13
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
7-304: Lighting
The Applicant has indicated that the monopole and facilities will be unlit. In accordance
with the LUDC, any ground level future lighting shall be limited to down directed, shielded
and internally oriented fixtures in accordance with the County's lighting standards.
7-305 Snow Storage
Adequate areas of the site are available for snow storage.
7-306 Trails
Trails standards are generally not applicable based on the industrial nature of the
proposal.
7-1102 Telecommunication Facilities
A. New Towers and Facilities:
The Applicant has represented that the proposed tower will have sufficient structural
strength and space available to accommodate the facility. The application states that
"AT&T has done structural analysis and the drawings have been completed by licensed
architects and engineers". The application has been reviewed by the Garfield County
Engineer and the submitted plans have been stamped by a Professional Engineer.
The Applicant has represented that the proposed tower and facility will not cause
unreasonable electromagnetic or other interference. The application states that "Both the
power lines and power towers are located beyond the proposed structure." In addition,
the application states that "No existing towers, structures, or facilities within a distance
met the engineer's requirements for this facility." To this end, it is Staffs conclusion that
interference with other facilities is not expected and that co -location on other existing
facilities was not feasible.
B. Structural and Engineering Standards:
The submitted plans have been prepared and stamped by a Professional Engineer. In
addition, the 60' tall monopole will be approximately 90' from the nearest residential
structure to the northeast and 110' from the residence to the south. To this end, it is staffs
opinion that there are no residential structures within the fall zone of the tower.
C. Public Utility Structures: This standard is not applicable to the proposed facility.
D. Design, Materials, and Color:
The Applicant has represented that "The facility has been designed to minimize visual
impact, carry gravity, and wind Toads." The monopole is to be located at a similar height
14
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
and have similar architectural qualities as the adjacent power line tower. To this extent,
although the monopole will be visible from surrounding properties, it is similar in character
to the existing infrastructure on the parcel. In order to minimize visual impact, staff
recommends a condition of approval requiring the facility to be painted a neutral, non -
reflective color.
E. Lighting and Signage:
The Applicant has represented that no signage (with exception to that required by law),
lighting or advertising will be on the tower or ground facilities. Staff recommends a
condition of approval prohibiting advertising and requiring all signage and lighting to be
the minimum required by law.
F. Non -Interference:
The application states that "All wires, cables, fixtures, and other equipment shall be
installed in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all
FCC, FAA, State and local regulations and will not interfere with radio communications,
electronic transmissions, or all other electromagnetic communications."
This Section also requires that the facility not cause a safety hazard. While the Applicant
has provided statements that the facility will be in compliance with radio frequency (RF)
radiation exposure limits and that the carrier is responsible for conducting RF testing once
the facility is installed, a site specific analysis on anticipated RF radiation has not been
submitted. Staff has received public comments from neighboring property owners
indicating concerns around RF radiation. Due to the close proximity of the tower to
adjacent residential structures (90 ft. to residence to the northeast and 110 ft. to the south)
and in response to comments received from Garfield County Environmental Health,
further analysis is recommended regarding possible RF radiation from the site. In order
to ensure that RF radiation emissions from the facility meet FCC standards, Staff
recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant perform an evaluation to assess
compliance with RF radiation exposure to surrounding property owners.
G. Federal Aviation Agency Form:
The Applicant has represented that FAA form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration, has been submitted. A copy of the completed form has been submitted with
the application.
H. Telecommunications Act:
The Applicant has represented that "This facility will comply with all applicable standards
of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and all requirements of the FAA where
applicable." Staff recommends a standard condition of approval requiring the facility to
maintain conformance to all state and federal regulations.
15
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners.
2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested
parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit
for the Highway 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility is in the best interest of
the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with
the 2030 Comprehensive Pian, as amended.
5. That with the adoption of the Conditions of Approval the application has adequately
met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as
amended.
IX. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend Approval with Conditions. The following recommended conditions of
approval are provided for the Board's consideration:
Conditions Prior to Issuance of Land Use Change Permit
1. The Applicant shall submit updated plans for the access road section that addresses
the concerns of Colorado River Fire Rescue and the County Engineer. The road base
shall be demonstrated to meet the geotechnical conditions on the site, meet the
requirements of the Fire District and have an appropriate turn around at the end of the
roadway. These plans shall also address the grade of the road. The access road plans
shall be reviewed by Colorado River Fire Rescue and the County Engineer prior to
issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
2. The Applicant shall post signage consistent with NFPA 704, a Hazardous Material
declaration consistent with the CRFR and Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) be
displayed outside the building door. This signage shall be reviewed and approved by
Colorado River Fire Rescue prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
3. The gates leading to the facility shall have appropriate locks (Knox Padlocks and
Boxes) that may be accessed by Colorado River Fire Rescue in the case of an
emergency. The Applicant shall consult with Colorado Fire Rescue on the appropriate
locks and locations prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
16
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
4. The Applicant shall perform a weed survey of the property. Should any County listed
noxious weeds be found on the site, the Applicant should then create a management
plan for those species. The survey and plan, as appropriate, shall be reviewed by the
Garfield County Vegetation Manager prior to issuance of the Land Use Change
Permit.
5. The Applicant shall submit a seed mix, with common and scientific names, that is to
be used for revegetation of the site. This seed mix shall be reviewed and accepted by
the Garfield County Vegetation Manager prior to issuance of the Land Use Change
Permit.
6. The Applicant shall provide a calculation of total area of disturbance. The calculation
shall take into account disturbance associated with realigning and upgrading the
access road as well as that associated with the installation and construction of the
telecommunication facility. In addition, the Applicant shall submit plan view drawings
of all erosion and sediment control measures approximate locations and site drainage
patterns for construction phases and final design elements. The erosion plan and
disturbance calculations shall be reviewed by the County Engineer prior to issuance
of the Land Use Change Permit.
7. In order to ensure that radio frequency (RF) radiation emissions from the facility will
meet FCC standards, the Applicant shall perform an evaluation to assess compliance
with RF radiation exposure to surrounding property owners. This assessment shall
contain anticipated radiation levels at the adjacent properties to the north and south
as well as a conclusion as to the predicted compliance of the facility with Federal
standards. This report shall be reviewed by Garfield County Community Development
Department and Environment Health Department prior to issuance of the Land Use
Change Permit.
Other Conditions
8. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval,
unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
9. The operation of the facility shall be in accordance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility.
10. The Applicant shall maintain a wildland fire defensible space around the compound at
all times.
11. No lighting shall be placed on the telecommunication tower. Any ground level lighting
shall be limited to down directed, shielded and internally oriented fixtures in
accordance with the County's lighting standards.
17
AT&T Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Facility
2/9/015 BOCC
DP
12. The Applicant shall post the property with an address sign and place a fire extinguisher
conspicuously inside the equipment cabinet.
13.The telecommunications tower and all equipment shall be painted a neutral, non -
reflective color that minimizes visual impact.
14. No advertising shall be permitted on the telecommunication tower or any associated
equipment, fences or cabinets. All signage shall be limited to that required by law.
18
1
EXHIBIT
re Garfield County
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the
described action.
My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
owners.
yuz,
1! Mailed notice was completed on the 31 day ofrIt . : 2014.
All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
" i"' All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
' the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list]
■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice.
Erf My application required Published notice.
IN Notice was published on the / day of 101/?v1 s1% -t . 4a ti f
• Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram.
pfirplication requlred Posting of Notice.
Notice was posted on the day of,+ -i/ 01
0/.i
ziI IV Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
testify that the above Information is true and accurate.
Name: WOVD
Signature. 'rt- X64 -Z
Date: (///
11612015 Orttine Ad Creator :Glenwood Springs Post Independen
Online Ad Creator
EXHIBIT
publications deadlines fags contact us help my account Logout
STEP 7 of 7 1. Category 2. Package 3. Publish Dates 4. Details 5. Imago 6. Enhance 7. Checkout
Thank You
Your ad has been submitted.
Your ad placement's subject In renew. We reserve the right to re-daswy and edit your ad If necessary. ff you would like b cancel this ad or renew It via the web you.11 need to
log Into your web eccountif you have not set up a web account or have forgotten your password, please contact customer servica.You can either cl ck on the -Live Support
dial button on he top right of this page, OR email dassiftedsOcmnmarg or call 886-850-9937 to receive your user ID and password.
Please print this page roc your records. Your Receipt
Thank you for your business!
Print Page
Your Ad As 1t
will Appear In
Print
TAKE NOTICE that the
Rifle Creek HOA has
applied to the BOCC of
Garfield County, to
request approval of a
Limited Impact Review
for a Land Use Change
Permit on a property
located at 600 County
Line Road Rifle, CO. A
public hearing has been
scheduled an 2/9/2015
at 1:00 P.M. In the
County Commissioners
Meeting Room, Garfield
County Administration
Building, 108 8th Street,
Glenwood Springs,
Colorado.
Your Internet TAKE NOTICE that the Rife Creek HOA has applied b the BOCC of Garfield County. to request approval of a
Ad': Limited Impact Revlew far a Land Use Change Penniton a property located et 600 County Una Road Ri0a,
CO. A public hearing has been scheduled on 219/2015 at t 00 P.M. In the County Commissioners Meeting
Room. Garfield County Administration Building 108 801 Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
•-Faarar* no mynas:waft an w.hsh pNunesnr.
Category. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Classi6ratton: Events
Features: No Features
Sites & Glenwood Online -20 days online
Editions: Glenwood Post Independent • 28 days print
Rifle Citizen Telegram -4 days print
Stan Date 01107120t5
Payment Lyndsay Ward (Account 35880074)
(720) 460.2090
Ad ID 310650448
Total Cost 5220.80
Amount 922010
Charged To
Card.
Purchase 01106/2015
Dale.
