Hi Melanie, I Wanted to Let You Know That I Received a Phone Call Today

Home , Clear Channel UK, Craig Wireless

From: Frederick Rollenhagen To: "Melanie Hallowell" Subject: One property owner in opposition Date: Tuesday, December 08, 2020 4:02:00 PM Attachments: image001.jpg

Hi Melanie,

I wanted to let you know that I received a phone call today from the neighbor of 1372 Sinton Road. He expressed very strong opposition to the tower proposal. Below is my summary of his phone call:

Karl Dorr replied by phone call in strong opposition to the request. Mr. Dorr lives adjacent to the property at 1406 Sinton Road. Mr. Dorr is worried about his property’s decreased value due to the construction of the tower and his ability to be able to sell it in the future. He asked if the applicant would pay for the diminution of his property’s value do to the construction of the tower. He said he moved to this area so he would not see towers like this. He also asked if the applicant is prepared to face litigation due to the diminution of his property’s value.

He left his phone number for you to call him if you wish; 303-670-1515

Thanks, Fred

Frederick Rollenhagen, AICP Planning and Building Services Manager Clear Creek County P.O. Box 2000 1111 Rose St. Georgetown, CO 80444 303-679-2360 Help us Help You – 60 Second Customer Service Survey

Please note; The County Annex Offices are open Monday through Friday, 8:00 am – 4:30 pm by appointment only. Please inquire to make an appointment.

STay the Course logo cropped

From: Rachel Weir To: Frederick Rollenhagen Subject: NO! to tower in Echo Hills Date: Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:09:21 PM

I am an adjacent property owner in Echo Hills and do NOT want, authorize or allow for the tower‘s construction. I’ve been in contact with realtors who will be writing letters stating my property value could decline upwards of 30%. I’m joining with multiple adjacent property owners who DO NOT want this tower next to our house. We will be present and vocal during your public hearing.

Rachel

Allison Nelson

Akerman LLP 1900 16th Street Suite 1700 Denver, CO 80202

D: 303 640 2504 T: 303 260 7712 F: 303 260 7714 [email protected]

December 16, 2020

VIA E-MAIL

Clear Creek Planning Commission 405 Argentine Street P.O. Box 2000 Georgetown, CO 80444

Re: 45 Lodgepole Drive, Evergreen, CO

Dear Clear Creek County Planning Commission:

Our firm represents Marcus and Rachel Weir, homeowners of property located at 45 Lodgepole Drive, Evergreen, Colorado (the "Weir's Home"). Marcus and Rachel are hereby objecting to the application submitted by Clear Creek Broadband to install two (2) wireless communication towers within their neighborhood, with one on property immediately across the street from the Weir's Home.

The approval of this application will cause damage to Marcus and Rachel, including but not limited to the reduction in value of the Weir's Home. Based on the expert opinion of licensed real estate agent, Sue Mailey, who services this area, installation of wireless communication towers will have a detrimental effect on the community and Marcus and Rachel, as it will reduce values of homes in the neighborhood by twenty to twenty-five percent (25%). It will also reduce the marketability of the homes in this neighborhood, including the Weir's Home.

This proposal also adversely affects the character and aesthetics of this mountain, rural residential neighborhood. The use of residential mountain property for commercial purposes, including the lease of such property for the installation of wireless communication towers, is inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. Furthermore, noise levels from the wireless communication towers' hum can create a nuisance and the mere presence of the towers disturbs the pristine nature of this community. The community will also suffer an intrusion into the privacy of the neighborhood, as these towers will have to be serviced by wireless communication tower personnel on a regular basis. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that the application is for two (2) wireless communication towers. This use is simply inconsistent with the character of a residential, mountain neighborhood.

akerman.com

My clients are strongly opposed to this application, as are many other residents in this neighborhood. We respectfully request that the Clear Creek County Planning Commission take into consideration the harm to the homeowners, including but not limited to the reduction in value in homes, that would occur if this application were to be approved and request that you deny this application.

If the Clear Creek County Planning Commission approves this application, my clients intend to take all actions and seek all remedies available to them at law and in equity, including but not limited to appealing any decision to approve the application.

Sincerely,

Allison R. Nelson Co-Deputy Chair, Real Estate Practice Group

December 11, 2020

ATTN: CLEAR CREEK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

I am writing on behalf of Rachel, Marcus, Eden and Echo Weir, adjacent property owners residing at 45 Lodgepole Drive, Evergreen, CO 80439, regarding the proposed installation of two cell towers in their neighborhood.

A licensed REALTOR® for four years, I reside in the Foothills and the area is the primary focus of my business. It is my professional opinion that the installation of the proposed towers will have a detrimental effect on property values in the neighborhood. These unsightly towers would make nearby homes far less marketable as they would obstruct the gorgeous mountain views and detract from the natural beauty of the area. I believe that the installation of the proposed towers would reduce the values of homes by twenty to twenty five percent and make the homes less saleable, even at reduced purchase prices.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

SUE MAILEY REALTOR® COLDWELL BANKER REALTY [email protected] 720.442.4076

141 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228

Marcus, Rachel, Eden and Echo Weir 45 Lodgepole Dr Evergreen, CO 80439

December 14, 2020 RE: Rezoning Case #RZ2020-0002 ATfN: Clear Creek County Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners,

As a family, we have invested in 45 Lodgepole Dr, Evergreen CO 80439 in the Echo Hills community which is an ADJACENT PROPERTY to a proposed tower site for the past decade based on its natural setting and remote community which holds to us the most significant value. The winters are very hard, and the effort involved with living at almost 10,000 feet is more than most would assume, but it is our testimony that the view and the positive attributes of undisturbed nature far outweighs the inconveniences which is why we purchased this home and chose to remain living in Echo Hills. The current zoning laws protect our investment We have grown our family in this house with the intent to share its qualities with our posterity. It is our STRONG OPPOSTION to rezoning in our community, Echo Hills, that has us today asking you, Clear Creek County Planning Department and Board of County Commissioners, to represent us, the residents, and our tranquil community when deciding upon this telecommunication commercial rezoning application. If a tower is constructed at the proposed site on Sinton Rd. in Echo Hills, the tower would be seen from and obstructing any view facing the south in our home. Our home faces the south. Ifconstructed, we will be looking at this proposed tower anytime our family and our visitors are relaxing at our home and looking out the window towards our mountainous view which provides our property with its value. Our view will absolutely be dominated by a hideous tower that will be wiable to be ignored The proposed tower would exceed the tree line, and would obslruct the view at our front door and all of the first floor, loft on the second floor, living room on the main floor and the master bedroom on the fourth floor; the views on all 4 floors ofour home will be significantly impacted. See page 2 to review an impact letter from a local relator stating that our property value could DECLINE NEARLY 25%. Additional documents in our defense will be provided as they are obtained by local experts. As a result and direct impact of your rezoning decision which could allow for a tower to be constructed at our neighbor's house, your decision could ultimately dictate our family's fate and force a change in our residency ~along with a signifjcant lop to 9Pt financial-m sanity:- during a time when we 're expecting a baby and our country

Marcus Weir Disabled Veteran, United States Marine Corps

Marketing and Sales Executive t

Eden and Echo Weir Donald and Rami Hoaglin 1404 Sinton Road Evergreen, Co 80439 December 15, 2020

RE: Opposition to Cell Tower Construction/Placement

To: Clear Creek County Planning Board

Dear Planning Board,

We are writing this letter to indicate our opposition to the construction of a 65 foot cell tower on 1372 Sinton Rd, the property adjacent to ours. The proposed spot is on the west side of our property on the other side of our shared driveway which will be roughly 70 yards (give or take) from the front door of our house. This tower will certainly taint the aesthetics for which we decided on our move to the mountains from the Denver area, Highlands Ranch, specifically. We left the busy suburbs for the foothills for the peace and tranquility we’ve worked so hard to attain. We certainly do not need a structure just outside of our house impeding our view and our subsequent joy in being here in the Echo Hills area. The peace and serenity of our home and this area offered by the wilderness including the trees, animals, and geography is what brought us here and will keep us here. A structure such as the cell tower so near our property will certainly interfere with what brought us here.

We thoroughly enjoy our haven, our place of peace and rest and escape from the hustle and bustle of the city where we both work. People we work with often ask us how we can stand such a long commute to our teaching jobs in Highlands Ranch, and we simply tell these folks that we are going home to our dream house each day. The drive home each day is a therapy session in itself, and we don’t need to come home to the modern reminder of man-made structures that take away from the aesthetics of our mountain hideaway. Some of our most peaceful and fulfilling moments in our home is to be able to look out our windows to relish the beauty and the fortune of our opportunity to live up here. To be limited on where we can be in our house to enjoy views and appreciate our home is unacceptable. We want to, need to, be able to look out our west-facing windows and simply be in the beauty as we often do while cooking in the kitchen or relaxing in our lower west-facing room. We should not have to work to dismiss the sight of an eye-sore of a cell tower each time we want to appreciate the afternoon western sun.

One of the first things we did after moving into our home was to build and set up outside seating areas on various spots around our house. Some of the areas are on the westside of the house. The value of our seating areas will automatically drop. The intent of our seating areas where we enjoy the outdoors, the trees, animals, views will promptly be taken away. Speaking of value, because of the location of the tower, we risk a drop in our property value. This should also be a deterrent to putting up a cell tower so close to neighborhood homes. We have both worked too hard (often times working more than one job) to have the peace and happiness of our home be disrupted, ruined by something as seemingly simple, harmless, convenient as a 65 foot cell tower. In fact, our favorite pastime is to watch the deer walk through and congregate in the area near where that tower will be. It’s a wonderful sight to behold and something we get to share with our neighbors. The construction and heavy activity will certainly disrupt and likely end this wonderful pastime of ours.

Please reconsider the construction of a cell tower at 1372 Sinton Rd and find alternatives elsewhere and not so close to residential homes.

Thank You, Donald Hoaglin Rami Hoaglin

COMPARISON OF CURRENT AND FUTURE OPTIONS OF INTERNET PROVIDERS, 1403 SINTON RD

Download Upload Thereof OPTION PROVIDER TYPE DISTANCE AVAILABLE ? Latency (ms) Mbps Mbps Data Cap INSTALATION MONTHLY COST Taxes Unlimited, Viasat may Ca. 22,000 miles to Customer since Free (with 24 Current Viasat Satellite 600 104.77 2.65 throttle after 150 GB of $ 219.45 $ 0.46 satellite June 2018 months contract) monthly usage Public beta test 50-150 Our Choice Starlink Satellite 340 miles to satellite Oct.'20. 20-40 Unlimited$ 499.00 $ 99.00 ? Future: 1 GB Available 2021 Available 2021 Hub -> Tower Then pending Incl. in Clear Creek line of site (no WiFi approval of re- ? 50-100 10 ?$ 425.00 $ 70.00 monthly Broadband repeater site needed zoning and cost (?) for 1403 Sinton) construction Sources: Viasat Actual Data + billing for Johnson family Starlink: Clear Creek Broadband:

JOHNSON SPEEDTEST, 1403 SINTON RD 12/13/2020 Starlink customer “FourthEchelon19”, RURAL MONTANA 11/1/2020

Source: FORBES For more Starlink Test Results: PC MAGAZINE From: Rachel Weir To: Sean Wood; Randy Wheelock; George Marlin; Peter Lichtman; Frederick Rollenhagen Subject: Rezoning Case RZ2020-0004 Date: Monday, January 04, 2021 6:32:59 PM

Clear Creek County Commissioners,

I am a resident of Echo Hills and I am VERY upset and frustrated about the proposed rezoning cases in our pristine, mountainous community. I realize that tomorrow’s meeting will not be focusing on the rezoning cases in Echo Hills; however, I believe it is critical that I share my thoughts with you with regards to the Upper Bear Creek community and the proposed Yankee Creek rezoning case. Not only will I be outlining conflicts of interest with these cases, but I will also provide my concerns as it pertains to the lack of due diligence required from Clear Creek Broadband and the many homeowners in the Upper Bear Creek area that are completely unaware about what is to come.

It is my understanding that all three towers are designed as a network. How can the one Yankee Creek tower and proposed rezoning case be approved which is on the same Clear Creek County staff report along with the other two in-network towers proposed for Echo Hills that were not approved? On 12/16/20, the Planning Commission requested that Clear Creek Broadband return to them with more information regarding the proposed towers in Echo Hills. The additional questions asked by the Planning Commissioners for the applicant to return with are as follows: Visual impact images from top of tower, who is likely to receive service/RF propagation details, an explanation about how this plan fits in with broadband incompatibility issues in relation to the Master Plan and a property value impact statement. Why wouldn’t the same information and requested documentation not be important for the tallest tower that supposedly services the largest area of the three?

Also, please answer these questions for me during your meeting tomorrow: How many residents in the Upper Bear Creek proposed service area were informed that a 125 ft tower is on the table for approval at the county level? How many residents in the Upper Bear Creek proposed service area will be visually impacted by this tower? You see, I ask these questions because I have a strong feeling and it has been indicated to me by neighbors that many in the area know nothing about this proposed rezoning project.

Another important item that I would like considered are the conflicts of interest that exist among the Planning Commissioners and County Commissioner. First of all, the CFO of Clear Creek Broadband, Dave Kost, is an Associate Member of the Clear Creek County Board of Adjustments. I imagine that county staff and commissioners would feel more compelled to approve a rezoning case for a public- private business venture when a member of the private company’s executive leadership is in a position of power at the county level. My next concern surrounds the commissioners who live in one of the service areas and would become a direct beneficiary of the proposed broadband service plan. Based on the service area maps provided by Clear Creek Broadband, it seems that Russell Clark, Dave Christensen, Robert Poirot and Sean Wood reside in the Upper Bear Creek subarea. Unfortunately, I do not feel like these rezoning cases are being considered from a neutral framework. Here are a couple of quotes from the Planning Commissioners during the most recent meeting on 12/16/20:

Russell Clark asked, “selfishly I looked at the coverage map and I see that I can’t see this tower and I’m wondering how much taller would the tower need to be for me to use this service?” Russell is referring to the proposed 201 Valley View tower site. It is clear that Russell is not operating from a neutral framework and would like to be a direct beneficiary of this service. This is a clear conflict of interest and he should not have the opportunity to vote on any of these rezoning cases nor the case in its totality.

Around time marker 2:20, Dave Christensen said he was very interested in hearing from the citizens about what they have to say regarding this proposed rezoning plan. After public comments ended (around time marker 4:18), you will notice a shift in his emotions along with his disappointing thoughts regarding those opposed as he said, “that’s the nature of how society grows [...] some people get the impacts and it isn’t quite fair, but it’s the way society works”. This is not how my society works and is in direct conflict with the Planning Commissioners Mission, Clear Creek County’s Master Plan and certainly not how I want the society that I live in to function and make decisions on my and my family’s behalf which seems to be in an inequitable manner. He also stated at time marker 4:40 that “immediate neighbors may take a hit on their property value and may move for reasons, but I think the vast bulk of the county will have a more marketable home”. Does this plan benefit the “vast bulk of our county”? Does this essentially mean that our family’s situation does not matter no matter what the cost is and no matter what the consequence is to us? I am eager to share this perspective with all residents and business owners in our county. I wonder what other Clear Creek County residents would think about this. I do not see language in Clear Creek County’s Master Plan to only support a capitalistic approach no matter who it harms. Would a County Commissioner make a statement like that to the public? I think not.

Both of these individuals should recuse themselves from this case and not have an opportunity to vote, nor should their previous votes be taken into consideration. Sean, I very much appreciate your time over the phone and look forward to the answers to my most recent questions via email. I do believe you should be recusing yourself from voting on these rezoning cases based on where you live, as well, especially since you mentioned over the phone that you did not feel comfortable with Clear Creek Broadband initially but have since changed your mind once you knew that Dave Kost joined Clear Creek Broadband. I must admit I have a very long list of issues as they pertain to my adjacent property in Echo Hills overall, which I will compile and send to this group separately.

As a member of the public, I only have so much information at my fingertips. What I can tell you from my research and information gathering is that there is a ton of fraudulent information being circulated and shared. Original signatures from community members interested in an internet solution were collected for fiber optics, not tower installations and residential rezoning cases. Many of my neighbors were not told the truth about this new plan and during the recent Planning Commissioners meeting on 12/20/20, the applicant stated that Clear Creek Broadband went door to door to residents. As an adjacent property owner to the 1372 Sinton Rd rezoning case, I can honestly tell you that my home was not visited nor was I contacted. Also, we believe the misinformation provided by the property owner at 1372 Sinton Rd deterred neighbors from voicing their opposition as they were not given the facts. The property owner at 1372 Sinton Rd told me and neighbors that this would only be a broadband tower not exceeding the tree line. The Official Development Plan states otherwise. This type of misinformation is fraud which adds to my concern for the members of the Upper Bear Creek subarea and the lack of disclosure. Another list of errors is seen when reviewing the address list of residents who have minimal broadband speeds that was provided by Clear Creek Broadband. I can attest that my property is on that list and we have strong broadband signals and great internet provided by Rise Broadband. This error is consistent, and my home is not the only on this list that is inaccurate. I imagine you will be hearing this from my neighbors, as well.

I have read Clear Creek County’s Master Plan in its entirety. I am taking a wealth of my time and energy to look into these cases, the information presented and alternative solutions. Do I have a pledge from each of you that you will do the same or like Karl Schell, Director of Public Works, mentioned during your last County Commissioners meeting on 12/22/20 when discussing roads, are you trying to solve a long-term problem with a short-term fix? I thought long-term decisions and items in Clear Creek County’s Master Plan are made with a 20-year outlook. I strongly believe that a band aid is exactly what is being proposed with these three rezoning cases and, as we all know, low earth orbit broadband services are coming to Colorado soon.

I am happy to read this letter during the County Commissioners meeting tomorrow morning just in case this email is not received and read in time.

Rachel & Marcus Weir From: Karl Johnson To: Sean Wood; Randy Wheelock; George Marlin; Frederick Rollenhagen Cc: Ulla-Carin Johnson Subject: RE: Resolution #2104,,Rezoning Case #RZ20200004 Date: Monday, January 04, 2021 9:21:04 PM

Dear Clear Creek County Commissioners:

We are Echo Hills residents and are extremely concerned about the rezoning of residential property to commercial for the purpose of wireless communications.

I would like to open my comments with a statement. This is about the Land use and rezoning to allow tower construction inside a residential area as currently proposed. This is NOT a vote on broadband. Proponents for this application would like this to be a vote on broadband access. It is not. There are both alternative locations and offerings which will likely be available before this tower construction is complete.

As only one of the three rezoning cases under consideration for wireless towers is requiring action at this time, namely (Yankee Creek, Rezoning Case #RZ2020-0004), I would like to confirm and receive a pledge from the commissioners that this in no way requires the approval of the other towers under consideration as they are currently defined. If the Yankee Creek tower requires or influences or otherwise limits the proposed location of a tower to the Sinton Rd location (Rezoning Case #RZ2020-0002) and precludes changing of location of subsequent requests I would propose denying /delaying this decision until all three of the requests have been adequately investigated. There are alternative sites which were not investigated fully. In a response to our questions after the planning meeting CCB responded that the only other location they had deemed viable was on Snyder Mountain, and that they stopped looking when the property owner at 1372 offered their location.

As a property owner I am not willing to take a significant hit on my property value on behalf of a for profit business just to reduce their costs. Other residents have suggested alternative locations, one example being the Bergen Peak State Wildlife Area which has existing road access, the top is clear cut for fire safety as well as having clear views of both the Echo Hills community and King Murphy. Otherwise as is stated in the County Master Plan there is an option clearly laid out for county land use which should also be fully vetted as an alternative to not adversely affect homeowners. Sincerely,

Karl Johnson --

Karl Johnson home : 303-674-0844 mobile: 720-206-8489

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com From: Rachel H To: Frederick Rollenhagen Subject: Question for planning commission Date: Sunday, December 20, 2020 8:02:02 AM

Fred, Please ask the planning commission to address this topic during the next rezoning meeting for Echo Hills on 1/5/21:

If residents provided an alternative solution (Starlink which doesn’t require rezoning in a residential neighborhood and is performing actual testing of the service) to rural internet needs as the next high speed internet option is upon us, why are members of the planning commission making jokes about this new and modern technology that has hundreds of millions of dollars backed by the FCC to support rural Colorado, yet the planning commission feels its appropriate to possibly implement an antiquated technology that requires rezoning on residential property?

Perhaps we can set all jokes aside this time. https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/spacex-gets-886-million- from-fcc-to-subsidize-starlink-in-35-states/%3famp=1

Rachel Weir From: MARIE SCRIBNER To: Frederick Rollenhagen Subject: Re: Proposed broadband tower applications information; Echo Hills area Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:22:31 PM

---Thanks for the info.

However, after speaking with Echo Hills residents that WERE NOT ABLE TO GET ONTO THE meeting. We are not happy. First of all we could not get into ZOOM. Not everyone has that capability. We are Seniors up here and had NO CLUE what you were talking about. AND phone numbers you have listed are long distant. We do not all have long distance on our phones, and for those, not many that might have a cell phone, it does not work up here. We live in the mountains. NO cell service. Sooooooooo my point is, so happy that you were probably able to convince residents on Sinton and Valley View that we need the damn tower. Those individuals are only looking out for themselves. They want $$$$$$$$$$. We were not born yesterday. So the rest of us, will get NO cell service and have to look at the damn tower. With property values going down. Where is Justin Sweatt in all this ??????????? He is sooooooooo obnoxious. He needs to find another profession. He should have been answering questions for several days now that have appeared on ECHO HILLS site . The guy is a wimp. He doesn't like it when someone disagrees with him. Along with Gail Sharp. She thinks she is the best. She obviously has an interest in this, as she is always looking out for herself. She does nothing but expects that she will be make $$$$$$$$$ for doing nothing. She sure does have an EGO problem.

So thanks for listening, but it sure is unfair that we, in Echo Hills will have NO say, because we were not able to enter into Zoom or listen on the long distance phone numbers. Why NOT local phone numbers.?????????? Another reason for the board to " push" this through. If you don't hear from us, you'll just go ahead for the benefit of those who will reap $$$$$

Marie

Original Message -----

From: Frederick Rollenhagen To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:44 PM Subject: Proposed broadband tower applications information; Echo Hills area

Hi Mary,

Attached is the Agenda for the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Wednesday evening at 6:30 pm. The Zoom link and phone numbers where you can call into the meeting are on the second page of the Agenda.

Also, you can view more information about the tower proposals available on the Countyâ€™s website here: https://www.clearcreekcounty.us/477/Active-Cases

Just scroll down to RZ2020-0002 and RZ2020-0003. These are the towers that are being proposed in Echo Hills.

If you have any questions or want to submit any official comments to the Planning commission, feel free to send them to me.

Also, this meeting is for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners. The County Commissioners will make the final decision on these applications during their own hearing currently scheduled for Tuesday, January 5, 2020 at 8:00 am.

Please call with questions. Thanks! Fred

Frederick Rollenhagen, AICP Planning and Building Services Manager Clear Creek County P.O. Box 2000 1111 Rose St. Georgetown, CO 80444 303-679-2360 Help us Help You â€“ 60 Second Customer Service Survey

Please note; The County Annex Offices are open Monday through Friday, 8:00 am â€“ 4:30 pm by appointment only. Please inquire to make an appointment.

From: Kary Langer To: Frederick Rollenhagen Subject: RZ2020-0002: 1372 Sinton Rd Tower Proposal Rezoning- Response 160 Meadowlark Dr Date: Thursday, January 07, 2021 1:47:07 PM

Fred

I was on the meeting that was held several weeks ago regarding the tower location rezoning.

I am an adjacent property owner at 160 Meadowlark Drive and although we would not be directly affected with the tower placement (it will be at a higher elevation than our property) I would have to raise objection to the location of this tower. I did not know our neighborhood would react so negatively to the tower and I think a more suitable location needs to be determined that does not impact line of site to adjacent property owners.

I am an advocate for higher speed Broadband as my wife and I do work from home on some days. I fully support CCBB initiatives and will be first in line to sign up for the service. However, not at the risk of having angry neighbors.

I realize this might delay the project – and for that I am very sorry as that is not the intention..

Regards

Kary and Suzanne Langer 160 Meadowlark Drive (Imes Subdivision) Evergreen CO

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: [email protected] To: Frederick Rollenhagen Cc: Sean Wood; Randy Wheelock; George Marlin Subject: RZ2020-0002 ~ Pictures of View from 1403 Sinton Rd Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:36:52 PM

Hello Fred,

As our property is slightly above Sinton Rd, and behind a berm, it may look as we do not have a view of the potential tower. Therefore, we are attaching some pictures of the view of 1372 Sinton Rd as seen from the south side of 1403 Sinton. The pictures are straight out at eye level. You can also see the ground level across the street.

Keep in mind that with the additional 20 ft additional height allowed without further review (if tower is approved), we would be looking at a tower with more than the same tree height above the tree-line. Per the viewshed map, the trees at the base of the proposed tower are estimated to be 40' tall.

Best Regards, Karl & Ulla-Carin Johnson 1403 Sinton Rd Phone: (303) 674-0844

RE: Rezoning Case RZ2020-0004

Clear Creek County Commissioners,

Another important item that I would like considered are the conflicts of interest that exist among the Planning Commissioners and County Commissioner. First of all, the CFO of Clear Creek Broadband, Dave Kost, is an Associate Member of the Clear Creek County Board of Adjustments. I imagine that county staff and commissioners would feel more compelled to approve a rezoning case for a public-private business venture when a member of the private company’s executive leadership is in a position of power at the county level. My next concern surrounds the commissioners who live in one of the service areas and would become a direct beneficiary of the proposed broadband service plan. Based on the service area maps provided by Clear Creek Broadband, it seems that Russell Clark, Dave Christensen, Robert Poirot and Sean Wood reside in the Upper Bear Creek subarea. Unfortunately, I do not feel like these rezoning cases are being considered from a neutral framework. Here are a couple of quotes from the Planning Commissioners during the most recent meeting on 12/16/20:

I am happy to read this letter during the County Commissioners meeting tomorrow morning just in case this email is not received and read in time.