Clear everything and start again
4102011 Glenwood 8pmps Past Independent Al Rights Rswrwd. pehew & lams 1 Swat CarrmmicsIlans
hltpsllclassifedsswiftcan.comMrebentryhrUcartstmerlc thardtyou.htrn 1)1
1162015 FedEx Stip Manager - Print Your Label(s)
From: (480) 664-9588
Benjamin Feldman
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc
1426 N MARIAN ST
STE 101
GILBERT, AZ 85233
Origin ID: CIIDA
F{:1a � mob.i.
SHIP TO: (303) 3174711
Bill B Bailey
966 Mesa Drive
RIFLE, CO 81650
E
J1422140323Q3w
BILL SENDER
Ship Date: 06JAN15
ActWgt 10 LB
CAD: 4918197/M 3550
Dative'', Address Bar Code
111111111111111111101111010 111
Ref # Rifle Gap Zoning dots
Invoice #
Dept
EXHIBIT
i
TRU 7724 8645 4245
1.0201
SH RILA
i
i
i
i
sz2131,eF15. Acs
THU - 08 JAN PM
" 2DAY **
RES
81650
co -us
GJT
i
i
After printing this label:
1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal One.
3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix It to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result
In additional billing charges. along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx
will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-defvery,misdefvery,or
misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely claim.Umitations
found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss
of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, in cidental,consequentiai, or special is
limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented Ioss.Maximum for items of
extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written
claims must be Bled within strict time knits, see current FedEx Service Guide.
hltpsJMrow.iedex.conlshippingMtrnUenPrintlFrame.hlml 111
11612015 FedEx Ship Manger- Print Your Label(s)
From: (480) 664.0588
Benjamin Feldman
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc
1426 N MARVIN ST
STE 101
GILBERT. AZ 85233
Origin ID: CIIDA Fedi,,,
JI471I4092303w
Ship Date: 06JAN15
ActWgt 1.0 LB
CAD: 491819711NET3550
SHIP TO: (303) 317.7771
Robert N. Caliva
1007 Mesa Drive
RIFLE, CO 81650
BILL SENDER
Delivery Address Bar Code
11111111111111111101011111111111.11011111
Ref #
Invoice #
PO #
Dept #
i
TRK# 7724 8647 8231
0201
SH RILA
i
i
i
522131,11E I59Ac9
i
11
THU - 08 JAN PM
" 2DAY **
RES
81650
co -us
GJT
i
i
After printing this label:
1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line.
3. Piece label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Waming: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result
in additional biltng charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx
will not be responsble for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-deivery,misderrvery,or
misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and lite a timely clalm.Limitations
found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss
of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidentai,consequential, or special is
limited to the greater 015100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented Ioss.Max mum for items of
extraordinary value is $1.000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items fisted in our ServiceGuide. Written
claims must be filed within strict time knits, see current FedEx Service Guide.
httpsiAxww.Fedex.comlhhppirlgfhtrnlienlPrintlFrame.html 1/1
1/i6l2O15 FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Lahel(s)
From: (480) 664-9588
Benjamin Feldman
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc
1426 N MARVIN ST
STE 101
GILBERT, AZ 05233
Origin ID: CHDA Fediva
SHIP TO: (303) 317.7771
Jose Luis Rodriguez
928 Mesa Drive
RIFLE, CO 81650
•
Express
E
Jt4221.o ,
BILL SENDER
Ship Date: 06JAN15
AciWgt 1.0 LB
CAD 49181971NET3550
Delivery Address Bar Code
1111111111 01111111
Ref #
Invoice #
PO #
Dept#
111111111
TRK# 7724 8649 6789
10201
SH RILA
i
i
i
52201,eFI5,eAc9
11
11
THU - 08 JAN PM
" 2DAY **
RES
81650
taus
GJT
i
i
After printing this Label:
1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal fine.
3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result
in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions In the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx
will not be responsible for any claim In excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay. non-delvery,misdernrery,or
misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely ciaim.t.imltations
found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss
of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs. and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,consequential, or special is
United to the greater of 5100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented bss.Maximum for items of
extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items fisted in our ServiceGuide. Written
claims must be filed within strict time units, see current FedEx Service Guide.
Itps://www.fedex.conishippingehtmi/encrintlFrame.htrni 111
1!6!2015 FedEx SNp Manager- Print Your Label(s)
From: (480) 6649568
Benjamin Felcknan
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc
1426 N MARVIN ST
STE 101
GILBERT, AZ 85233
Origin ID: CHDA
Emacs
SHIP TO: (303) 317.7171
Rifle Creek Estates HOA
Rifle Creek Estates HOA
1000 Mesa Drive
RIFLE, CO 81650
E
J1422140923C3w
811.1 SENDER
Ship Date: 06JAN15
ActWgt 0.1 LB
CAD: 4918197ANET3550
Delivery Address Bar Code
III
Ref #
Imroice #
PO #
Dept #
I1IIIIIUIUIIIIUHiI1IIIHIiII
i
111
TRK 7724 8651 4829
0201
SH RILA
i
i
i
52201,8F15e11C9
i
THU - 08 JAN PM
** 2DAY **
81650
co -us
GJT
11
1
i
After printing this label:
1. Use the'Prhr button on this page to print your label to your laser or Inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal fine.
3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Waming: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes Is fraudulent and could result
in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions In the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx
will not be responsible for any claim h excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-deWery,misdelvery,or
misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and the a timely clalm.l.imitatians
found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss
of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,consequential, or special is
limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented bss.Maximum for items of
extraordinary value Is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items fisted in our ServiceGuide. Written
claims must be filed within strict time Omits, see current FedEx Service Guide.
htlps://www.feciax.cornishippingthhnlien/PrintlFramettml 7ft
1!612015 FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s)
Front (480) 6649588
Benjamin Feldman
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc
1426 N MARVIN ST
STE 101
GILBERT, AZ 85233
Origin ID: CHDA Fedlaz
ass.
SHIP TO: (303) 317-7771
Justin Steven Dunn
923 Mesa Drive
RIFLE, CO 81650
E
J1422142;2323w
BILL SENDER
Ship Date: 06.iAN15
ActWgt 0.1 LB
CAD: 491819711NE73550
Delivery Address Bar Code
Refit
Invoice #
PD #
Dept
i
i
TRX 7724 8652 8045
0201
SH RILA
i
i
i
522GI 8Fi5MeAC9
i
11
THU - 08 JAN PM
** 2DAY **
i
i
81650
co.us
GJT
After printing this label:
1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line.
3. Place label In shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result
in additional biting charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions In the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx
MI not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-deivery,misdelvery,or
misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual Toss and file a timely claim.Limitations
found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss
of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental,consequential, or special is
limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented Ioss.Maximum for items of
extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items listed in our ServiceGulde. Written
claims must be filled wllhin strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide.
httpsllwwwJedex.comishippinglhlmlienVPrintlFramehlmt 111
1162015 Feda Slip Manager- Print Your Label(s)
From (480) 6649588
Benjamin Feldman
Pinnacle Consulting. Inc
1428 N MARVIN ST
STE 101
GILBERT, AZ 85233
Origin ID: CI -IDA
JI42214092303w
Ship Date: 06JAN15
ActWgt 0.1 LB
CAD: 491619711NET3550
SHIP T0: (303) 317.7771
Lenwarde Paul Beasley
965 Mesa Drive
RIFLE, CO 81650
BILL SENDER
Delivery
YI Address Bar
Ref#
Invoice #
PO#
Dept#
i
111
1J
TRJ(# 7724 8654 4589
0201
SH RILA
i
i
i
52201sF15saG9
i
11
THU - 08 JAN PM
2DAY **
RES
81650
co.uS
GJT
i
i
After printing this label:
1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer.
2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal One.
3. Place label In shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could result
in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx
will not be responsible for any claim In excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-defivery,misde0very,or
misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and fde a timely claimLtmitations
found hi the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss. including intrinsic value of the package, loss
of sales, income Interest. profit, attomey's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, kncidental,consequenlial, or special is
limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented foss.Maxlmum for items of
extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other items fisted in our Sery ceGuide. Written
claims must be filed within strict time Omits, see current FedEx Service Guide.
httpslive.mtdedeoc.comfeNppingthImlien/PrirdIFrame.html tri
Januar- 1 3. 2015
COLORADO
Parks and Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources
Northwest Regional Office
711 Independent Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81505
P 970 255 6100
Dar, id Pesnichak
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8'' Street. Suite -101
Glenwood Springs. CO 81601
RE: Ili<ulwsay 13 and Rifle Gap telecommunication Io\‘er(Rifle Creek Estates)
Dear NVfr. Pesnichak:
EXHIBIT
ha\ e received )our request For comments for the proposed construction of a communications tower
north of Rifle. CO. 1 ani familiar w ith (he location ol'the proposed tower site a nd wit1) the wildlife
species that inhabit the area.
The proposed tower site does not contain an) known critical habitat t) pes, nor does it provide habitat Icer
any threatened or endangered species. However. numerous av ian species. including raptors would be
expected lo fly over and possibly lomat: in the area. 11 appears as though the proposed tower will comply
with the MOU for minimising impacts to migratory birds since it will be Icss than 200 It in height and
will be an unlit structure with no guy wires.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. and your willingness to
incorporate wildlife protections into the development process. Please don't hesitate to contact nie if you
would like to discuss these comments in further depth.
Sincerely.
I3rian Gray, District Wildlife Mana+ser
cc: J'l' Romatzke. Area Wildlife Manager
Lyn Huber. Reuional Office Admin.
Bob D. Broscheid, Director, Calccado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Robert W. Bray • Chris Castilian, Secretary • Jeanne Horne
Bail Kane, Chair • Gaspar Pen-icone, Vice Chair • Dale Pr_el • James Pribyl • James Vigil • Dean Wingfield • Michelle Zimmerman • Alex Zlpp
or `n!o
7^
/.
0
• •
• rim •
COLORADO RIVER
Colorado River Fire Rescue
EXHIBIT
1
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8t Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Reference: LIPA-8155, Rifle Creek Estates Telecommunication Tower
January 27, 2015
David,
I have reviewed the referral request of Rifle Creek Estates, file number LIPA-8155, and have the
following comments for this proposed Telecommunication Tower
1. The plans show an existing roadway to the water storage tanks and a new 16' roadway to the
proposed cell tower and building. 1 am requesting that the entire access road be 16' of
compacted all weather driving surface to support the super -imposed weight of the fire truck
(55,000 lbs.). The specifications on page A7 of the construction drawings show the road section
to be compacted subgrade, Marfi 500X (or Equivalent) Geotextile Fabric, and 6" of I 'h"
crushed rock. In my opinion, this driving surface is not sufficient to handle a load of a fire truck
and will be like driving on marbles; traction will be impossible on a road with any amount of
grade. This road section should be revisited by a road engineer.
7
The plans do not show an existing gate on the access road. 1 am requesting access to the locked
gate and possibly the security fence around the building, if locked. Access to the building for
suppression purposes is suggested. Knox Padlock's and Boxes are used by this department for
the locking access points and I can provide the contractor with the proper order forms.
3. The documents show no wildfire mitigation for the cell tower and building. Defensible space
around the building should meet State Forest Service Guidelines. Wildfire mitigation should be
completed below and around the structure to lessen the fuel load of the existing pinion/juniper
trees. This office will work with the contractor and the State Forest Service to determine what
work will need to be done.
4. The plans show a small parking area at the end of the road by the building and cell tower. This
area is not large enough to be used as a fire truck turnaround. We would request a Y type
turnaround be built at the top of the new road by the existing water tanks. This will allow a fire
truck to drive to the building and back a short distance to turnaround or turnaround first at the Y
and back down to the building.
5. The plans show no building address sign at the beginning of the driveway. We request an
address be given to the building and a sign posted at the intersection of the driveway and Mesa
Drive.
6. The plans only show that the contractor shall supply a fire extinguisher during construction. A
2-A 10 BC rated fire extinguisher should be installed inside the building mounted in a
conspicuous, easily accessible location.
CRFR requires a Hazardous Materials declaration be completed by the building owners and
MSDS's be supplied in a weather proof container outside of the building. NFPA 704 signage
shall be posted on outside door to alert the responders of possible hazards of the building.
A
COLORADO RIO
Colorado River Fire Rescue
Thank you for allowing CRFR to make comments on this project. Please contact me with any questions
or concerns.
Orrin D. Moon, Fire Marshal
January 27, 2015
EXHIBIT
Garfield County
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Community Development
RE: LIPA-8155 Rifle Creek Estates Telecommunication Tower
Vegetation Management
Dear Dave,
Staff requests that the applicant survey the property for County noxious weeds The County list is attached.
If county listed noxious weeds are located on site, please provide a weed management plan that addresses any found
noxious weeds.
The applicant shall monitor the site annually and treat for County listed noxious weeds as necessary.
The applicant states that revegetation will be done with native plants. Staff requests that the applicant provide a seed mix
with common and scientific names of the species listed.
Please let me know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
Steve Anthony
Garfield County Vegetation Manager
0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060
Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939
GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST
Common name
Leafy spurge
Russian knapweed
Yellow starthistle
Plumeless thistle
Houndstongue
Common burdock
Scotch thistle
Canada thistle
Spotted knapweed
Diffuse knapweed
Dalmation toadflax
Yellow toadflax
Hoary cress
Saltcedar
Saltcedar
Oxeye Daisy
Jointed Goatgrass
Chicory
Musk thistle
Purple loosestrife
Russian olive
Also State Listed species:
Scientific name
Euphorbia esula
Acroptilon repens
Centaurea solstitalis
Carduus acanthoides
Cynoglossum of cinale
Arctium minus
Onopordwn acanthi=
Cirsium arvense
Centaurea maculosa
Centaurea dfusa
Linaria dalmatica
Linaria vulgaris
Cardaria draba
Tamarix parviflora
Tamarix ramosissima
Chrysanthemum leucantheum
Aegilops cylindrica
Cichorium inlybus
Carduus nutans
Lythrurn salicaria
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Absinth wormwood Artemsia absinthium
David Pesnichak
From: Wyatt Keesbery
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 8:27 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Rifle Creek Estates Tower
David,
EXHIBIT
After reviewing the application for a telecommunication tower in Rifle Creek Estates, I see no issues with them
proceeding with this project. There will be very little impact to the county road and very little increase in traffic.
WyattKeeisbery
Garfield Count} Road k Bridge
Dislticl rorcm.ut
0298 C.R. 333A
Rifle, Co. 8165(
( )1l icc: 970-625-8601
Cell: 970-309-6073
1
,yeetA � 7/
EXHIBIT
1 ly
cectei4
LAG 4 , eef_ae`�/iv 7GL - CIii44:3 �L/
01?:0 C L //26-40/5-.a.:,
74,-,ea-ypi(cz-z-de—e7c_ e 1141,--(-97"
R -F 74‘,/,‘,7- 1e
-4jeleci,--124 gie_ erle'-e4/7Lher..-1 xir To
er,c.„ i4czcee_ Xi-aZ1 ef-7are-
11-`17 a
fat itz./Aifa '748 7,(1- G Weetre-
Ac_ 1/64-1 iLepliq 6-6-liceea,141-411-474
.-,L;L -77 Ace (24_c_c-xn.e-,47 A4;1 -e4 e2v 'dee-4
``rte f
Wall Street Journal: Many Sites Violate Rules Aimed at Protecting
Home
RF Exposure Concerns
Worker RF Radiation
Exposure Survey
FAQ
Glossary Of Terms
Examples of Cell Antennas
RF Radiation Safety
Resources
RF Safety & Wireless News
t•C Rb l cw ww.-.
bbbbCtr►+swe-
PAbbbo►+.+►
About RF CHECK
Page 1 of 3
RF CHECK Solution RF Exposure Concerns
Wall Street Journal: Many Sites Violate Rules
Aimed at Protecting Workers From
Excessive Radio -Frequency Radiation
Source: Wall Street Journal
Date: 10/03/2014
The antennas fueling the nation's cellphone boom are challenging federal safety
rules that were put in place when signals largely radiated from remote towers off-
limits to the public.
Now, antennas are in more than 300,000 locations—rooftops, parks,
stadiums—nearly double the number of 10 years ago, according to the industry
trade group CTIA.
Federal rules require carriers to use barricades, signs and training to protect
people from excessive radio-frequency radiation. the waves of electric and
magnetic power that carry signals The power isn't considered harmful by the time
it reaches the street, but it can be a risk for workers and residents standing
directly in front of an antenna.
One in 10 sites violates the rules, according to six engineers who examined more
than 5,000 sites during safety audits for carriers and local municipalities,
undersconng a safety lapse in the network that makes cellphones hum, at a time
when the health effects of antennas are being debated world-wide.
The FCC has issued just two citations to cell carriers since adopting the rules in
1996. The FCC says it lacks resources to monitor each antenna.
"It's tike having a speed limit and no police," said Marvin Wessel, an engineer who
has audited more than 3,000 sites and found one in 10 out of compliance.
On a sweltering June day in Phoenix, Mr. Wessel strolled through a residential
area near Echo Canyon Park and spotted lawn chairs near a T -Mobile US Inc.
cellular antenna painted brown to match a fence. His monitor showed emissions
well above safety limits.
After being alerted by The Wall Street Journal, T -Mobile added warning signs and
roped off a patch in front of the antenna with a chain. "The safety of the public, our
customers and our employees is a responsibility that all of us here at T -Mobile
take very seriously," said a T -Mobile spokeswoman,
At very high levels, radio-frequency radiation can cook human tissue, the FCC
said, potentially causing cataracts and temporary sterility and other health issues
To buffer people from these "thermal' effects, the FCC set two limits for how much
RF people can absorb—one for the general public, and an "occupational" limit five
times higher for people trained to work near antennas. The higher level is still 10
times below the Thermal level.
Carriers have to restrict access near antennas that are above the limits Workers
and others who venture into hot zones—generally up to 20 feet in front of an
antenna—must be trained and have RF monitors.
Most cellular antennas aren't strong enough to cause thermal problems,
engineers say, and carriers are installing some smaller antennas with lower power
levels. But some are being made stronger to meet demand for high-speed
Internet access, high-definition video and other services. A German study in 2013
found higher emissions from 4G antennas.
"The more bandwidth, the hotter they will be,' said Mr. Wessel, who expects some
to exceed the thermal level within a year.
Richard Tell, a Nevada engineer, also expects some emissions to rise. At more
http://www. rfcheck.com/news/Many-S i tes- V f plate-Rules-Aimed-at-Protec tint;- Workers -Fr... 1/26/2015
Wall Street Journal: Many Sites Violate Rules Aimed at Protecting Page 2 of 3
than 1,000 sites nationally, he found roughly one in 10 out of compliance, similar
to Mr. Wessel's conclusion. Some are hidden or disguised for aesthetic reasons
"I've been on rooftops looking for antennas and couldn't find them because they
were hidden in fake concrete blocks that were really foam," he said.
Daniel Ranahan, a Lowell, Mass., roofer, said antennas are slowing jobs. "There's
no mechanism for the worker to know what buildings are safe," he said
Peter Chaney, the director of safety and health for the Mechanical Contractors
Association of America, which represents companies with more than 270,000
workers, in August asked the FCC to create a database of cellular antennas.