Respectfully, Rachel & Marcus Weir

From: [email protected] To: Frederick Rollenhagen Cc: Sean Wood; Randy Wheelock; George Marlin Subject: RZ2020-0002 ~ Pictures of View from 1403 Sinton Rd Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:36:52 PM

Hello Fred,

Best Regards, Karl & Ulla-Carin Johnson 1403 Sinton Rd Phone: (303) 674-0844

LIST OF COLLAPSES Height Location Date Mode of construction Reason for collapse Remarks (meters) The oldest continuously operating radio Nauen, Germany 30-Mar-12 Guyed steel lattice mast 200 Storm transmitting installation in the world.

Java, Netherlands East Indies 1923 ? ? Lightning (modern-day Indonesia) Norddeich, 25-Nov-25 Guyed steel lattice mast ? Storm Three towers collapsed Germany Place of Magdeburg Jul-26 Guyed mast on roof top ? Guy cable rusted through Transmitter, Berlin, Germany Western mast of Zeesen 1927 Guyed steel lattice mast 210 Collapse at construction transmitter, Zeesen, Germany Munich- Free standing wood Two towers snapped off 25 metres above Stadelheim, 23-Nov-30 75 Storm lattice tower ground Germany Langenberg, Free standing wood 10-Oct-35 150 Tornado Replaced by triangle antenna Germany lattice tower Liechtenstein- Haberfeld 21-Nov-38 Storm transmitter Utbremen Radio Free standing wood Tower, Bremen, 1939 90 Lightning Replaced by steel tower lattice tower Germany

Radio Normandie Transmitter, Tower Free standing lattice 7-Nov-40 113 Storm West, Fécamp, tower France[1] Langenberg, 1949 Guyed steel tube mast 51 Storm Two masts of a triangle aerial Germany Schwerin- Möwenburgstrasse transmitter, 10-Feb-49 Guyed steel lattice mast 120 Storm Schwerin, Germany Hamburg- Partial destruction of a guyed mast under Billwerder, Dec-49 Guyed steel lattice mast 198 Storm construction Germany Pittsburgh, WINP/WENS-TV. The lower part of the 11-Mar-55 Steel lattice mast Windstorm Pennsylvania tower is still visible and in use. Former Michigan Governor Kim Sigler, Augusta, 30-Nov-53 Guyed steel tube mast Aircraft collision who was piloting the plane, and three Michigan passengers were killed. Nicosia, Cyprus 1955 Sabotage Destroyed by EOKA rebels WOAI, Selma, April 3, 1956[3] Guyed steel lattice mast 100 Aircraft collision Hit by a B-29.[3] Texas[2] Ochsenkopf, Jan-58 Guyed steel tube mast 50 Icing Replaced by concrete tower West Germany KOBR-TV Tower, Caprock, New 1960 Guyed lattice steel mast 491 Storm Replaced by new mast of same height Mexico LORAN-C location Tower buckled at 2/3 of height. Tower transmitter, carried radials (wires attached radially in 1961 Lattice Tower 191 Storm Carolina Beach, a horizontal plane) on its top although it North Carolina, US was not designed for them. Villebon-sur- 10-Dec-61 Guyed steel lattice mast ? Terrorism Yvette, France LORAN-C transmitter Ejde, 1962 Guyed steel lattice mast 190 Material fault Slip of guy Ejde, Faroe Islands KGW Tower, Portland, Oregon, 12-Oct-62 Guyed steel lattice mast 180 Storm Columbus Day Storm US Angissq LORAN-C transmitter, Replaced by a 214 m (704 ft)) tall mast 27-Jul-64 Guyed steel lattice mast 411 Material fault Angissq, radiator Greenland Yap LORAN-C transmitter, Yap Island, Trust Territory of the 1964 Guyed steel lattice mast 305 Collapsed during construction Pacific Islands (modern-day Micronesia)

Iwo Jima LORAN- The collapsing mast also destroyed the C transmitter, 1965 Guyed steel lattice mast 411 Maintenance work transmitter building. Six persons were Japan killed.

SES8 Tower, Mast collapsed during guy wire Mount Burr, South 1965 Guyed steel lattice mast 200 tension testing Australia, KXJB-TV mast, Galesburg, North 14-Feb-68 Guyed steel lattice mast 628 Helicopter collision Dakota WLBT Tower, Replaced with 609.3 m tower which Raymond, 3-Mar-66 Guyed steel lattice 487 F5 Tornado collapsed in 1997 Mississippi XHI-TDT Tower, Replaced with a temporary Antenna and Ciudad Obregón, 28-Sep-66 ? 200 Hurricane Kristen moved to Yucuribampo Hill Mexico Storm: high winds causing Waltham mast, Guyed tubular steel 17-Nov-66 290 oscillations in the mast UK mast structure

WNBC-AM, WCBS- AM, at High Island, 27-Aug-67 Guyed lattice steel mast 161 Aircraft collision New York,[4]

KELO TV Tower, Airplane collision during Rowena, South 24-Jun-68 Guyed steel lattice mast 609 thunderstorm Dakota WAEO Tower, Collapse due to plane collision 17-Nov-68 Guyed steel lattice mast 524 Starks, Wisconsin with guy wire Marnach, 17-Jan-69 ? Plane crash ? Luxembourg Emley Moor, Guyed tubular steel Replaced by 330 m free-standing concrete 19-Mar-69 385 Ice Great Britain mast tower Lightning (Destruction of Orlunda, Sweden 12-Jul-70 Guyed steel lattice mast 250 basement insulator) KOIN-TV Towers, 28-Feb-71 Guyed steel lattice mast 305 & 213 Icing Two towers collapsed Portland, Oregon KSTP-TV and Seven technicians were killed while lifting WCCO-TV, Structural failure during 7-Sep-71 Guyed steel lattice mast 411 the first of three large antenna sections Shoreview, construction into place at the top of the tower. Minnesota Königswusterhaus 15-Nov-72 Lattice steel tower 243 Storm en, East Germany

Multi-station tower supporting antennas Bithlo (near Collapsed because of removal of of TV stations WDBO-TV, WFTV, and Orlando), Florida, 8-Jun-73 Guyed Steel Tower 457 load-bearing diagonals during WMFE-TV, and radio stations WDBO-FM US FM antenna installation. and WDIZ-FM – two workers on tower killed Tower being modified prior to KCRG-TV Tower Collapsed during modifications installation of Iowa Public Television 4-Oct-73 Guyed Steel Tower 598 Walker, Iowa to tower. side-mounted antenna – five workers on tower site killed TV Mast Brest - A slightly higher tower, 225m, has been Roc'h Trédudon, Feb-74 Guyed steel lattice mast 218 Terrorism built since. France

KELO TV Tower, Rowena, South 1975 Guyed steel lattice mast 610 Blizzard Dakota, US Sendemast SL3, Burg bei 18-Feb-76 Guyed steel lattice mast 350 Material fault Magdeburg, East Germany Pic de Nore transmitter, Pic de 2-Dec-76 Concrete tower ? Storm Storm tore pinnacle down Nore, France

1709 feet HAAT. Erected November 17, 1964. Had elevator, RCA Travelling Wave pylon antenna for Channel 12 (System M), land mobile antennas, all lost. RCA contractor for erection, Stainless KSLA-TV Tower, 8-Oct-77 Guyed steel lattice mast 521 Undetermined subcontractor. No definitive cause ever Mooringsport, LA found for collapse. Speculation of "galloping guy lines" (mechanical standing waves in one of the guys), causing stress- to-failure in the guys due to rapidly alternating strain.

In August 1969. This tower was one of the three tallest structures in the Ice. The strain snapped 2-inch Northern Hemisphere and transmitter WJJY TV Mast, coupling bolts (24 of them) that 26-Mar-78 Guyed steel lattice mast 491 radiated the most powerful UHF-TV Bluffs, IL joined the second and third signal in the world. TV channel 14 (470- sections. 476 MHz). Collapsed Easter Sunday. 39°45′31″N 90°31′8″W

Ice. Same ice storm that toppled WAND and WJJY used the same RCA UHF WAND TV Tower, WJJY. Upper section of antenna 26-Mar-78 Guyed steel lattice mast 400 antennas, mfg in 1969. TV channel 17 (488- Decatur broke loose and fell through the 494 MHz) Collapsed Easter Sunday. guy wires. Nebraska Education Tower, Feb-78 Guyed steel lattice mast 457 Ice Angora Zehlendorf bei Oranienburg, East 21-May-78 Guyed steel lattice mast 352 Aircraft collision Germany CKVR Television Tower, Barrie, 7-Sep-77 Guyed steel lattice mast 305 Aircraft collision Ontario, Canada Vysílač Krašov, Guyed mast of lattice Bezvěrov, 1979 305 Icing Mast was predamaged steel Czechoslovakia Blåbärskullen Guyed mast of lattice Pinnacle with broadcasting antennas fell transmitter, 27-Dec-79 323 Icing steel down, height afterwards 274 metres Sunne, Sweden LORAN-C transmitter Jan Guyed mast of lattice 8-Oct-80 190 Icing Guy supports were improperly installed Mayen, Jan steel Mayen, Norway The guy support was made of Delimora polymer, which melted as a Guyed mast of lattice Transmitter, 88 result of a high electric field steel Malta strength storm, at the same time made mast collapse Dudelange Radio Debris of the tower killed a couple in a Tower, 31-Jul-81 Lattice steel tower 285 Aircraft collision house near the tower. Luxembourg WCIQ Tower, Mount Cheaha, Jan-82 Guyed steel lattice mast ? Ice storm Alabama

Total collapse during installation of 6-ton FM antenna on new 1800 ft. tower. Five technicians killed, Two on the hoist riding the FM antenna up and three on the Senior Road tower. Determined insufficient sized bolts Tower, Missouri 7-Dec-82 Guyed steel lattice mast 569 Guy support wire severed on the makeshift lifting lug extension City, Texas, US failed. The falling debris severed one of the tower's guy wires which caused the tower to whip back and forth and collapse.

KANU tower, 11-Dec-82 Guyed steel lattice mast 184 Sabotage. Guy wires severed Lawrence, KS CKX-TV Craig Television Tower, 1983 Guyed mast 412 Icing Canada TV mast Wavre, 13-Oct-83 Guyed mast ? Storm Belgium KWWL, Rowley, 28-Nov-83 Guyed steel lattice mast 610 Ice Iowa Bielstein, West 15-Jan-85 Guyed steel tube mast 298 Ice Germany KYA transmitter placed in service in 1937. San Francisco, CA, Failure may have resulted from tower leg US - Candlestick 14-Feb-86 Self-supporting tower 137 High wind. insulator replacement where all-thread Hill rod was not long enough to fully engage securing nut. Caroline 558 and Radio Monique Tallest ever mast aboard any ship. It was mast, aboard MV 25-Nov-87 Lattice steel tower 92 Force 8 storm replaced by horizontal wire antenna Ross Revenge, off between two shorter masts. English coast KTUL Tower Lattice steel guyed 26-Dec-87 582 Ice storm Listed at 1909 feet Coweta, OK tower Vännäs TV Tower, Guyed mast on top of a Replaced by 323-metre-tall (1,060 ft) 1988 323 Icing Vännäs, Sweden concrete tower. partially guyed tower Crew was replacing cross support beams at the 200 meter level. The mast broke at KTVO-TV Tower, 2-Jun-88 Guyed steel lattice mast 610 During repairs that spot, the bottom 200 meters fell to Colony, Missouri the south, the top fell straight down. All three workers on the mast were killed.