One company, RF Check, in San Diego, has designed a protocol but requires
collaboration from carriers and funding from phone customers.
Mr. Chaney is developing a training video and brochure on RF safety to distribute
to the association's members next year.
"We want workers to know that the antennas are there and that there may be a
potential hazard," he said. "I'm concerned about the chronic effect of this. If guys
have 30 -year careers and they're exposed to these things on a regular basis—is
there any long-term effect?"
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health began studying that
question after the World Health Organization in 2011 categorized RF radiation as
a possible carcinogen, based on research by over 30 scientists, said Gregory
Lotz, the top RF expert for Niosh. And the National Toxicology Program at the
National Institutes of Health is exploring lower -level RF exposure.
An FCC guideline written after the rules were adopted notes studies showing
"relatively low levels' of RF radiation can cause "certain changes in the immune
system, neurological effects, behavioral effects.' and other health issues,
including cancer 'Results to date have been inconclusive," however, the agency
said in a guide to radio-frequency radiation, and need to be studied further.
Among those concerned is Gilbert Amelio, a scientist who was chief executive of
Apple Inc. and National Semiconductor and a board member of AT&T Inc. He
believes industry leaders will "take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent
harm to workers or others who may have good reason to be close to these sites."
Jimmy Crespo complained to federal labor regulators in 2011 that he became
disabled with cognitive issues after working more than 300 times on heating and
cooling systems for antennas for Johnson Controls Inc., a Sprint Corp. contractor.
"I had no training, no monitoring devices and no warning from my employer," Mr.
Crespo said.
Regulators asked Johnson to ensure the rules were being followed. Johnson said
it no longer had the contract, and Sprint said the systems were a safe distance
from antennas.
"Employees were not working in an area where radio frequencies would pose a
hazard," a Johnson spokesman said.
Sprint said annual checks show all sites are compliant.
AT&T said it places "the utmost importance on the safety of workers and the
public from RF emissions and we have a rigorous safety program in place to
minimize exposure to RF emissions."
The FCC in April signed a consent decree with Verizon Communications Inc. to
settle RF violations in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, involving an unlocked
rooftop and a missing sign. Verizon agreed to pay $50,000 and to train employees
and contractors, and check other sites.
The carrier has told regulators that property owners complicate compliance.
In New York City, condominium tenants became upset and concerned with RF
notification signs we placed on a terrace access point," Tamara Preiss, Verizon's
vice president of federal regulatory affairs, wrote to the FCC in February. Ms.
Preiss said the signs were removed after the tenants hired a lawyer.
Insurers are becoming concerned. "The risk is often transferred to 'unsuspecting'
httn://www.rfcheck.con1/news/Manv-Sites-Violate-Rules-Aimed-at-Protecting-Workers-Fr 1 /26/2015
Wall Street Journal: Many Sites Violate Rules Aimed at Protecting Page 3 of 3
property owners," Roger Egan, executive chairman of Risk Strategies Co . told
the FCC.
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc and A.M. Best Co., the insurance -rating
agency. have flagged RF as an emerging risk. Swiss Re wrote in a 2013 report
that if RF radiation is linked to health problems it `could ultimately lead to Targe
losses.'
See all news
Home Page 1 RF Exposure Concerns I Worker RF Radiation Exposure Survey 1 FAO! Glossary Of Terms 1 Examples of Cell Antennas
Need for RF CHECK I RF CHECK Solution I RE Safety & Wireless News 1 RF Radiation Safety Resources 1 Antenna Safety
Consortium 1
Investor Contact Form 1 Contact Us
Follow @rfcheck
Copyright 2015. RF CHECK Inc. RF CHECK® is a registered service mark of RF CHECK Inc.
httn://www.rfcheck.com/news/Manv-Sites-Violate-Rules-Aimed-at-Protectine-Workers-Fr... 1/26/2015
Are Radio Waves Injuring Us? Page 1 of 6
Mi►rr►•r•.»
b bebbbbnw.••.
Home About RF CHECK
RF Exposure Concerns
Worker RF Radiation
Exposure Survey
FAQ
Glossary Of Terms
Examples of Cell Antennas
RF Radiation Safety
Resources
RF Safety & Wireless News
RF CHECK Solution RF Exposure Concerns
Are Radio Waves Injuring Us?
Source: RMllnsight
Experts say mounting scientific evidence demonstrates a causal link between
radio frequency (RF) exposure and physical cognitive injuries.
A MILLION -PLUS WIRELESS ANTENNA SITES
The proliferation of wireless networks to satisfy consumer demand for new and
improved technologies, products and services has rendered current RF radiation
safety strategies obsolete. When these strategies were developed decades ago,
fewer than 25,000 wireless antenna sites dotted the U.S.—today, there are more
than 600,000 commercial and governmental wireless antenna systems, projected
to exceed one million soon (based on various wireless reports: Cisco Visual
Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update 2011-2016; CTIA's
Semi -Annual Wireless Industry Survey. cell sites). In the past, antenna sites could
be fenced off and isolated, with access restricted to RF -trained technicians and
signage telling others to stay out. Today, wireless antennas are everywhere—on
rooftops, the sides of buildings, utility poles, light standards and hidden entirely
within the structures of buildings. Third party workers are routinely compelled to
work in close proximity to RF radiation -transmitting devices.
Recognizing RF radiation as a health and safety hazard, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has established RF radiation regulations and
human exposure limits. The science behind the FCC regulations is long-standing
and uncontroverted (FCC adopted RF standards established by IEEE/ANSI after
protracted review, research, debate and public comment, However, painters.
firefighters, utility and maintenance workers, insurance inspectors, HVAC
employees, roofers and other construction workers face overexposure to RF
radiation every day.
RF radiation exposure causes "behavioral disruption" in laboratory subjects.
Behavioral disruption in lab animals refers to the inability to perform food
motivated learned behavior. The inability to perform learned tasks following RF
radiation exposure proves the causal link between the exposure and behavioral,
cognitive and/or psychological injuries. In humans, such injuries can cause
depression, memory loss, mood disorders, sleep disorders and impaired or
diminished cognitive function (Ziskin, 2005). The courts also recognize an
established link between these psychological injuries and RF exposure that only
slightly exceeds the FCC human exposure limit (AT&T Alascom v. Orchitt, Alaska
Supreme Court No. S-1200058).
Under current conditions, it is probably impossible to protect all workers from RF
overexposure. In addition to the danger faced by these individuals, property
owners with antennas on their premises may face serious financial exposure. This
article discusses these exposures, as well as the evolution of RF regulations and
the important difference between mobile phone and RF antenna risks.
FINANCIAL EXPOSURE
Two typical avenues of protection—limiting RF exposure in the first place and
contractual protection against liability—are often fl awed. One method of RF
exposure protection involves use of personal monitors. Pocket protection monitors
indicate when the wearer is being exposed to RF radiation fields that may exceed
FCC's maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits for a controlled RF
environment. Workers that use monitors and RF protective gear must be trained
to work in RF environments. They must satisfy FCC's criteria for being fully aware
of the existence of RF hazards and able to exercise control over their exposure.
This is often not the case. Signage is also largely insufficient in preventing RF
overexposure. Few signs are in place, and many have inconsistent wording.
Signs are usually located well away from the exposure zone—unsurprising,
perhaps, considering the prevalence of stealth installations, where the antennas
are hidden in structures for aesthetic reasons.
httn://www.rfcheck.commews/Are-Radio-Waves-1niirrinv-11c nhn 1 /76/'7(115
Are Radio Waves Injuring Us? Page 2 of 6
In regard to liability, some businesses may assume they are protected by hold -
harmless and indemnification language contained in their leases. in practice,
these reciprocal indemnification provisions not only fail to resolve issues of
responsibility or risk transfer, but seem to ensure litigation between landlord and
tenant when a claim arises. The cell company will argue that a worker exposed to
RF radiation at the site was brought to or allowed on the property by the landlord
The cell company will counter that they cannot be aware of all activities at
antenna sites on a continuous 24(7 basis. Accordingly, they say, the lessor is
potentially guilty of active negligence, vitiating the indemnification provision in
favor of the lessor.
In tum, the lessor will argue that the cell company's operation of the RF
transmission device was the legal and proximate cause of the injury a worker may
have sustained. The lessor may assert other representations and warrants as
well, including a standard representation relative to compliance with applicable
laws and regulations, including those pertaining to
RF emissions.
Complicating the legal landscape, insurers have started including electromagnetic
field exclusions in liability policies. A guide is in development to help the plaintiffs'
bar begin pursuing RF radiation exposure cases We believe that RF radiation
exposure has a high potential for creating mass tort litigation
ASSESSING THE RISK
Proving overexposure to RF radiation is not hard (specific legal theories will not
be addressed in this article other than to note that wireless service providers may
be confronted with the theory of negligence per se and property owners that host
antenna sites with premises liability, both of which are relatively straightforward.).
Plaintiffs' counsel might easily show that a worker performed a specific task at an
antenna site, noting the proximity lo RF radiation -transmitting antennas and the
length of time of exposure. A subpoena might likely reveal that under current and
historical business practices, most FCC licensees do not power down RF -
transmitting antennas to protect third -party workers.
Proof of a violation of RF radiation regulations and human exposure limits is
straightforward. Established science demonstrates that RF radiation
overexposure causes specific cognitive and psychological injuries. Sympathetic
juries could render substantial judgments. The financial risk resulting from
potential litigation may be comparable to the risks created by asbestos and mold.
Here we attempt to quantify this risk for the current -year workforce. The analysis
does not consider future financial risks that could result if meaningful loss control
and RF safety solutions are not implemented in Tight of the growing awareness of
the RF exposure problem
The number of wireless RF transmission sites across the U.S. is 405,000.