KGO (AM) towers 17-Oct-89 ? 91 Earthquake Three towers damaged Newark, California Unusually heavy ice concentrated at top predominantly on one side of towers WRAL-TV & WPTF- Two guyed steel tube caused asymmetrical load. Dislodged Dec-89 609 Ice TV towers, Auburn framework masts essentially as one piece during rapid warming; sudden unloading caused dynamic failure. RÚV long wave radio mast, 3-Feb-91 Guyed steel lattice mast Storm Vatnsendahæð, Reykjavik, Iceland

Freezing rain, accompanied at time with thunder, coated the city of Duluth with as much as six inches of ice. The 850-foot WDIO-TV tower was toppled as winds gusted to 40 mph, buffeting the heavily ice-covered tower. The tower fell onto a nearby utility line which provided power WDIO-TV Duluth, Guyed steel triangular to the remainder of Duluth's television 23-Mar-91 259 Ice and high wind Minnesota, US tower and FM radio stations, and all but one AM radio station. Telephone and power lines snapped leaving Duluth and many northeastern Minnesota communities without utility services for 24 hours. The DNR reported that four million pine trees were damaged or destroyed. - NOAA NWS Duluth, MN

Warsaw radio mast, Guyed steel tube Replacement by facility in Solec 8-Aug-91 648 Maintenance Konstantynów, framework mast Kujawski Poland WCIX TV Tower Homestead, 25-Aug-92 Guyed steel tower 549 Hurricane Andrew Rebuilt by LeBlanc Tower of Canada Florida COMMSTA Miami 1992 Guyed mast (insulated) 91 Hurricane Andrew Collapse of 2 masts

Cape Race LORAN- Fatigue failure of the eyebolt head in a C transmitter, compression cone insulator on structural 2-Feb-93 Guyed steel lattice mast 411 Material fault Cape Race, guy caused swing-in damage, which Canada resulted in structural collapse LORAN-C transmitter Kargaburan, 25-Feb-93 Guyed steel lattice mast 191 Snowstorm Tower had construction faults Kargaburan, Turkey WCOV-TV Tower, Montgomery, 1996 ? 242 Tornado Alabama, US Langenberg, 2-Sep-96 Guyed steel lattice mast 160 Maintenance Germany Three died when tower collapsed after KXTX-TV Tower 12-Oct-96 Guyed steel tower 468 Maintenance for DTV install a gin pole ran off its track and snapped Cedar Hill, Texas a guy wire Grigoriopol 350 1997 Guyed steel lattice mast Icing Two masts collapsed transmitter, 250 KXJB-TV mast, 6-Apr-97 Guyed steel lattice mast 628 Ice North Dakota, US

KNOE-TV Tower, One killed, two injured when workers Columbia, 20-Mar-97 Guyed steel lattice mast 606 Maintenance failed to install temporary braces Louisiana WLBT Tower, Three killed - temporary braces failed Raymond, 23-Oct-97 Guyed steel lattice 609 Maintenance during HDTV antenna upgrade Mississippi WKY-AM-TV Tower, Oklahoma 13-Jun-98 Guyed mast 293 Tornado City, Oklahoma, US TV Tower Avala, Concrete tower (with Air raid (NATO bombardment, 30-Apr-99 203 Serbia observation deck) Kosovo war) WRMD-Tower, St. Three died when a medical helicopter hit Petersburg, 25-Apr-00 Guyed steel lattice mast 198 Helicopter crash a guy wire in clear weather and crashed Florida, US

WNWI 1080- Towers, Oak Lawn 9-Jul-00 Guyed steel lattice mast 61 Sabotage Two towers collapsed (Chicago), Illinois, US[citation needed ]

KXEO/KWWR- Tower, Mexico, 23-Aug-00 Guyed steel lattice mast 123 Storm ml MO, US CBC Tower, Controlled implosion after Shawinigan, QC, 22-Apr-01 Guyed steel lattice mast 371 aircraft crash caused serious Canada damage Angara transmitter, Guyed steel lattice mast 6-Jun-01 205 Bad condition of support guys Northern Mast, carrying a T-antenna Angara, Russia

Tower was destroyed as a result of the World Trade September 11 attacks in which a Center North 11-Sep-01 Truses and Axis 526 Terrorist attack commercial airliner flew into the side of Tower, New York the building causing it and the broadcast City, NY tower to collapse under its own weight. Krasny Bor transmitter, 5-Nov-01 Guyed steel lattice mast 258 Helicopter collision Russia WKFT, North 14-Mar-02 Guyed steel tower 503 Airplane crash Carolina, US KDUH/CH4 TV Mast, Two workers killed, three injured on 24-Sep-02 Guyed steel lattice mast 599 Maintenance Hemingford, ground Nebraska, US WVAH-TV Tower, 19-Feb-03 Guyed steel lattice mast 473 Ice West Virginia, US WPAY-Tower, Portsmouth, 19-Feb-03 Guyed steel lattice mast 200 Ice Ohio, US WTNV-FM Tower, Free-standing steel Jackson, 4-May-03 176 Tornado lattice tower Tennessee, US

WMBD Tower, Free-standing steel 10-May-03 ? Tornado Collapse of thee towers Peoria, Illinois, US lattice tower

KETV TV Tower Jul-03 Guyed steel lattice mast 415 Reconstruction work

WIFR TV tower 5-Jul-03 Guyed steel lattice mast 222 Storm (derecho)

WAAY-TV - TV Mast, Huntsville, 4-Sep-03 Guyed steel lattice mast 305 unknown Three workers killed Alabama, US Utrecht, 8-Sep-03 Guyed steel lattice mast 45 B Netherlands Replacement tower constructed shortly WJDB Transmitter 16-Sep-04 Guyed steel lattice mast 131 Hurricane Ivan thereafter. Also knocked Clarke County, Grove Hill, AL AL, Sheriff's Office off the air (KWO611) WPMI-TV Tower, Robertsdale, 16-Sep-04 Guyed steel lattice mast 518 Storm Hurricane Ivan Alabama, US Temporary replacement mast constructed Peterborough, 30-Oct-04 Guyed steel lattice mast 163 Fire (suspected vandalism) shortly thereafter. New permanent mast Great Britain entered full service in February 2006. KFI Mast, La 19-Dec-04 Guyed steel lattice mast 195 Aircraft collision Mirada, CA, US WLGA Transmitter Tower (formerly WSWS-TV Replacement tower completed 27-Feb-05 Guyed steel lattice mast 538 Transmitter September 15, 2005. Tower), Cusseta, Georgia, US

Nebraska Education Tower 25-Nov-05 Guyed steel lattice mast 325 Aircraft collision All three aircraft occupants killed Atlanta, Atlanta, Nebraska, US

1078 feet HAAT. Erected in 1981. No definitive cause ever found for collapse. Speculation was that the collapse was directly or indirectly related to the recent installation of their digital television antenna. The collapse destroyed the KLTV-TV Mast, tower, KLTV's analog and digital antennas, Tyler, TX (Red 3-Feb-06 Guyed steel lattice mast 329 Undetermined KLTV's digital transmitter, and FM station Springs, TX) KVNE's antenna. The analog transmitter was undamaged, and within a few days was moved to KLTV's backup tower in east Tyler. The collapse occurred the day after Raycom Media officially took ownership of the station.

Torre VIP de Rádio & TV, São 23-Aug-06 Guyed steel lattice mast 174 Maintenance One person was killed Bernardo do Campo, Brazil Americus, Georgia, was struck by the WACS-TV tower 1-Mar-07 Guyed steel lattice mast 329 EF3 tornado tornado a few minutes later WSKY-DT Tower, Under construction. Also destroyed Camden County, 2-Mar-07 Guyed steel lattice mast 230 Guy wire anchor failure transmitter building. Was planned for a NC, US height of 1,036 ft (315.77 m).[5]

400-foot transmitter tower located on Averil Peak, NY completely collapsed as a result of accumulation of ice and snow WCFE-DT, Clinton, 18-Apr-07 Guyed steel tower 136 Structural failure from the April 2007 Nor'easter. Partially County, NY, US damaged the transmitter building at the base. New tower erected and back in service Oct, 9 2007. Browns Summit Crown Castle Broadcasting 29-May-07 Guyed steel lattice mast 244 Restoration work Tower, Browns Summit, Texas, US WNEP-TV Tower, Also damaged transmitter building and Penobscot Knob 16-Dec-07 Guyed steel lattice mast 244 Ice doppler radar.[6] Pennsylvania WVIA-TV Tower, 300 ft. section lost from top of tower 16-Dec-07 Guyed steel lattice mast 510 Ice Penobscot Knob [7] KATV-TV Tower, Redfield, Jefferson 11-Jan-08 Guyed steel lattice mast 609 Maintenance Restringing guy wires [8] County, US Emmis Television 28-Mar-09 Guyed steel lattice mast 326 Ice Wichita Tower 2QN Tower, Deniliquin, New Wind gust reportedly caused the mast to 30-Jun-09 Guyed steel lattice mast 102 Storm South Wales, collapse during a severe storm Australia KRKO Radio 4-Sep-09 Guyed steel lattice mast ? Terrorism Two masts Towers WLHR-FM Radio Tower Lavonia, 30-Jan-10 Guyed steel lattice mast 86 Sabotage Guyed wires cut GA, US WEAU TV/Radio Rare event of all day Icing with Tower Fairchild, 22-Mar-11 Guyed steel lattice mast 609 Weather-related high winds WI, US Zendstation Tubular steel superstructure collapsed, Smilde, TV/Radio Guyed steel tube mast new steel lattice superstructure Tower, 15-Jul-11 303 Fire on concrete tower constructed (2012) on top of existing Hoogersmilde, The concrete base tower Netherlands

Longwave transmitter Europe 1, 280 metres 8-Aug-12 Guyed steel lattice mast 280 Ragged guy wire Pinnacle and upper sections fell down mast, Felsberg- Berus, Germany Boll Relay Transmitter, 2-Nov-12 Lattice tower 30 Collision with truck [9] Oberndorf-Boll, Germany Houston public 20-Sep-13 Guyed 152 Unknown km safety radio tower CRTV Mast, Mast collapsed during replacement of Logbessou, 24-Sep-14 Guyed 200 Corrosion corroded leg at 160m. Four riggers Douala, Cameroon killed.[10] Rekowo Radio Mast, Rekowo, 2-Jan-15 Guyed 60 Storm Poland Häglared Guyed mast of lattice Roughly half of the mast fell after guy transmitter, Borås, 15-May-16 332 Sabotage steel wires had been sabotaged. Sweden KOZK Ozarks Public Six workers were performing routine Television, 19-Apr-18 Guyed 597 Maintenance maintenance at 105 ft on the tower when Fordland, MO it collapsed, one worker was killed.

LRL312 Mega 98.3, LR5 Pop Radio Fire started in a leftover deposit close to 1-Oct-11 Guyed 210 Fire 101.5and LRL317 one of the guy wire anchors.[2][3][4] FM Federal

During the final days of the siege of Sloviansk Ukrainian Government forces positioned on the Mount Karachun were Karachun TV shelled by the Russian proxies. As a result, Tower, Sloviansk, 1-Jul-14 Guyed steel lattice mast 222 Artillery shelling the guyed wires failed and tower Ukraine collapsed.[11] The new tower 50 m shorter was opened on December 5, 2016 in place of the destroyed one.[12] During and ice and wind storm the Template:KOLN tower collapses. This tower was known Tower Beaver 18-Jan-20 Guyed 500.4 ICE by anybody that drove by it and seen it Crossing, Ne, US from I-80.[5] Karl & Ulla-Carin Johnson 1403 Sinton Rd. Evergreen, CO 80439

To: Clear Creek County Planning Commission c/o Fred Rollenhagen Clear Creek County Planning Department P.O. Box 2000 Georgetown, CO 80444

RE: Land Use Case #RZ2020-0002

Our family lives year-round across the street from 1372 Sinton Rd where the applicant is requesting to re-zone part of a residential property to allow for a 65 feet tall tower structure with equipment. In no way do we oppose the applicant’s services or additional broadband options being brought to Clear Creek County residents. We do oppose placing a tower inside a residential area for the following reasons:

1. The viewshed map provided by the applicant is inaccurate and misleading. As confirmed by Clear Creek County’s mapping department (phone call M. Taylor, 1/14/2021), all light green colored “unlikely visible due to tree coverage” areas are indeed dark green when considering a 65’ structure “can view 1 or both towers at full height”. In addition, if the tower is approved, 20’ can be added to the height without further county approval. We would therefore like to see a viewshed map showing the visual impact of a 85’ structure as that is the height de facto up for approval. B. Height Increase for Towers Outside the Public Rights-of-Way 24. Adding new collocated equipment near or at the top of an existing tower can be an efficient means of expanding the capacity or coverage of a wireless network without the disturbances associated with building an entirely new structure. Adding this equipment to an existing tower would change the tower’s physical dimensions, but if such a change is not “substantial,” then a request to implement it would qualify as an eligible facilities request, and a locality would be required to approve it. Section 1.6100(b)(7)(i) provides that a modification on a tower outside of the public rights-of-way would cause a substantial change if it “increases the height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater”. Source: Section 6409(a) Section B, page 13 https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-75A1.pdf

2. Impact on property value for homes close to the towers. The applicant refers to national studies showing that property values increase once broadband becomes available. We are not debating the value of high-speed internet access, nor that it is viewed as a utility. The issue at hand is land use, namely rezoning residential property allowing for construction of a tower. There are numerous peer reviewed studies researching the impact visible towers have on property values:

a. Wireless Towers and Home Values: An Alternative Valuation Approach Using a Spatial Econometric Analysis (Feb. 2017, University of South Alabama) Abstract: “…For properties located within 0.72 kilometers of the closest tower, results reveal significant social welfare costs with values declining 2.46% on average, and up to 9.78% for homes within tower visibility range compared to homes outside tower visibility range; in aggregate, properties within the 0.72-kilometer band lose over $24 million dollars.” b. Cell Towers, Antennas Problematic for Buyers (Jul. 2014, National Association of Realtors) Quote: “An overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed by National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna.” “What’s more, of the 1,000 survey respondents,

79 percent said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.”