(Although the total number of sites is approximately 600,O0D, the number was
reduced to account for co -located sites and sites that pose no significant risk to
workers due to their location and characteristics, see http.Awww rfcheck.comlRF-
Radialion-Exposure.php ).
• The total number of workers in trades that potentially bring workers to wireless
antenna sites is 8 million (Based on data drawn from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) and the U.S Census Bureau on the total number of workers in
trades that are likely to bring them to wireless antenna sites, (e.g., roofers,
electricians, HVAC technicians, maintenance workers and others.) [Research was
pursued to include only trades likely to encounter RF -transmitting antennas in
their line of work. For example, trades engaged in new construction, residential
(as opposed to commercial properties), and others unlikely to work in proximity to
wireless antennas were excluded from the current population of potentially
affected workers.]
• Forty percent of the total number of workers working in dose proximity to RF -
transmitting antennas is identified as 3,200,000 at risk. [This figure is based on
the recognition that not all workers in at -risk occupations will be compelled to work
in close proximity to RF -transmitting antennas. Additional scrutiny of BLS and
U.S. Census Bureau data identified sub populations of workers (e.g., roofers) with
an increased likelihood of working near wireless antennas.)
• Eight percent of at -risk workers, or 256,000, can be expected to become
claimants. Although one could argue that RF radiation overexposure is the rule.
not the exception, this is a conservative estimate of the number of workers
http://www.rfcheck.com/news/Are-Radio-Waves-Iniurintw-Us.php 1/2602015
Are Radio Waves Injuring Us? Page 3 of 6
exposed to excessive levels of RF radiation. (This estimate was based on
consultations with RF engineers; telecommunications health and safety
personnel; and insurance Toss control, underwriting and industrial hygiene
executives.) If the population of claimants (256,000) is divided by the number of
work days per year [260 (260 workdays per year assumes a 5 -day workweek, no
weekend work, no weekend RF exposures (all antenna sites are fully compliant
with FCC human exposure limits on weekends) and no emergency (e.g., by
firefighters) visits to antenna sites], the result would reflect that 985 workers per
day are subjected to RF overexposure throughout the entire U.S. If the number of
injured workers per day (985) is divided by the number of wireless antenna sites
(405,000), the result suggests that on any given day, only 0.24% of antenna sites
will have a worker exposed to excessive levels of RF radiation. (Another way to
look at this is that on any given day, no overexposure occurs at 99.76% of all
wireless antenna sites throughout the country, a very conservative perspective of
this issue.).
• Average award for psychological and cognitive injuries is $485,000 (results of
litigation and workers' compensation awards for depression, reduced brain
function, memory loss, mood disorders, sleep disorders and other cognitive
disorders upon which FCC's RF human exposure limits and the Orchitt case are
based were considered). To arrive at this number, we reviewed reports on jury
verdicts, settlements and judgments (these sources included Westlaw Jury
Verdicts, Settlements and Judgments databases, American Lawyer Media
Combined Verdict Search (Jury Verdicts & Settlement); LRP Publications Jury
Verdict and Settlement Summaries; National Law Journal Annual Jury Verdicts
Report and Lexis -Nexis Jury Verdicts and Experts databases.), workers'
compensation awards and maximum permissible awards by state (see, for
example, httpllwww.workerscompindiana com/indiana-workers-corncensation-
payments/
ensation-
pavrnentsl and New Jersey statutes annotated 34:15-12b and 34:15-38) and
articles by litigation claim valuation experts (see, for example,
httrm.uwww voccc2n.comipdfslarticleslecdama;t p+df ). The projected financial risk
is $124 billion (256,000 claimants x $485,000 average award),
THE SCIENCE BEHIND HUMAN EXPOSURE LIMITS
Once excessive exposure to RF radiation was proven to be hazardous to
humans, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) developed
limits for human exposure, and these limits have been widely adopted around the
world (Ziskin, 2005). The IEEE standard, IEEE C95.1, represents a consensus of
scientific opinion about safe levels of exposure. It covers the frequency range 3
kHz to 300 GHz, which includes the RF part of the spectrum.
Other major exposure limits, in particular the widely referenced guidelines of the
International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), have a
similar rationale but were developed using different processes (IEEE, 1999).
SETTING THE LIMITS
Present IEEE exposure guidelines that FCC has adopted have a history that goes
back nearly half a century. IEEE C95.1 traces its origins to 1960 when the
American Standards Association (now the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), a clearinghouse for standards of all sorts) approved the Radiation
Hazards Standards Project C95 and established a committee charged with
developing RF radiation exposure standards (Osepchuk & Petersen, 2001). The
first C95 standard, USASI C95.1-1966, was published in 1966, and with major
revisions was republished in 1974 and 1982. In 1989, IEEE assumed sponsorship
of the committee, which became IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28
(SCC -28). In 2001, SCC -28 adopted the name IEEE International Committee on
Electromagnetic Safety.
Under both IEEE and ANSI bylaws, all standards must be periodically updated
and revised. The latest RF standard, IEEE C95.1, was approved by the IEEE
Standards Board in 1991 and by ANSI in 1992. This standard was reaffirmed in
1997 and a supplement published in 1999. While the C95.1 standards are
voluntary, they have had a major influence on government policy in the U.S. and
in the development of exposure limits around the world.
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS
In assessing RF radiation hazards, a distinction must be made between levels
outside the body (the exposure) and absorbed energy within body tissues (the
dose). The exposure is measured in terms of the electric or magnetic field
strength or power density incident on the body. The dose depends on the
exposure, as well as on the body geometry, size, its orientation with respect to the
httn://www.rfcheck.cominews,'Are-Radio-Waves-Iniurint-I ls.nhn 1 /26/2()15
Are Radio Waves Injuring Us? Page 4 of 6
external field and other factors.
Between approximately 100 kHz and 10 GHz, the specific absorption rate (SAR)
is the dosimetric quantity that correlates best with reported biological effects of RF
energy. The whole -body -averaged SAR is the total power absorbed by the animal
or human (in watts) divided by the body mass (kilograms) and is expressed in
units of W/kg. For localized exposures to parts of the body, for example, the head,
a more useful measure is often the partial body exposure, which is the power
absorbed per unit mass in a localized region of tissue, also expressed in W/kg.
At frequencies below about 100 kHz, a more useful measure of a dose is often
the electric field strength in tissue, expressed in units of vofts per meter. The IEEE
standard is based on a limit to the SAR (called a basic restriction) set on the basis
of biological data. In addition, it defines limits to the exposure as measured by
field strength outside the body, which will ensure that the absorbed power within
the body meets the basic restriction. ICNIRP guidelines are similar, both in their
use of a basic restriction and exposure limits and in the numerical values of the
limits. As is the case with exposure limits for other hazardous substances, the RF
safety standards in the U.S. (and most countries) have two tiers, which vary in
definition, but correspond approximately to limits for occupational groups and the
general public.
In the IEEE standard, adopted by FCC, two tiers are defined as applying to
exposures in controlled (occupational) and uncontrolled (general public)
environments.
VERIFYING A HAZARD
The IEEE C95.1-1991 standard was based on a comprehensive review of the
scientific literature covering all reliable studies that reported biological effects of
RF/microwave energy. This task, and the development of a draft standard, was
accomplished by a 125 -member subcommittee (Subcommittee 4) of the IEEE
Standards Coordinating Committee 28 (The composition of the subcommittee by
affiliation was research (university: 29.6%, nonprofit: 6.4%, military: 12% and
government: 24%), industry (9.6%), industry consulting (3.2%), general public and
independent consultants (11.2%). The composition by principal discipline was
physical sciences (physics, biophysics, engineering, etc.: 32.8%), life sciences
(biology, genetics, etc.: 43.2%), medicine (physicians: 9.6%),
radiology/pharmacology/toxicology (3.2%) and others (law, medical history,
safety, etc.: 11.2%).
Scientific literature related to biological effects of RF radiation is highly diverse,
both in quality and in relevance to health and safety risks in humans. The IEEE
review process examined only studies that met selection criteria that included
adequate dosimetry and experimental design and independent confirmation of
reported effects. Studies that were not published in peer-reviewed scientific
publications and those that were inadequately described were excluded from
consideration. Based on its review, the subcommittee concluded that disruption of
food -motivated learned behavior in laboratory animals was the most sensitive
biological response that could be both well confirmed and predictive. This effect
known as "behavioral disruption," has been observed in laboratory animals
ranging from rodents to monkeys exposed to RF fields at frequencies ranging
from 225 MHz to 5.8 GHz (Chou & D'Andrea, 2003). Depending on the animal
species and RF frequency, the exposure needed to produce behavioral disruption
varied widely, from about 100 to 1,400 W/m2. The behavioral disruption suffered
by the test subjects following their exposure to RF radiation established the
causal Zink between the exposure and behavioral/cognitive/psychological injuries.
These injuries include depression, mood disorders, sleep disorders, memory loss
and impaired or diminished cognitive function.
SETTING THE BASIC RESTRICTION & EXPOSURE UMITS
From its literature review, the subcommittee chose a value of 4 W/kg for the
whole -body -averaged SAR as the threshold for behavioral disruption in animals It
reduced this SAR by a factor of 10 to establish the basic restriction for exposure
in controlled environments and then added another factor of 5 for exposure in
uncontrolled environments. The resulting basic restrictions on whole body SAR
are 0.4 W/kg for controlled environments and 0.08 W/kg for uncontrolled
environments. The basic restrictions are, as a result, a factor of 10 to 50 below
whole-body exposure levels shown to produce behavioral disruption following
exposures ranging from several minutes to several hours in duration. Based on
engineering analysis, the committee then established limits to the external field
(exposure) that would ensure that basic restrictions are met. Because the
absorption properties of the body depend on frequency, the resulting exposure
httn://www.rfcheck.com/news/Are-Radio-Waves-iniririnp-i Is nhn 1:"76;'2()15
Are Radio Waves Injuring Us? Page 5 of 6
limits do also. Other limits were developed for partial body exposure and for fields
of unusual characteristics, such as very short pulses of high intensity. Partial body
exposure limits were based on observations that the maximum SAR in any part of
the body is approximately 20 times higher than the whole body average SAR
under many exposure conditions. Consequently, the subcommittee established a
limit of 8 W/kg for partial body exposure for controlled environments and 1 6 W/kg
for uncontrolled environments. These exposures are to be averaged over small
volumes (corresponding to 1 gram) of tissue.
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
The draft of the 1991 IEEE standard underwent a long and rigorous process
before finally being approved by IEEE. The first stage was balloting at the
subcommittee level. Voting was done in several stages. After each preliminary
round of balloting, all negative votes and comments were circulated to the
subcommittee, and members who had originally submitted were given the
opportunity to comment, reaffirm or change their votes. Final approval required
75% affirmative votes of those submitting ballots After approval by the
subcommittee, the draft standard was moved to the main committee for approval
using the same balloting procedure and then to the IEEE Standards Board for
final approval. The final approved IEEE standard was then forwarded to ANSI,
which required a period of public comment and response. In 1992, ANSI adopted
the standard as an American National Standard. The standard is reviewed
periodically and subject to potential revision
CELL PHONE VS. ANTENNA RF EXPOSURE
The wireless industry has successfully defended several class-action lawsuits
involving allegations that cell phone use causes brain cancer (see, for example,
Newman v. Motorola Inc). One outcome of this litigation has been to undercut the
appreciation of the health and safety risks caused by RF radiation from wireless
antennas. brought on behalf of third -party workers compelled to work in proximity
to RF -transmitting antennas. The successful defense of the cell phone cases,
however, does not diminish the inevitability and potential severity of the financial
consequences of these suits for several reasons.
•The successful defense of the cell phone litigation was, in part, based on the fact
that FCC's RF MPE limits for the devices were not violated. FCC's MPE limits for
cell phones are based on the premise that a cell phone user is safe with a SAR of
1.6 watts per kg, averaged over one gram of tissue. Compliance with this limit
must be demonstrated before FCC approval is granted for cell phones (FCC,
Office of Engineering and Technology, Bulletin 56). In other words, the cell
phones at issue in the litigation were, at all times, fully compliant with FCC RF
MPE limits. In contrast, third -party workers' RF overexposure lawsuits from
antennas will prove that FCC RF MPE limits are routinely violated.
•The cell phone litigation was based on the assertion that RF emissions from cell
phones cause brain cancer. The district courts ruled, and the appellate courts
affirmed, that science has not produced reliable and relevant evidence of the
causal link between cell phones and brain cancer.
•Again in contrast, the third -party workers' cases could allege that RF radiation
overexposure from antennas causes cognitive or psychological injuries, not
cancer. The science that established the causal link between RF exposure and
psychological injuries is longstanding (FCC adopted the RF standards established
by IEEE/ANSI after protracted review, research, debate and public comment).
This science is the basis for FCC's adoption of its RF radiation MPE limits (Ziskin,
2005).
-Also, the magnitude of RF radiation exposure a third -party worker incurs when
working in proximity to a wireless antenna is hundreds of times greater than that
from a cell phone.
•The defendants in the cell phone litigation (i.e., handset manufacturers, wireless
service providers, CTIA, municipalities and other participants) were able to avail
themselves of facts that do not and will not exist in Litigation involving worker RF
overexposure from wireless antennas. When assessing this risk, one should not
be misled by the results of cell phone litigation.
HOW TO RESPOND
The quicker we move to establish national safety protocols, the sooner we will
stop adding potential claimants and will reduce the significant financial liability to
stakeholders. We believe two key steps must be taken to ensure worker safety:
httn://www.rfcheck.com/news/Are-Radio-Waves-iniurin'-Iis.nhn 1I /')()15
Are Radio Waves Injuring Us? Page 6 of 6
1) Create a national accessible registry of cell antenna sites, identifying the
location and exposure zones throughout North America. Work on this has been
started by RF CHECK, Inc. The registry will be similar to the "Call 1-1300-123-4567
before you dig" utility locator services. RF CHECK is also establishing a new RF
safety protocol featuring a layered, patented RF safety system that supplies all
workers with the necessary information to educate and protect themselves from
RF radiation overexposure.
2) Because RF radiation is an invisible threat with latent bodily injury potential,
education is crucial. Everyone who is at risk for RF overexposure should be
taught the characteristics, hazards and exposure regulations associated with RF
emissions.
REFERENCES
Chou, C.K. & I]'Andrea, J,A. (2003, Nov. 14). Review of the effects of RF fields on
various aspects of human health BioElectroMagnetics, 24(S6).
IEEE. (1999). Standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio
frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz (IEEE C95.1-1991).
Piscataway, NJ: Author.
Osepchuk, J.M. & Petersen, R.C. (2001, June). Safety standards for
electromagnetic fields. IEEE Microwave Magazine, 2(2), 57-69.
Ziskin, M.C. (2005, Mar./Apr.). COMAR technical information statement: The IEEE
exposure limits for radiofrequency and microwave energy IEEE Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Magazine, 114-121. Retrieved from
http:llewh.ieee.orglsoclembslcomarlsfandardsTlS. pdf
Thomas F. Pegg, CIC, is the deputy director of casualty risk control in the
strategic outcomes practice of Willis Group in Pittsburgh, PA.
See all news
Home Page j RF Exposure Concerns 1 Worker RF Radiation Exposure Survey j FAQ j Glossary Of Terms j Examples of Cell Antennas
Need for RF CHECK 1 RF CHECK Solution ( RF Safety & Wireless News I RF Radiation Safety Resources 1 Antenna Safety
Consortium
Investor Contact Form I Contact Us
Follow @rfcheck
Copyright 2015. RF CHECK Inc. RF CHECK is a registered service mark of RF CHECK Inc
http://www.rfcheck.com/news/Are-Radio-Waves-Injuring-Us.php 1/26/2015
Antenna Safety Consortium Page 2 of 2
} ❑ i support the Antenna Safety Consortium
LSubmit
Indicates required field
C 2015 Antenna Safely Consorlium AU rights reserved.
Antenna Safety Consortium* and RF CHECK® are the registered service marks of RF CHECK Inc
httn://www.antennasafetvconsortium.comi 1/26/2015
Antenna Safety Consortium
ANTENNA SAFETY CONSORTIUM
Page 1 of 2
The Antenna Safety Consortium (ASC) is a bipartisan coalition of
wireless antenna transmission stakeholders committed to the health,
safety, and protection of workers exposed to the hazards of Radio
Frequency radiation from the more than 600,000 commercial and
government wireless antenna sites across the country.
The broad-based coalition is comprised of commercial and government
FCC licensees, site and building owners, trades unions, contractors,
employers, consumer groups, insurance companies, utility companies,
national associations, and the public as represented by local and state
governments.
Across the nation we are experiencing an explosive demand for faster
and more reliable wireless transmission capacity to power our smart
phones, laptops, tablets and other wireless communications devices.
Protecting our nation's workforce from potential harmful exposure from
the Radio Frequency (RF) radiation emitted from the massive network of
wireless antenna transmission sites across the United States is of
serious concern.
Every week, thousands of innocent tradespeople across the nation are
exposed to harmful Radio Frequency radiation from the hundreds of thousands wireless antennas located on rooftops, water
towers, light poles and similar structures. These workers —electricians, firefighters_ roofers, painters, HVAC technicians,
sheet metal and utility workers, maintenance workers. and contractors — are unaware that they are working in close
proximity to RF radiating wireless antennas.
Both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) have long recognized exposure to RF radiation from these cellular antennas as a serious safety and
health issue We believe they have not taken strong enough action to protect our workforce from exposure and the
detrimental health effects including bums, shocks, eye damage, and mental impairment
Antenna Safety Consortium supports worker safety protections and protocols that require wireless service providers to
extend the same level of RF radiation protection they provide to their own workforce to innocent tradespeople and other
workers exposed to RF radiation from the wireless companies' antennas.
This protection includes recurring RF radiation safely training, up-to-date site-specific RF safety information, and a
documented process to shut off antennas when workers need to work in close proximity to RF transmitting antennas.
We welcome your participation in the ongoing campaign to keep American workers safe and on the job so they can
continue to contribute to their family's future and our growing economy.
Company/Organization
First Name
Last Name
Title
Email
Phone number
Antenna Safety Consortium Support Form
J
httn://www.antennasafetvconcnrthim cnm/ 1 7 .1()15
Effects _t electru1f'!9netiG r? i-9ricn of 'moh'I
fJ.4n_> on the centra` nervriri5 5Y51ean.
Humaf arrVtlocnceohalograml { EG arldITSVe.ohone rarliat!on
(Veurotfehavioural effects of electromagnetic
fields (2005)
Nle_o phty5ido?gic erre[15 of
moble
Phone eleCk(Omagnelhumans A ccrutch ens 4+
Diseases a1 modem IiYing_neur9'vgicdl ch naes
ssacrrrled nrth rnobile Ql!ones_and radio'reuuenry radiatroni r ans
Elome Page RF Exposure Concems Worker RF Radiation Exposure Survey FAO Glossary OI Terms Exarnotes of Cel(
Antenna.*
N,Nsi ra• RF: CHECK RP CHECK Solution RF 5tilety $ Wir le55 r e RF RoOidtiurt 5alety I 5e rge* Antenna Safety
Consortium
lnyestor Contact Form Contact us
Follow @rfcheck
/JiLLIJJ
bb be. rosr.•... Co
l�bbrwso.s.►•••
tbh•
Horne Need for RF CHECK RF CHECK Solution
RF Radiation Safety Resources
Behavioral and Cognitive Effects of Microwave Exposure
IEEE
1-rdEalaggro,rps.1,5c,L2Fd5EAllEiehaviOtpl_qLreVS {il
The Impacts of Radiofrequency Radiation from Mobile
Phone Antennas
I I It .A"
EMR Australia Pty Ltd
ritto:llwww.chamas electro-
maanetiaues.comlimaaes doclaustralie antennerelais.odt
COMAR Technical Information Statement the IEEE
exposure limits for radiofrequency and microwave energy
IEEE
htto:llewh. ieee.ora/soclembslcomarlstandard$TI S. odt
Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation
r iw:;rvexoi.rnaixruzin 9mOreiorr} en�yr�nenry Iain tl Im
ICNIRP: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time -varying
Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300
GHz)
`F'`" eljkf . °s
ti,:"ZiAmmkosTi
fttto:Nwww.icnim,deldocuments/emfgdl. odt
OET 65: Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for
Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields
CC l ederaI
,.,) ComrnunicAtiarts
Comm or.