1372 Sinton Rd is one of the first properties visible as you enter Echo Hills neighborhood. Per the opinion survey presented by the National Association of Realtors, 79% of the respondents will not even look at a property within a few blocks of a tower or antenna, let alone make a low offer. It does not seem far fetched to assume that few people are interested in paying equal price for a mountain view that also comes with a tower in the middle.

To put the impact into perspective, below table gives some pertinent references to property sales in Echo Hills during the three past years (see separate Excel file attached to email for source details). At a rounded 2.5% - 9.8% negative impact on the property value, a visible tower will have a significant financial impact and burden for close by homeowners if they want or need to sell their property.

Statistics for Sold, Improved Properties Year 2020 Year 2019 Year 2018

# Improved properties sold 15 11 17 Average size (sqft) for properties sold 2,311 1,941 2,217 Median size (sqft) for properties sold 1,645 1,586 1,896 Average price / sqft, properties sold $280 $260 $242 Median price / sqft, properties sold $274 $231 $232 Average no. days on market 57 97 78 Median no. days on market 4 34 16 Average negative Impact: (2.46% * avg. size * avg. price/sqft) $15,192 $12,423 $13,184 Homes within tower visibility range: (9.78% * avg. size * avg. price/sqft) $63,378 $49,390 $52,416

3. Alternative tower location(s) There is already one established broadband tower in Echo Hills. A small neighborhood like this should not need 3 towers. With regards to RZ2020-002, the applicant answered that county land on Snyder Mountain was “the only other viable location”, and that 1372 Sinton was chosen for “line of site to King Murphy and tower location on East end of Echo Hills” (see appendix 4, section 2 k). During the Planning Commissioner’s Zoom Meeting on December 16th, 2020, Mr. Andrade said that they pretty much stopped looking for alternative locations once they found a willing property owner. Along that ridge there should be multiple locations which could see King Murphy. The tower will, by far, be the tallest structure in the middle of a residential area, and clash with the overall environment and atmosphere we all love so much. We respectfully request county planning commissioners require an alternative location that have a less intrusive impact on its surrounding residents.

4. Presentation of alternative broadband solutions Clear Creek Broadband (CCB) is implying that their services are the only solution for providing fast broadband to Eastern Clear Creek County. Their service is not available for most potential subscribers at this time, and although the applicant states they will

offer service this spring, we have some difficulty believing that when accounting for the difficulty of commencing construction during our winter, and even spring. For example, it is more complicated to pour concrete in freezing temperatures. Our home already has broadband speed that, per John Putt of Windermere (the applicant’s own real estate reference), qualifies as ‘fast speed’ per Denver MLS standards. We object to the applicant’s statement that Viasat typically deliver a speed of 12 Mbps as our current download speed is 100-140ish Mbps (see speed tests in appendix 2 and Clear Creek Broadband statement in appendix 4). That said, we too are looking for alternative broadband solutions and have settled for Starlink. Again, we must object to the way the applicant presents their competitors. Clear Creek Broadband describes Starlink as something that will not be available for years, but we have not been able to find a single reliable source to support that statement. Starlink was awarded almost 40 million dollars to provide broadband to rural Colorado over the coming 10 years. as part of a $8.8 million grant from the FCC. Public beta testing has been ongoing since October, 2020 and is expected to be offered at our latitude by February, 2021. The cost will be slightly higher than CCBs monthly cost ($99 per month vs. $70 per month), but for our family, the extra monthly cost is well worth it to see speeds we are currently used to. (Please see appendix 3 for sources to support Starlink statements).

We simply cannot believe that there is only 1 location in the entire county that is suitable for the tower currently proposed to go up on 1372 Sinton Rd. We understand that this location may be easier and thereby faster & cheaper for the applicant, but with a large majority of the adjacent neighbors being opposed, we believe this additional cost should have been accounted for in their business plan. With this in mind, we urge the commissioners to consider the long-term effects the proposed re-zoning will have on our neighborhood. Please recommend that the applicant choose an alternative location, such as Snyder Mountain, for the tower they need to provide broadband services in Eastern Clear Creek County. There will very soon be broadband solutions available that do not require a tower for connectivity.

APPENDIX 1 ~ VIEW OF PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION AS SEEN FROM 1403 SINTON RD

Per the viewshed map, the trees at the base of the proposed tower are estimated to be 40' tall. Below are some pictures documenting the view of 1372 Sinton Rd as seen from the south side of 1403 Sinton. The pictures are straight out at eye level, and a 65’ tower structure including the equipment will not be “unlikely visible due to tree coverage” as the viewshed map indicates for our address.

Keep in mind that with the additional 20 ft additional height allowed without further review (if tower is approved), we would be looking at a tower with more than the same tree height above the tree-line. The applicant’s own map lists these trees at 40’ height, so even at the 65 (60 plus 5 for equipment) the tower would be more than half a tree height above the tops)

View from balcony: View from bedroom window:

View from dining room window: View from south side yard:

APPENDIX 2 ~ CURRENT PROVIDER SPEEDTEST We have been customers with Viasat since June 2018. Our download speed is significantly above the 12 Mbps delivered that Clear Creek Broadband state in their letter to us (see appendix 4). Our main issue is with the latency, and from time to time, inconsistent performance.

(1403 Sinton Rd, December 2020)

When one person is on a video conference, the upload speed does diminish, but normally not the download speed. (1403 Sinton Rd, January 2021 ~ one person on a video conference and two people working online)

APPENDIX 3 ~ Sources for Starlink References

FCC Grants $9.2 Billion for rural broadband :

There were 180 recipients of this allocation to provide 100Mbs service, and Starlink got 885 million. https://www.zdnet.com/article/fcc-awards-9-2-billion-to-provide-rural-areas-with-broadband-access/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/12/07/elon-musks-spacex-wins-885-million-in-fcc-subsidies-to-give--rural-areas-broadband-access/

SpaceX won subsidies to bring service to customers in 35 U.S. states, with 642,925 locations awarded to Starlink. (source Michael Sheetz CNBC reporter @thesheetztweetzz)

Source: Michael Sheetz CNBC reporter @thesheetztweetzz

Current coverage ~ Source: Starlink daily coverage estimates (sebsebmc.github.io) If you click the link, you can zoom in to street level areas within each cell. Our part of Clear Creek county is located in the cell 822687f with a 99.4% daily coverage (see pictures below):

Denver Metro with our cell highlighted

And zooming in to Echo Hills….

Echo Hills Coverage

What about ground stations? Until inter-satellites links are introduced a satellite needs to be in a service area of a gateway station to provide service to subscribers. A gateway station is a site with multiple antennas and a fiber internet connection. Regardless of inter-satellites links a team of MIT researchers estimates Starlink system will need 123 gateway sites across the world to support expected system bandwidth. Source http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf Starlink will also contract with Level3 for example, to speed up deployment. The below map shows the gateways as currently known: GREEN gateway stations have been constructed and operated according to SpaceX filings

ORANGE gateway stations; status unknown when map was created

Source: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw&ll=42.838020714640045%2C-94.85800456250001&z=3

Starlink ‘Dishy’ in wind and snow (key for our neighborhood):

Starlink terminal can withstand 175 mph winds

Despite concerns about the Starlink terminal surviving strong winds, one user put the Starlink terminal to the ultimate test and blasted it with a 175 mph leaf-blower.

Download speeds remained between 110 and 120 Mbps, according to speed tests that the user carried out before and after their experiment.

The user found that if winds are blowing at the terminal, it automatically adjusts to stay aligned with the satellite.

Source: SpaceX's Starlink still provides rapid internet speeds in bad weather - Business Insider

APPENDIX 4 ~ 12/23/2020 RESPONSE FROM CLEAR CREEK BROADBAND to JOHNSON LETTER Dear Ms. Johnson,

Please seen our initial set of answers to your questions. As I stated in the interdiction it is difficult to articulate several years of work into a few pages.

We are open to a phone call to provide any clarification that we can share.

Enjoy your holidays and be safe.

Sincerely,

Stephan Andrade [email protected] 303-674-7449

Dear Mr. and Ms. Johnson, Thank you for your letter last week. Below is our response. It is hard to condense many years of work into some simple sync set of answers, so if you would like to discuss this over the phone please let us know a time that would work early next week.

1. Impact on Property Values – this is a very hard question to answer, none of us are in the Real Estate business but we do know that study after study shows the value of Broadband to a community. It only makes rational sense, just like having water and electricity modern society is becoming more and more dependent on the need for connectivity. We have asked some real estate agents that have spent decades selling homes in our neighborhoods to contribute but have not heard back from them yet. They did say that they would also be submitting letters to the Planning Commission regarding their knowledge of how having and not having broadband service has recently impacted home sales. a. Below are a number of studies some from real estate organization that show the increase in property values once broadband becomes available b. National Studies On the economic impact of Broadband i. https://economicdevelopment.extension.wisc.edu/files/2019/07/Deller-Whitacre- 2019.pdf ii. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2019.1631443?journalCode= raec20 iii. https://dailyyonder.com/broadbands-value-rural-houses/2019/07/17/ c. Clearly Broadband is a Utility – i. https://www.nar.realtor/on-common-ground/bringing-broadband-to-underserved- communities ii. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-fast-internet-affects-home-pricesfast-internet- access-can-boost-a-homes-value-1435694077 1. Connectivity was already important to home buyers outside of Boulder in 2015

iii. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/10/internet-homework-gap-digital-divide/ iv. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/491340-rural-broadband-and- telehealth-critical-to-americas-covid-19 d. Many factors in assessing value – we have reached out to other departments in the county to help us validate this issue but have not so far received any feedback locally. e. The one issue that is nearly impossible to prove is the claim that there is a decrease in property values for persons specific home that is adjacent to serving site. There are too many variables to make such a claim including the condition of the property, any environmental issues (soil, radon etc.), demand in the market and asking price. An owner may think that their property is worth a great deal more that what buyers are willing to pay for that particular property, but is that a direct result of the serving site being close?

2. Alternative Locations a. Background – have been looking to provide service for over 20 years – Started in the Upper Bear Drainage – studies done by CU Telecommunications program – assessed improvements to telephone lines – Cable TV offerings and Cellular Builds in the area – conclusion for all existing carriers was that the density in this area was not great enough to warrant an investment. CenturyLink did make some improvements in the Witter gulch area from receiving FCC Universal Service Funds but did not get to areas in Old Squaw Pass, Echo Hills, Yankee Creek and King Murphy. This was done approximately three years ago. b. Definition of the Service Area – So we needed to start somewhere, and the first step was decided how many near neighborhoods could reasonably be served. We selected five areas to be served – the areas chosen were selected because they were not on anyone’s capital build plan especially CenturyLink’s, the did not currently have an alternative for service from any provider, had some density so we couldn’t serve the remote ranches in the initial offering and neighborhood interest. That lead to some general meetings with neighborhood groups including quarterly meeting with EMERGE. The next step was to find a way to fund the building of a network and we initially pursued getting a petition signed by neighbors to get a sense of interest (57 residents in the Echo Hills neighborhood signed the petition). It was significant, but we did not have a specific plan at the time so went back out again with a plan to build a hybrid network of fiber and wireless into a property tax assessment in a special district. That second petition received nearly 50% support from local residents in all neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it did not reach the over 50% threshold to make it onto a ballot. About that time the state announced a matching grant program that would fund up to 75% of the building of service but had a number of criteria in terms of the type and amount of funds per household it was willing to spend. c. Assessment of Feasibility – while initially we looked at many different technologies – Fiber – COAX – Poles vs. buried & Wireless, it became clear over time that the best option was to build a fixed wireless network. We arrived at that conclusion based on a number of factors, cost, speed to market, disruption to the neighborhoods, legal burdens of gaining easements, regulatory and permitting etc. d. Reviewed the Counties Assessment – Another data point and factor in getting the project started was a study funded by the county and conducted by a company called NeoConnect

(2017). This was a county wide survey and at the time 97% of county residents did not have Broadband. They also suggested implementing a fixed wireless network as being the most practical. e. Cost per mile fiber – estimated it to be the about $400,000 in clear rights of way. Then went to construction companies and Corning and they too said that in the mountains to bury fiber was very expensive. We also spoke to IREA to see if it was practical to attach wires to their poles there are 291 Poles in Echo Hills alone, they gave us a rough estimate that to add additional wiring we would need to pay for the reconstruction of improvement of over 75% of those poles in additional to registering as a utility with the Public Utilities commission and get easements from every property owner. To us that seemed like a multi year process before we could even get started. One resident could hold out and make it so no resident gets service.

Model in Echo Hills shows 5.36 Miles of buried fiber, experts suggested this area (Echo Hills) would be higher than other sub regions. At only $30 a foot that comes out to $849,024 to bury fiber in Echo Hills alone, not to mention the other sub regions. To bury fiber would also require easements from every resident because we would not have the right of eminent domain.