Engineenng TechnoloavlDocumentslbulretinsloet651oet65,odf
Bibliography
A meta-analysis for
fteuigbehavioral effects due to electromagnetic field extxzsure emitted by GSM_mei&
Human electroohvsiologtcal and coanitive
effects of exposure to ELF magnetic and ELF modulated RF and microwave fields: A
review of recent studies
Exposure to ELF and ELF-
rno,dolaled rudi0fre9uPr'cy lipids' The lune CCilr`a% of ahvsirrtppirr l Ein4Co{tliliv piens
eiNented in reCerlt Studies {2O¢ _% 1
L3Q eior l evdluai:on cf rnicrovqye irradiation.
Behavioral and cognitive effects of
microwave exoosure.
Microwave effects op the
nervous system.
Errr r15 p1 rrrobi'ejagne emissions vr1 tlinlarl brain
activity and sleep variables.
Neurological effects of microwave exoosure
related to mobile communication.
�/lI JJ ►►►1l YYb-ss.
Zirtuji�1/aa..111 S►0i1►YMM�...
Home Need for RF CHECK
RF CHECK Solution J RF Exposure Concerns
RF Radiation Safety Resources
Behavioral and Cognitive Effects of Microwave Exposure
IEEE
fiutn:lJarcuoer,ie arrYpr,3uas/scc2.5rsc4t13ehavIo1a' elfecl p[tt
The Impacts of Radiofrequency Radiation from Mobile
Phone Antennas
IMVA
EMR Australia! Pty Ltd
htto.11www.chamos.e1ectro
maanetiaues.comlimaggs doclaustraiie antennerelais.odt
COMAR Technical Information Statement the IEEE
exposure limits for radiofrequency and microwave energy
IEEE
jitto:llewh, ieee. ornlsoelernbslcomar/standard$TI S. odf
Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation
Home
RF Exposure Concerns
Worker RF Radiation
Exposure Survey
FAQ
Glossary Of Terms
Examples of Cell Antennas
RF Radiation Safety
Resources
RF Safety & tftfrreless News
t•bUMR+r++
rPrOti
Need for RF CHECK
RF CHECK Solution sac Concerns
RF Radiation Safety Resources
Behavioral and Cognitive Effects of Microwave Exposure
IEEE
This paper presents an overview of the recent behavioral
literature concerning microwave exposure and discusses
behavioral effects that have supported past exposure
standards. Other effects, which are based on tower levels of
exposure, are discussed as well, relative to setting
exposure standards. The paper begins with a brief
discussion of the ways in which behavioral end points are
innstigated in the laboratory, together with some of the
methodological considerations pertinent to such studies
waren rade frequency (RF) exposure is involved. It has been
pointed out by several sources that exposure to RF
radiation can lead to changes in the behavior of humans
and laboratory animals that can range from the perceptions
of warmth and sound to lethal body temperatures.
htto:llgrouoer.ieee.orolarouos/scc281sc41Behavjoral effects.pdf
The Impacts of Radiofrequency Radiation from Mobile
Phone Antennas
EMR Australia Pty Ltd
magnetioues.comlimaaes
This report addresses the evidence for the impact of
radiofrequency radiation from mobile phone antennas on
people's health and wellbeing. Mobile phone antennas emit
high frequency (radiofrequency) radiation that differs from
naturally -occurring radiation in frequency and characteristics
of the signal.
htto://www.chamas-electro-
doc/australie antennerelais.odf
COMAR Technical Information Statement the IEEE
exposure limits for radiofrequency and microwave energy
IEEE
Excessive exposure to radiofrequency (RF) or microwave
energy produced by radio transmitters, some Industrial
equipment, and other sources can be hazardous. For this
reason, the IEEE has developed limits for human exposure
to RF energy, and these limits have been widely influential
around the world. The IEEE standard represents a
consensus of scientific opinion about safe levels of
exposure to RF energy, and its scientific rationale is
consistent with conclusions of numerous expert groups and
health agencies throughout the world. Nevertheless,
Iaypeople often have questions about the adequacy of the
standard or the process by which it was developed. This
Technical Information Statement discusses the
development and rationale for exposure limits for RF
energy.
)ttto;llewdt.ieee.ordsoclembslcomarlstandardsTIS, udf
Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation
The close proximity of a mobile telephone antenna to the
user's head leads to the deposition of a relatively targe
amount of radiofrequency energy in the head. The relatively
fixed position of the antenna to the head causes a repeated
irradiation of a more or less fixed amount of body tissue.
Imo ....W,.
na
]
tibbler
63
i
iF
a
r
108'11 87'4
13211
fu., r1..t IV u f to
• iiq My `Yi \
gya^e ; yh i 6 ! '� 41.
"CIR s" E �▪ Y
F ei
e r/`f r/ s
iy1: a iri 1i - as /' r
��� i i 17 1. V , 3/r, . tii
/
1 a / � �a r
aiiini
YC911 DRIVE • • 1 own M .
;f
ti•
I▪ S
=Yr. - gS -4 a / 1 a
&q; — _ 61!/
$" - f/ 1,* /
3
� / Y
UP et
+sovarzei
a E2
s;
5i4
Sia
/'
� g5
Y
.V 4.
i
a
A
uv
GGr
.L
R•_
ADDENDUM TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR
RIFLE CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION
LOCATED IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
EXHIBIT
Fowler, Marais, LLC. a limited liability company registered in the state of
Colorado, being the sole owner of all the property known as Rifle Creek Estates,
Filing 2, lots 1 to 7 as subdivided and platted according to a final map compris-
ing of two sheets and filed for record in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk
and Recorder along with these covenants, desiring to protect property values and
specifically lots 1 to 7 of Rifle Creek Estates, Filing 2, hereby adopt the follow-
ing use, building and development restrictions each one of which shall be applicable
to, and shall run with each of the lots 1 to 7 of Rifle .Creek Estates, Filing 2.
The existing 27 lot subdivision known as Rifle Creek Estates shall hereafter be
referred to as "Filing 1" and lots 1 to 7 of Rifle Creek Estates Filing 2 shall
hereafter be referred to as "Filing 2". There shall be no separate governing body
for Filing 2. Instead, Filing 2 owners shall become members of the governing body
in place for Filing 1, namely the Rifle Creek Homeowners' Association.
The protective covenants intended to apply to, and run with the title of the
lots in Filing 2 are as follows:
1. Existing covenants. All of the covenants and restrictions that apply to Filing
1, as amended since their adoption, shall apply to Filing 2 unless modified in these
covenants. Pursuant to an agreement between Fowler, Marais, LLC and the Rifle Creek
Homeowners' Association dated. April 1, 1999, Fowler, Marais, LLC and all subsequent
owners of Filing 2 lots shall be full members of the existing Rifle Creek Estates
Homeowners' Association (with all of the privileges and obligations of full and un-
restricted "first class" mambership) and shall be governed and bound by Filing 1
Covenants as well as the Bylaws governing the operations of the Rifle Creek Home-
owners' Association. Filing 1 covenants are recorded in book 544 page 373 on record
at the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's office.
2. Maintenance of Mesa Drive Extension. The extension of Mesa Drive beyond the
Filing 1 boundary and into Filing 2 shall be dedicated to the County. The Rifle
Creek Homeowners' Association as a body shall not assume responsibility for the
maintenance_ of t he extension of Mesa Drive. The maintenance and upkeep of the Mesa
ave extension shall be't}ie exclusive obligation of Filing 2 owners.
The Rifle Creek Homeowners' Association shall establish a subcomittee comprising
of Filing 2 owners who shall be responsible for settinig_Rp_Ax annouAt far rp 4 IEL -
tenance and collecting, an annual levy of t120.00 per lot from Filing 2 owners. The
sub-committeeshall have the right to adjust the levy as circumstances require and
to expend the monies in the account as they deem necessary. All future maintenance
of Mesa Drive's extension shall be paid for from the funds collected and maintained
by the sub -committee exclusively for that purpose. It is the clear intention that
no Filing 1 ownor shall ever be asked to contribute to the maintenance of the ex-
tension�of Mesa Drive. Non-payment of this levy by a Filing 2 owner shall be sub-
ject to the same penalties that govern non-payment of the water assessment.
3, Dogs. ;Ane dog will be allowed for each residential unit within Filing 2 and
the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners' property boundaries. For
other animals, see Filing 1 Covenants.
4. Fireplaces. No open hearth solid fireplaces will be allowed anywhere in Filing
2. One new solid fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, will, be allowed in any dwelling unit, All dwell-
ing units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and
appliances.
5. Lighting. In addition to the exterior lighting requirements contained in the
Rifle Greek Estates Covenants, all exterior lighting in Filing 2 will be the minimum
amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be directed inward, towards the
interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety
lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
6. Sewer. In the future event that Filing 2 owners' property has the reasonable
ability to connect with any municipal or central sewer system, the subject property
owners shall be required to connect to said system and remove any existing individual
sewage disposal systems which may be located on said property, within one-year of.the
effective date of service availability.