Total number of fiber miles (ariel) was 26.24 Miles, which buried would be very similar to ariel, 26.24x5280’=138,547’ x $30 a foot=$4,156,416, these numbers are for the total network. It became clear that a hybrid network was not affordable for a self-funded network. f. Fixed Wireless selected as the most cost effective and reliable technology of choice - Neoconnect and other areas around the state suggested going to fixed wireless as the technology of choice it greatly reduces the cost of home served. The other factor that contributed to selecting this technology was the improvements and the availability of a frequency that would not cause interference with historical uses and would provide the sufficient bandwidth to the end users to go well beyond the minimum FCC definition of broadband. g. Network Planning – i. keep the number of servicing sites as low as possible/practical ii. serve as many homes as possible per site iii. Select a frequency that gives the highest speeds with little interference and that will allow for improvements over time CBRS iv. still looked to do some Hybrid of Fixed Wireless and Fiber but the cost of fiber keep being too high and the timeline for deployment too long h. Connection to a Fiber Hub – for the areas we wanted to serve the only location that was close was King Murphy so we started planning once we knew we could connect at King Murphy – limits the number of areas to the west and east in Echo Hills because not all homes/properties can see i. Ability to transmit a signal from one serving site to the other is necessary and requires a clear line of site. Because the network is a hub and spoke design to transmit traffic back to the hub the serving sites need to be able to transmit (backhaul) a signal between each other. j. Public Lands – County, Denver Parks & State – Multi Jurisdictions – State, City of Denver – Jefferson County Open Space – public use of those lands Bergen Peak – talked to County

scouted the site to the west of Echo Hills – very remote hard to walk to and the area that could “see’ down the Upper Bear Valley was on a pitch that was too steep to build on. State lands require environmental impact statements and there have not been very many success stories on building any telecommunications facilities on state parks anywhere in the state, except for areas round campgrounds. k. County Land on Snyder Mountain was only other viable location, but the above-mentioned difficulties made us look to homeowners. 1372 Sinton was location chosen for line of site to King Murphy and tower location on East end of Echo Hills. 1372 Sinton was also chosen because it is almost at the far Western edge of Echo Hills and most homes are “downrange” of this tower/radio. l. Location considerations beyond RF i. Accessibility – want to be able to get to the site without road improvement and for service once constructed ii. Power – most reliable is to be on direct electrical service with Battery Back Up – so for the main sites it was not feasible to go so remote that you couldn’t get power iii. The fewer the better – visual impacts – stealth like Cellular towers – get into monopoles – much bigger more expensive and more disruptive need a bigger area to install. iv. Maintenance costs on a Stealth tower are very expensive and something we cannot budget for. Rohn Towers are small in diameter and engineered to be none guyed wired. v. Willing landowner you need to have a property owner that is willing to help in the process it takes a lot of steps to get this done. 3. Will everyone in Echo Hills be able to access CCB? a. Number of Homes in Echo Hills serves – Our model predicts coverage for all the homes located in Echo Hills with the two proposed serving sites. This number may vary slightly depending on actual physical barriers such as new buildings or trees that are impeding the signal. Since the simulation uses aggregate clutter data for the area and does not know about specific trees, in our pilot installations we have been successful in getting service to all homes except one even with these unknowns. b. Number not served by these two serving sites – The are two homes that may require special construction consideration according to our data. But should get service. c. Continuation of service – for serving sites and repeater sites – all agreements for the serving sites have provisions for CCB to still have access to the site in the event of change of ownership for the property, the ODP is with the land not the current owner. We ask this same for Repeater sites but in some cases, we may need to move repeaters, but we don’t see that as an issue for the next few years. d. Speeds – for all customers 50 Mbps down and 10 Mbps upload speeds – Equipment designed to provide 200 Mbps down and 50 Mbps up but we do not want to overload the system initially and we want to make sure everyone gets great service. 4. Other Potential Providers a. WISP – Rise – have been in the market for a number of years. In the NeoConnect survey and in our contacting neighbors no one indicated that they were getting greater than 25 Mbps Download and 3 Mbps upload speeds from Rise. Even the person that has a Rise tower on their property. They are also limited by where there current towers are located and do not serve most of the areas in CCB service territory.

b. Hughes Net – Geosynchoronous orbit service – approximately 22,000 miles above the earth – OK for broadcasting of sending information down, difficult to get the upload speeds because of design and distance. This causes latency and in many cases the connection is not strong enough for security or privacy applications. c. ViaSat or Exede – 4 sat at 22,236 miles above the equator – like Hughes Net, have data caps slower speeds (25 Mbps planned typically 12 Mbps delivered) and expensive above $80 per month for basic plan with little data. d. MHO – Point to Point Microwave – wireless fiber – born as a back up to fiber in metro areas or in places that are too far away for fiber to be economical – historically has been a commercial service not a residential service- too expensive and not practical for residential service. Did contact them to provide service into the area but they could not come up with an economical plan. e. Low Earth Orbit Satellites – (LEOs) i. Starlink (12,500 LEOs and over 1 million ground stations), Funded by Elon Musk ii. Project Kuiper (3,200 Satellites and $10 billion) – Amazon – Jeff Bezos funded project iii. One Web (650 to 1972 Satellites – has filed for bankruptcy but does have the backing of the British Government iv. Telesat (1600 Sat. Ka band and Canadian owned) – has some service in Canada v. Historical LEO Projects – Iriduim/Global Star and Teledesic (228 LEOs – funded in part by Bill Gates) both did get into limited commercial service – maritime and remote locations – service very expensive given the economies of scale vi. With all of these planned services serous concerns have been raised by international space management bodies: 1. about visual impacts removing the ability to see actual stars, 2. use of bandwidth most are on the Ka (26.5 to 40 gigahertz) and Ku (12 to 18 gigahertz) Bands that already have terrestrial fixed wireless users and military uses so interference and bandwidth for data speeds may become an issue. 3. failure rate of satellites that have already been launched is high and with that many satellites in orbit collision and space debris is a large concern. Chinese, Indian, Russian and other European projects are not listed in additional to those listed above. 4. Debris - Management of space is become a concern of most of these commercial and publicly sponsored ventures. 5. Decay from orbit and coming back to earth or collisions with other satellites. 6. Ground Stations – need for a yet to be commercialized technology to be able to build the millions of ground stations that are necessary to get internet traffic.

APPENDIX 5 ~ 12/18/2020 EMAIL ADDRESSED TO FRED ROLLENHAGEN & CLEAR CREEK BROADBAND

Since our letter has not been included in the packages, we attach it here to avoid information gaps.

Hello,

Reaching out to see if there is anything we can do to help find a solution for placement of the proposed towers in Echo Hills. Nope, the help does not include dropping our opposition to re-zoning 1372 Sinton Rd ;) Attached is a letter summarizing the questions and comments we have.

Mr. Andrade: I apologize for not having your personal email address (left a message at Clear Creek Broadband's (303) 801-2854 number).

Mr. Putt is carbon copied on this email because he so very kindly helped us better understand what the potential impact of a tower would have on our personal home.

Respectfully, Karl & Ulla-Carin Johnson

1403 Sinton Rd Evergreen, CO 80439 Phone: (303) 674-0844

To:

Fred Rollenhagen, Clear Creek County Planning Department Stephan Andrade, Clear Creek Broadband (CCB) cc: John Putt, Windermere

REF: Land Use Case # RZ2020-0002

Wanted to follow up on a few items from this week's meeting to make sure I did not misunderstand anything. Also added some questions that remained and would love to have a chat over the phone if there is a time that is convenient for you. As a general comment, with better communication from Clear Creek Broadband, I believe a lot of the heated discussion during the meeting which, unintentionally, pitted opponents vs. proponents against one another could have been avoided. We are neighbors! Our family was not contacted by CCB regarding the proposed tower on 1372 Sinton in any way, shape or form. The referral notice for review of land use request that was mailed from Clear Creek County was our first notification. To find in the 70 pages long meeting packet provided online that, already before the public hearing has taken place, the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners is not a good way to make a small community feel informed and allow for constructive discussions. Therefore, I hope we can start a better flow of information as soon as possible. If you email '[email protected]' you will reach all residents in Echo Hills that are signed up for email communication.

1. Impact on propertyvalue for homes close to the towers. Are there any references from other parts of the county how close-by properties are affected after re-zoning allows for what can be viewed as 'not

esthetically optimal' structures raised next door? (Looking for an unbiased source for what the true impact could be).

2. Alternative location(s) for the towers: We trust that CCB has looked at alternatives, but we do not know where. If there was a list, we could all understand how much research CCB has put into this and why 1372 Sinton Rd was chosen the chosen location. Here is what we understood from the meeting and discussion with a neighbor on Castlewood Dr. a. Justin Sweatt had offered to place a tower on his property {809 Lodgepole Dr), but there was no direct line of sight. b. Since the staff report was unaware of existing towers in the area, please not that there is an existing tower in Echo Hills, located on the Moderski property {66 Lodgepole Ct). c. County land: If I read Fred's staff report correctly, Clear Creek County Master Plan promote using county land resources for private broadband use. {Clear Creek County 2017 Master Plan: Chapter 4 Economic Development, Goal F, Strategy #5). i. Would the county allow Clear Creek Broadband to construct a tower using county land? If so, has the mapping department looked into alternative locations for the towers? CCB stated that they had considered a location on county land that lacked access road which made it too expensive. d. Is it possible to place a tower in a state park? Guessing not, but if it is, one neighbor suggested looking into Bergen Peak State Wildlife Area further down on Sinton Rd i. Road exists ii. The top is clear cut for fire safety iii. It has clear views over the Echo Hills community iv. It has views over the other side (not sure about King Murphy though) v. Is nowhere near a residence & far enough away to not stand out, even if taller .

3. Will everyone in Echo Hills be able to access Clear Creek County Broadband? Explanations were provided during the meeting that a house does not need "direct view of sight" to a tower for being able to receive service, it needs "near-direct view of sight". For homes that do not have "near-direct view of sight", they will be able to receive services via a "repeater-site" (home or pole that already has CCB services). a. I did not get a clear understanding of number houses that will be depending on this extra step. If I understood correctly, out of the 775 addresses to be serviced, 64 homes have paid the $1,000 deposit to CCB. We would use 64 for the initial number of served homes instead of 775 as they are the only confirmed willing to subscribe at this point. I am sure other subscribers will be added if/when service is actually offered. b. What happens if a house that serves as a "repeater-site" changes owners and the new owner decides to go with a different service and removes CCB's equipment? Can CCB continue service the homes that were depending on that hop for their broadband? c. What is the expected time delay in getting service for homes depending on repeater-sites before they can get access? d. None of my business, but are there estimates for what the speed will be for the homes depending on repeater-sites for service? (How much will the extra hop degrade the speed)

4. Other potential broadband service providers in Echo Hills. There is absolutely a need for affordable, reliable broadband in our community. That said, we do not believe our family's need will be met by CCB's service offering as we already have speeds that exceed their current offering, albeit with abysmal latency. CCB's offering is still valid for many of our neighbors and depending on when they can have access to it, may be the best or only option for them. Here is a list of trial & errors we have gone through before making our choice Starlink: a. Rise~ the technical staff said we had a mountain to get clear view of sight (April 2018) b. Hughes-Net: Signed up for a 2 year contract that we broke after 2 months due to abysmal performance (April - May, 2018) c. Viasat ~ customers since June 2018, and despite good download speed, we are looking for a provider that can minimize our latency d. Clear Creek Broadband ~ we gladly signed the petition for fiber and offered to be volunteers and help their efforts. We were told by Justin Sweatt they had all the help they needed. (Apr. - May, 2018) When the offering changed from fiber to WiFi, we had questions surrounding what exactly the service offering would be if we made a prepay of $1,000. Some questions were answered, but many remained. To us critical unknowns were: Service agreement~ what happens if we do not receive the speed you advertise; would our deposit be put into an escrow account; is the fiber access point somewhere along Witter Gulch a private home or where exactly is it located. (Justin Sweatt, 2019) e. Microwave~ we contacted and got cost estimate from MHO Networks in Engl ewood . This company would use microwave technology to a pinpoint/ point a laser beam to a receiver on our roof. After a few discussions, we decided the monthly cost was not worth it to us (2019) . On the positive side this technology is used as wireless data center backups with close to O latency (speed of light) and is fully symmetric and scala ble. (symmetric download=upload i.e, 100MB down 100MB Up)

f. Starlink ~ Fast, affordable service. As soon as it will become available (scheduled 2020/2021) we will sign up. Installation cost: $499 and monthly cost $99. They appear to be on schedule, so we should likely expect service in the first half of 2021. Their aspiration (technology supports) Gigabyte service.

We keep referring to Starlink as it is a service that is scheduled to be avai lable next year. If you can see the sky, you will have access and no tower needed. With that backg ro und, we believe ad dition al effort from CCB should be made to justify the tower locations. We could not be more positive to have broadband alternatives in Echo Hills and welcome a local provider with open arms . We do object to placing towers in a residential neighborhood with several adjacent property owners opposing the location . For us, the primary reasons are the negative impact it will have on the marketability and value of our property located directly across from 1372 Sinton Rd.

Evergreen, 12/18/2020 (Signatures from Karl & Ulla-Carin Johnson)

Echo Hills ~ Property Sales During the Year 2020 (Pending+Closed) Listed-Pending Square Price / Original List Price # Days on List Price Lot Size Date Sold Address Feet Price Closed Sqft Date Listed Date Pending Sale Price Changed Market vs. Sold Year Built # Bedrooms # Baths (acres) Source ~ Zillow Link SOLD ~ 15 Properties during 2020 3/8/2020 547 Castlewood Dr 1,201 $426,239 $355 2/7/2020 2/9/2020 $425,000 2 0% 1995 2 2 1.21 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/547-Castlewood-Dr-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268484_zpid/ 3/18/2020 54 Castlewood Dr 768 $351,500 $458 2/21/2020 2/24/2020 $349,900 3 0% 1963 1 1 1.27 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/54-Castlewood-Dr-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268504_zpid/ 6/19/2020 2880 Sinton Rd 7,408 $1,050,000 $142 8/7/2019 5/10/2020 $1,500,000 $450,000 277 -30% 1995 4 4 7.00 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2880-Sinton-Rd-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268476_zpid/ 7/2/2020 1142 Lodgepole Dr 1,416 $465,000 $328 5/28/2020 5/31/2020 $475,000 3 -2% 1994 2 2 1.01 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1142-Lodgepole-Dr-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268576_zpid/ 7/7/2020 2334 Sinton Rd 224 $40,000 $179 7/6/2020 7/6/2020 $40,000 0 0% 1965 1 1 0.36 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2334-Sinton-Rd-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268529_zpid/ 8/3/2020 318 Castlewood Dr 2,240 $509,000 $227 6/25/2020 6/29/2020 $500,000 4 2% 1980 3 3 1.31 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/318-Castlewood-Dr-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268517_zpid/ 8/11/2020 1123 Lodgepole Dr 2,288 $580,000 $253 7/9/2020 7/11/2020 $575,000 2 1% 1979 3 2 1.39 https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1123-Lodgepole-Dr_Evergreen_CO_80439_M24399-17963?view=qv 8/20/2020 37 Juniper Ct 3,723 $720,000 $193 4/3/2020 7/16/2020 $760,000 $30,000 104 -5% 2000 4 4 1.50 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/37-Juniper-Ct-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268470_zpid/ 8/21/2020 98 Martin Dr 1,200 $382,500 $319 12/5/2019 7/14/2020 $375,000 222 2% 1972 2 1 0.90 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/98-Martin-Dr-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268494_zpid/ 9/4/2020 341 Lodgepole Dr 1,645 $520,000 $316 7/29/2020 8/2/2020 $495,000 4 5% 1976 2 2 1.31 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/341-Lodgepole-Dr-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268538_zpid/ 9/4/2020 130 Lodgepole Ct 2,879 $945,000 $328 7/30/2020 8/5/2020 $943,000 6 0% 2007 3 3 2.44 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/130-Lodgepole-Ct-Evergreen-CO-80439/88906143_zpid/ 9/11/2020 2044 Sinton Rd 1,632 $401,000 $246 7/23/2020 7/28/2020 $400,000 5 0% 1982 2 2 0.20 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2044-Sinton-Rd-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268500_zpid/ 10/9/2020 340 Castlewood Dr 1,452 $465,000 $320 9/10/2020 9/14/2020 $425,000 4 1981 2 2 0.91 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/340-Castlewood-Dr-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268516_zpid/ 10/29/2020 121 Bear Claw Ln 4,036 $1,080,000 $268 2/24/2020 9/18/2020 $1,159,000 $10,000 207 -7% 2004 3 4 7.50 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/121-Bear-Claw-Ln-Evergreen-CO-80439/60175034_zpid/? 12/16/2020 190 Castlewood Ct 2,551 $700,000 $274 ######### 11/11/2020 $710,000 19 -1% 2004 3 3 1.53 https://www.zillow.com/homes/190-castlewood-ct,-evergreen-co-80439_rb/2077385867_zpid/

Improved Properties, Year 2020: Highest 7,408 $1,080,000 $458 $1,500,000 $450,000 277 -30% 2007 4 4 7.00 Lowest 224 $40,000 $142 $40,000 $10,000 0 5% 1963 1 1 0.36 Average 2,311 $575,683 $280 $608,793 $163,333 57 -3% 1986 2.4 2.2 1.73 Median 1,645 $509,000 $274 $495,000 $30,000 4 0% 1982 2.0 2.0 1.29

Average negative impact by tower $ 15,942 (2.46% * avg. sqft * avg. price/sqft)

Homes within tower visibility range $ 63,378 (9.78% * avg. size * avg. price/sqft) Echo Hills ~ Property Sales During the Year 2019 (Pending+Closed) Listed-Pending Square Price / Original List Price # Days on List Price Lot Size Date Sold Address Feet Price Closed Sqft Date Listed Date Pending Sale Price Changed Market vs. Sold Year Built # Bedrooms # Baths (acres) Source ~ Zillow Link SOLD 11 Improved Properties During 2019 3/12/2019 1031 Lodgepole Dr 2,620 $620,000 $237 9/14/2018 2/5/2019 $650,000 $30,000 144 -5% 2018 4 3 1.03 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for sale/house,land type/2087813053 zpid/39.67664,-105.414304,39.673911,-105.419432 rect/17 zm/ 3/13/2019 1404 Sinton Rd 1,552 $405,000 $261 10/4/2018 2/3/2019 $419,000 $14,000 122 -3% 1972 1 2 0.87 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for sale/house,land type/13268600 zpid/39.674477,-105.422066,39.671748,-105.427195 rect/17 zm/ 3/25/2019 1749 Sinton Rd 2,190 $505,000 $231 8/1/2017 2/6/2019 $550,000 $45,000 554 -8% 1994 4 3 1.00 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268551_zpid/1_pnd/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.687969,-105.398626,39.664418,-105.431113_rect/14_zm/0_mmm/ 7/10/2019 245 Lodgepole Dr 2,502 $575,000 $230 2/8/2019 6/9/2019 $648,853 $73,853 121 -11% 1992 3 3 1.03 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for sale/house,land type/13268535 zpid/39.695366,-105.384851,39.651698,-105.466905 rect/Realtor's note: Buyer's financing fell through 7/12/2019 1740 Sinton Rd 1,344 $392,000 $292 5/17/2019 6/20/2019 $399,900 $14,900 34 -2% 1979 3 2 1.11 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for sale/13268552 zpid/39.720986,-105.348244,39.625987,-105.503597 rect/12 zm/1 fr/ Sale price per county records. Sale not registered in Zillow 7/30/2019 604 Castlewood Dr 1,152 $370,000 $321 6/13/2019 6/20/2019 $375,000 7 -1% 1982 2 2 1.69 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268506_zpid/pricea_sort/39.697479,-105.388627,39.649517,-105.463128_rect/13_zm/ 8/6/2019 1587 Sinton Rd 3,128 $560,000 $179 5/30/2019 7/17/2019 $600,000 $35,000 48 -7% 1995 4 4 1.06 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/13268547_zpid/39.692295,-105.375495,39.645056,-105.454974_rect/13_zm/1_fr/ 8/15/2019 1 Hill Cir 1,372 $605,000 $441 7/13/2019 7/17/2019 $625,000 4 -3% 2010 3 2 2.82 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1-Hill-Cir-Evergreen-CO-80439/111092162 zpid/? 8/15/2019 2308 Sinton Rd 1,586 $359,000 $226 8/15/2019 8/15/2019 $359,000 0 0% 1978 2 2 0.79 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2308-Sinton-Rd-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268530_zpid/ 9/9/2019 100 Aspen Ln 1,456 $332,000 $228 7/3/2019 7/16/2019 $330,000 13 1% 1977 2 1 0.99 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/100-Aspen-Ln-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268545_zpid/ 9/29/2019 66 Lodgepole Cir 2,448 $531,000 $217 8/6/2019 8/26/2019 $550,000 20 -3% 1983 2 2 0.95 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/66-Lodgepole-Cir-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268536 zpid/

Improved Properties, Year 2019: Highest 3,128 $620,000 $441 $650,000 $73,853 554 -11% 2018 4 4 2.82 Lowest 1,152 $332,000 $179 $330,000 $14,000 0 1% 1972 1 1 0.79 Average 1,941 $477,636 $260 $500,614 $35,459 97 -4% 1989 2.7 2.4 1.21 Median 1,586 $505,000 $231 $550,000 $32,500 34 -3% 1983 3.0 2.0 1.03

Average negative impact by tower $ 12,423 (2.46% * avg. sqft * avg. price/sqft)

Homes within tower visibility range $ 49,390 (9.78% * avg. size * avg. price/sqft) Echo Hills ~ Property Sales During the Year 2018 (Pending+Closed) Listed-Pending Square Original List Price # Days on List Price Lot Size Date Sold Address Feet Price Closed Price / Sqft Date Listed Date Pending Sale Price Changed Market vs. Sold Year Built # Bedrooms # Baths (acres) Source ~ Zillow Link SOLD 17 Improved Properties During 2018 1/25/2018 375 Castlewood Dr 792 $355,000 $448 ######### 12/20/2017 $375,000 $20,000 33 -5% 1974 3 2 0.51 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268492_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.68067,-105.397671,39.669225,-105.417842_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 4/2/2018 1224 Lodgepole Dr 3,347 $595,000 $178 2/7/2018 2/27/2018 $610,000 $15,000 20 -2% 2016 3 4 1.03 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268588_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677388,-105.416141,39.672351,-105.426226_rect/16_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ Original house destroyed by fire 4/12/2018 1403 Sinton Rd 3,862 $525,000 $136 3/21/2017 3/15/2018 $585,000 $60,000 359 -10% 1985 4 4 1.51 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268597_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.678853,-105.410053,39.667408,-105.430223_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 4/16/2018 98 Valley View Ln 3,336 $780,000 $234 3/17/2017 3/7/2018 $775,000 $5,000 355 1% 2005 4 4 2.00 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/88907543_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677433,-105.403964,39.671711,-105.414049_rect/16_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 5/20/2018 98 Martin Dr 1,200 $278,500 $232 3/30/2018 4/13/2018 $284,500 $6,000 14 -2% 1972 2 1 0.90 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268494_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.680654,-105.397671,39.669208,-105.417842_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 6/14/2018 1682 Sinton Rd 2,638 $510,000 $193 4/30/2018 5/8/2018 $495,000 $15,000 8 3% 1994 4 4 1.00 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268554_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677726,-105.416141,39.672004,-105.426226_rect/16_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 6/18/2018 407 Castlewood Dr 1,860 $362,500 $195 4/16/2018 5/15/2018 $375,000 $12,500 29 -3% 1979 3 2 0.45 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268491_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.68067,-105.397671,39.669225,-105.417842_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 6/19/2018 330 Lodgepole Dr 2,854 $409,000 $143 6/19/2018 6/19/2018 $409,000 $0 0 0% 1996 4 3 1.00 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268558_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677524,-105.419215,39.667449,-105.439385_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 7/4/2018 85 Bear Rock Rd 2,767 $580,000 $210 5/23/2018 5/27/2018 $575,000 $5,000 4 1% 1998 3 4 2.32 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268533_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677429,-105.403964,39.671706,-105.414049_rect/16_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 7/26/2018 48 Hill Circle 1,693 $421,200 $249 5/31/2018 6/16/2018 $425,000 $3,800 16 -1% 1995 3 2 0.73 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268610_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.678581,-105.419043,39.666392,-105.439557_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 7/27/2018 340 Castlewood Dr 1,540 $395,000 $256 6/8/2018 6/21/2018 $395,000 $0 13 0% 1981 2 2 1.00 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268516_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677425,-105.403964,39.671702,-105.414049_rect/16_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 8/2/2018 318 Castlewood Dr 2,240 $450,000 $201 5/22/2017 6/27/2018 $550,000 $100,000 401 -18% 1984 3 3 1.31 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268517_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677433,-105.403964,39.671711,-105.414049_rect/16_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 8/22/2018 95 Meadowlark Dr 1,896 $634,281 $335 6/28/2018 6/28/2018 $605,000 $29,281 0 5% 1994 3 2.5 1.47 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268602_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.678498,-105.419215,39.666475,-105.439385_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 8/29/2018 37 Juniper Ct 3,721 $706,000 $190 4/12/2018 5/4/2018 $696,000 $10,000 22 1% 2000 3 4 1.50 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268470_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.68029,-105.398916,39.668845,-105.419086_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 10/3/2018 127 Lodgepole Dr 1,134 $353,000 $311 10/4/2018 10/4/2018 $353,000 $0 0 0% 2017 3 2 0.78 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/248229243_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.677524,-105.419215,39.667449,-105.439385_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ 11/20/2018 140 Aspenwood Ln 1,118 $389,000 $348 9/21/2018 9/24/2018 $389,000 $0 3 0% 1996 2 2 1.12 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/140-Aspenwood-Ln-Evergreen-CO-80439/13268515_zpid/ 12/2/2018 22 Hill Circle 1,684 $424,000 $252 9/21/2018 11/13/2018 $439,000 $15,000 53 -3% 1995 3 2 1.06 https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/house,land_type/13268609_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/39.678482,-105.419215,39.666491,-105.439385_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/

For the year 2018 ~ Improved Properties: Highest 3,862 $780,000 $448 $775,000 $100,000 401 5% 2017 4 4 2.32 Lowest 792 $278,500 $136 $284,500 $29,281 0 -18% 1972 2 1 0.45 Average 2,217 $480,440 $242 $490,324 $9,883 78 -2% 1993 3.1 2.8 1.16 Median 1,896 $424,000 $232 $439,000 $0 16 0% 1995 3.0 2.5 1.03

Average negative impact by tower $ 13,184 (2.46% * avg. sqft * avg. price/sqft)

Homes within tower visibility range $ 52,416 (9.78% * avg. size * avg. price/sqft) From: Rachel Weir To: Adam Springer; Frederick Rollenhagen; Peter Lichtman; Sean Wood; Randy Wheelock; George Marlin Subject: Echo Hills Rezoning Opposition Date: Monday, January 18, 2021 8:57:51 AM Attachments: Echo Hills Land Use Rezoning Opposition 011721_weir .docx

Clear Creek County BoCC, Planning Commissioners and Staff,

My attached letter outlines our profound concerns and opposition to rezoning in Echo Hills. As you will see, I cross-referenced the 2017 Master Plan, included valid issues that arose from the last Planning Commissioners meeting and continued to shed light on the many problems associated with these cases and the proposed rezoning sites.