7. Weed Control. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of each property
owner in Filing 2, with respect to his or her own property.
8. Farming operations. Garfield County has a right -to -farm -and -ranch regulation,
which recognizes the important contribution agriculture makes to this county. Nuisance
complaints made against customary and legal agricultural operations and practices
will not be pursued by owners in Filing 2.
9. Driveways. In designing driveways to individual homes in Filing 2, consider-
ation should be given to the weight of emergency apparatus (fire trucks, etc.) and
accessibility during adverse weather conditions.
10. Address posting. Each Filing 2 owner shall post an address where it is readily
identifiable by emergency responders. Where a residence is set back from the street,
the.address shall be posted where the driveway accesses Mesa Drive. Address lettering
shall be at least 4 inches high and a inch wide and shall contrast with background
colors.
11. Defensible apace. Vegetation shall be removed from near any structures on
the propertiee in Filing 2 to provide a safe zone in the event of a wildfire.
12. Septic disposal systems. A percolation test shall be undertaken for each lot
in Filing 2 prior to the construction of an individual septic disposal system.
13. Construction practicee. Detrimental construction practices such as the removal
of vegetation shall be avoided.. See the Lincoln DeVors Report dated 5/21/81 for other
construction recommendations,
The duration of these covenants, their enforcement and severability are the same
as for those in place for Filing 1.
DA?8a THIS y- DAY or 4r4T60, ± t, 1999
CARO roma,
FOR FOWLEER. MARUIS, LLC
BTAfih or COLORADO 1
I ss,
COUNTY 01 HEMA
'rhe foragoing, instrument vee acknowledged before me this• '1
day of ala -[ , 1999 by Carlyle Fouler in his tsp,t ry
as Manager at Sana on bahaif of 'ogler, lint lie, LLC.
My commission expires
id►
Notary Ibl
SEAL
1 'ON 011111A S31V1S3
lx e,
nyt 11.a ra 4. try
10z- A
.13
- I i cl n a� F'7 COV—V1-
I
I I.1r
/i
ilooLcit
as:
rAn
AUVl05 Y3by
z
c)
'WV 6S:115:60 C1OZ 6 AeW X41
cL
i
P ti�
/ rnti
VI
,P,0, cn �.
{
1 —
AM-
?.I
4
c
CA X- CD
5 �
0
1
T J)61
I�•
• 1
l�.
January 26, 2015
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning
108 8111 Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
MOUNTAIN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INC.
Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design
RE: Review of Highway 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Tower: LIPA-8155
Dear David:
This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Limited Impact Review
application of the Highway 13 and Rifle Gap Telecommunication Tower. The submittal was
found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments:
1. The Applicant should address the amount of area to be disturbed. A CDPHE permit may
be required if the disturbance is greater than one acre.
2. The Applicant should provide erosion control measures on the grading plan for the areas
to be disturbed.
3. The Applicant should address how the access road and the proposed grades compare to
the roadway standards.
4. The Applicant should address the concerns of the proposed road surface and the site soils.
They should refer to the letter from Chief Moon.
Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mountai Cross Enginee in Inc.
ris Hale, PE
8261/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com
195 W. 14'h Street
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-5200
Garfield County
Public Health
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: David Pesnichak
January 27, 2015
Hello Dave,
1
EXHIBIT
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6614
have reviewed the Limited Impact Review application for the Highway 13 and Rifle Gap
Telecommunications Tower (Rifle Creek Estates) and have a few comments:
Nuisance conditions: regardless of the fact that the applicant states that the site is "low
risk" based on work done by their consultants, there is still the potential for both air and
water quality impacts during the construction and operation of the telecommunications
tower. Proper dust mitigation should be utilized during the construction of the access
road and the pad where the tower will be located. Stormwater management best
practices should also be used in construction to minimize sediment leaving the pad.
Radio Frequency waves/radiation: In her email, Lyndsay Ward mentions that "after the
equipment is installed the carrier then tests the equipment and will test the equipment
each time new equipment is installed." Terracon consultants stated in their report that
"the evaluation of RF exposure radiation limits will be the responsibility of the carrier and
is not within Terracon's scope of work". Due to the close proximity of this tower to a
fairly significant housing development, I support a condition of approval that the
applicant conduct testing to assure compliance with RF radiation exposure limits as
outlined by the FCC and submit those reports to Garfield County Community
Development.
Thank you,
fila.L'
Morgan Hill
Environmental Health Specialist III
Garfield County Public Health
195 W. 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 665-6383
Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease
EXHIBIT
1 �t
1
David Pesnichak
From: Justin Dunn <justin-dunn@live.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:10 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: joseluisgun23@gmail.com
Subject: Concerns regarding Rifle Creek HOA request of Land Use Change Approval
January 29, 2015
David Pesnichak
Community Development
Garfield County
801 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Limited Impact Review Land Use Change Permit application for a 60' monopole
Telecommunication Facility and associated site infrastructure including a communication cabinet
(12'x28') within an approximately 3.5 acres parcel owned by the Rifle Creek Estates Homeowners
Association.
Dear Mr. Pesnichak,
I am submitting this letter in response to Rifle Creek Homeowners Association request for approval
for a Land Use Change Permit on a property owned by Rifle Creek Estates Homeowners Association
located in Garfield County. A 60' monopole telecommunication facility is proposed to be built due west
of my residence. I have a couple of concerns I would like to address:
1. The monopole can possibly decrease homes value due to being an eye sore. I am currently in the
process of selling my residence in Colorado.
2. I would like to see a Radio Frequency emissions analysis. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire,
satellite and cable. The FCC is also responsible for evaluating the effect of emissions from FCC
regulated transmitters on the quality of human environment. This includes potential safety hazards of
human exposure to radio-frequency energy. On August 1, 1996, the Commission adopted the
National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) which recommended Maximum
Permissible Exposure limits for field strength and power density for the transmitters operation at
frequencies of 300 kHz to 100 GHz.
On March 27, 2013, the FCC voted to advance its review of its various rules pertaining to the
implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements related to radio
frequency (RF) emissions from radio transmitters. The FCC has divided this process into three parts:
a Report and Order, a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and a Notice of Inquiry. The FCC
concludes several technical and semantic issues initiated in 2003 that revise and update its
regulations implementing NEPA. In the Inquiry the FCC requests commitment to determine whether
its RF exposure limits and policies need to be reassessed. The inquiry is intended to open discussion
on both the currency of our RF exposure limits and possible policy approaches regarding RF
exposure. The FCC has continuously monitored research and conferred with experts in this field, and
1
is confident in its RF exposure guidelines and the soundness of the basis for its rules but, it is a
matter of good government to periodically reexamine regulations and their implementation. The FCC
plans to develop a complete record by soliciting the input of qualified expert agencies and
organizations and the public, to determine whether the current rules and policies should remain
unchanged, or should be relaxed or tightened.
Due to the close proximity of the tower and elevated exposure RF emissions, 1 propose that the tower
not be built until the FCC has completed its study on RF emissions and update regulations that are
approaching 20 years old as I want to protect my family from possible harmful exposure.
Sincerely,
Justin Dunn
580.471.9119
923 Mesa Drive
Rifle, CO 81650
CC: Jose Rodrigguez
2
David Pesnichak
From: Lyndsay Ward <lyndsay.ward@pinnacleco.net>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:38 AM
To: David Pesnichak
Subject: Hwy 13 and Rifle Gap Public Hearing
Good Morning David,
EXHIBIT
Iio
It was great talking to you this morning and thank you for understanding the need to push back this public hearing. I
would like to just officially ask for a continuance with this project and ask that this project be put on the docket for the
meeting on April 6.2015. This will allow us the time for the necessary 30 days public notice prior to the meeting. Thank
you again for all of your help it is really appreciated.
Lyndsay Ward
Site Development Specialist
Pinnacle Consulting, Inc.
8480 East Orchard Road 1 Suite 3650
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
C 1201.694.4331 - 01720.460.2091 F 1720.460 2089
E 1 Lyndsay.Ward@pinnacleco.net
4 PINNACLE
David Pesnichak
From: Justin Dunn <justin-dunn@live.com>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 4:57 PM
To: David Pesnichak
Cc: joseluisgun23@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Concerns regarding Rifle Creek HOA request of Land Use Change Approval
David, one other concern I didn't mention earlier. Access to the location where the tower is proposed to be
built will require driving on the Mesa Drive extension or access through public land. Mesa Drive extension is
not a county road. The covenants clearly state the maintenance and upkeep of the extension of Mesa Drive is
the exclusive obligation of filing 2 owners. The covenants state that "The Rifle Creek Homeowners association
shall establish a subcommittee compromising of filing 2 owners who shall be responsible for setting up an
account for road maintenance and collection an annual levy of $120 per lot from filing 2 owners." I do not
want heavy equipment possibly damaging a road that I am responsible for and end up paying for the repairs.
The covenants state that "no filing 1 owners shall ever be asked to contribute to the maintenance of the
extension of Mesa Drive." If Rifle Creek HOA decides to give the extension to the county then filing 2 owners
that have paid for the road to be built and maintained should receive some compensation back.
Sincerely,
Justin Dunn
580-471-9119
923 Mesa Drive
Rifle, CO 81650
From: dpesnichak@garfield-county.com
To: justin-dunn@Iive.com
CC: joseluisgun23@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Concerns regarding Rifle Creek HOA request of Land Use Change Approval
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:30:11 +0000
Thanks Justin.
I will make sure your letter is included with the information going to the Board of County Commissioners for the Public
Hearing on Feb 9.
Best,
Dave
David Pesnichak, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County
Community Development Department
108 8th St Suite 401
1