You know, during the last Planning Commissioners meeting there was a discussion about the "greater good" and how that collectivist framework should guide in the Planning Commissioner's decision making. Do I as an individual exist for the sake of the "greater good"? The "greater good" argument is used as a tool for social control which some of the most awful dictators in our history have used as a justification to oppress the masses and cause atrocities. Do the Planning Commissioners and BoCC feel that they can decide what the "greater good" is? Where is the guiding practice for this illogical decision making? We will not sacrificially service what you believe to be a higher value than ourselves. As individuals, we are not mere political property.

As stated in the county's Master Plan, "One of the key lessons learned from the review of past efforts and the public engagement process was the independent spirit of the people of Clear Creek County. Whether through the challenge of living in a rural and rugged environment or through an inherent desire to shape their own futures, the people of Clear Creek County are uniquely individual."

It is very disrespectful to continue to bring up broadband and the residents who need it as this is a Land Use case based on the proposed rezoning locations in Echo Hills which are not appropriate to those residing closest and who will be negatively impacted to the greatest extent.

Please pass this along to the Planning Commissioners.

Rachel & Marcus Weir 1/18/21

RE: Land Use Case # RZ2020-0002 and RZ2020-0003

ATTN: Clear Creek County BoCC, Planning Commissioners and Staff,

The following is a comprehensive list of references from the 2017 Clear Creek County Master Plan that conflict with approving rezoning across the street from my home in my residential zoned neighborhood, Echo Hills. AS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THESE REZONING CASES. Conflicts are not limited to but include the following:

• The Vision o “Improve upon the existing quality of life in Clear Creek County by supporting the development of a diverse economy, protecting natural and cultural resources, becoming a more resilient community, encouraging recreation, and recognizing the County’s distinct areas.” (7) o This vision statement introduces several important things into the Master Plan 1. It asserts that improving the “quality of life” for the residents of Clear Creek County is the foundation of this long-term plan. (21) 2. It connects and balances “development of a diverse economy” with important considerations like the protection of natural and cultural resources, being resilient to changes and assuring recreation is something that is “encouraged”. (21)

• Broadband is not a Key Issue, nor a Key Theme o “But what also rose up during this process was the strong identity and attitude the residents of Clear Creek County have about this place. The stunning natural beauty, rich history and culture and access to the recreational and environmental resources of Clear Creek County were all elements of the Quality of Life that residents held out as vital. An emphasis on preservation of important lands and acting thoughtfully changes to land use were issues at the forefront of community discussion”. (8)

• Broadband is outside of CCC’s Master Plan Policy Framework o Enable and encourage communities within Clear Creek County to actively participate in planning for their future. (9) o The County will support the development of subarea plans that help refine and reflect county-wide objectives, while retaining individual character and values. Independent and creative approaches will be encouraged in the pursuit of achieving both local and county-wide goals. (165 & 332) o Ensure suitability and compatibility with environmental characteristics and community character of Clear Creek County when considering land use change and development. (347) o The County will ensure that the quality of life, area character, open space, water resources, wildlife and ecosystems, protection of visual resources, natural hazards, and infrastructure are addressed and considered. The County will work to assess the impact of growth and land use decisions at the local scale, understanding that all commercial uses are not the same, and residential development should reflect the character and needs of the community. (166 & 333) o Identify and protect lands of high ecological value, scenic quality, or historic importance. (355) o The County will acknowledge recreation in economic development efforts, recognizing that recreation improvements support tourism, an economic development goal. The County will understand its unique assets and build recreational opportunities around them, further enhancing the quality of life for residents. A high quality of life for residents makes the County an attractive place for new residents and attracting businesses. The County will pursue partnerships focusing on recreation with entities such as schools, municipalities, CCMRD, USFS, and the OSC. (171 & 338)

• Policy Framework o Promote intergovernmental cooperation to support shared regional objectives. (89) o The County will cooperate with municipalities, neighboring counties, the Federal Government and State Government agencies on planning and initiatives to achieve shared goals or objectives. (335) o Support the continued preservation of important open spaces that contribute to the environmental, scenic and recreational resources of the County. (148)

• Important Goals and Strategies o Land Use . The continued involvement of residents within distinct areas of the County is also an important goal and objective for future land use decisions. (10)

• Moving Forward o The Policy Framework and specific goals and objectives described in the Master Plan are meant as a guide towards future decision making. Moving forward to realize the Vision will require continued involvement and engagement with the residents of Clear Creek County. The process of implementation will rely on a continuing process of community input. (10)

• Why Update? o Through this process the community reflected on its approach to economic development and stability. One overarching theme kept emerging: the need to maintain a high quality of life. The concept of quality of life for Clear Creek County residents certainly includes economic opportunity, but it also weaves together aspects of the natural and scenic environmental, the County’s rich culture and heritage, the prevalence of recreation and the importance of distinct subareas. (13)

• Public Engagement Meetings o Public meetings provide another opportunity for the community to listen and participate. One of the key lessons learned from the review of past efforts and the public engagement process was the independent spirit of the people of Clear Creek County. Whether through the challenge of living in a rural and rugged environment or through an inherent desire to shape their own futures, the people of Clear Creek County are uniquely individual. This is not to imply that they don’t recognize the value of community. On the contrary. Clear Creek County is a region dominated by strong communities; whether incorporated municipalities or less formal population centers within unincorporated lands. People identify with these places AND with Clear Creek County. The importance of understanding this local-regional dynamic is critical to the success of this Master Plan. County-scale policies will find a better path for implementation through a more local scale. (18)

• Important Themes for the Master Plan o The importance of “quality of life” and being efficient was often mentioned at public meetings, through the work of the Citizen Advisory Committee and in comments from the Citizen Survey. Supporting independent thinking was obvious from the review of the many sub regional (area) plans. (20)

• The Importance of Place o In many ways, Clear Creek County is a “place of places”. Whether an organized municipality like Georgetown, an unincorporated and established settlement like Downieville or a slightly more out of way area like Guanella Pass, the residents of Clear Creek County place great value on these distinct areas. (55)

• A Framework for Policy o Enable and encourage communities within Clear Creek County to actively participate in planning for their future. The County will support the development of subarea plans that help refine and reflect County-wide objectives, while retaining the individual character and values of the distinct areas within it. Independent and creative approaches will be encouraged in these pursuits. (59) o Ensure suitability and compatibility with environmental characteristics and community character of Clear Creek County when considering land use change and development. The County will consider resources, including but not limited to, open space, water resources, wildlife, ecosystems, viewsheds, natural hazards, and infrastructure, when assessing the impact of development and land use decisions. (59) o Identify and protect lands of high ecological value, scenic quality, or historic importance. Through both smart land use planning and open space acquisition, the County shall analyze which lands meet these criteria, and align their planning processes accordingly. (59) o Promote the concentration of residential and commercial development into established municipalities and activity centers in order to preserve rural lands and to efficiently use County resources. (60)

• County Assets and Infrastructure o Preserve the County’s natural resources for future generations. Maintain an inventory of important scenic and visual resources in the County and consider these important vistas during the review of development projects. (81) o Support land use planning and policies that embraces environmental preservation and acknowledges development constraints due to topography and sensitive resources. (81) o Support the Open Space Commission in purchasing and protecting properties with high scenic, ecological, and recreational value. (81) o Consider I-70 corridor and/or Greenway development plans in leveraging access to regional fiber networks. (85) o Protect the people, property, and natural, cultural, and environmental resources of Clear Creek County through a variety of policies and management measures. (86) o Support land use planning, zoning, and building codes that avoids development on unsuitable sites, does not contribute to future hazards, and even mitigates potential hazards on properties. (86) o Support and encourage subarea planning so that distinct areas of the County retain unique character and values. (92) o Enhance ties among neighboring towns and communities within the County, while recognizing the need to maintain local and diverse identities. (88) o Foster a sense of community pride, embodied in the community’s overall appearance, friendliness, environment, and historic uniqueness. (88) o Maintain and enhance the existing rural and historic qualities of the County. (88)

• Land Use Designations o Residential areas are those on parcels smaller than 35 acres. Most of this land is in existing subdivisions that are platted and have access to services, and located in the eastern portion of the county, south of Interstate 70. Another location of existing residential land use is north of Downieville, Lawson, and Dumont, and up Fall River Road all the way to St. Mary’s. It is envisioned that these areas will continue to be residential, at the density allowed by the current zoning. Approximately 2 percent of the County is identified as this land use designation. (102)

• Land Use Policy o Ensure land uses are compatible with the natural and rural character of Clear Creek County. (106)

• Implementation Guide and Toolkit o The Vision statement, policy framework, goals, and strategies set forth in previous elements of the Master Plan together describe the desired future of Clear Creek County during the next 20 years. (107)

• Points to Remember When Conducting Fiscal Impact Analysis o Development affects different groups in different ways: The distributional impacts are not easily incorporated into standard fiscal impact analysis, but new development may provide greater benefits to some groups. It is important to think about how different groups may be affected and how these impacts may vary over time. (113)

The following is a list of my concerns regarding the last Planning Commissioner meeting on 12/16/20:

• The applicant said CCB tried to be as least disruptive as possible with minimum towers. If only 10-12 people in Echo Hills have paid a deposit confirming that they will be signing up for CCB, why would 2 towers need to be installed in our neighborhood. The majority of the service area is for those outside of Echo Hills, yet our community and front and backyards must be sacrificed and rezoned. Where is the equity in this plan for Echo Hills?

• 1372 Sinton is to service “90” homes. How many of those homes are in Echo Hills, have internet already, are not interested in CCB’s services and already have broadband access?

• The applicant stated that he does not believe properties near the tower sites will decrease in value. What the applicant failed to address was that adjacent properties that will now have their mountain views obstructed, will have a significant decrease in the owner’s quality or life and property value in relation to adverse impacts of having a tower outside of most windows in their homes which was never the case before.

• The applicant said that CCB, per the state grant, could not provide service where broadband is already offered. The applicant claims that CCB went door to door asking residents if they received service from other broadband companies. As an adjacent property owner to 1372 Sinton Rd, CCB has NEVER came to my house or contacted me to ask about my current broadband service, yet I found minimal internet speeds for my house listed on their Address List. I am not the only property owner in Echo Hills who sees this discrepancy and error.

• Planning Commissioner, Russell Clark, asked “selfishly I looked at the coverage map and I see that I can’t see this tower and I’m wondering how much taller would the tower need to be for me to use this service?” Russell is referring to the proposed 201 Valley View tower site. It is clear that Russell would like to be a direct beneficiary of this service. This is a clear conflict of interest and he should not have the opportunity to vote on this rezoning case.

• Around time marker 2:20, Dave Christensen said he was very interested in hearing from the citizens about what they have to say regarding this proposed rezoning plan. After public comments ended (around time marker 4:18), you’ll notice a shift in his emotions along with disappointing thoughts of those opposed as he said, “that’s the nature of how society grows [...] some people get the impacts and it isn’t quite fair, but it’s the way society works”. This is not how I asked my society to work and is in direct conflict with the Planning Commissioners Mission, CCC’s Master Plan and certainly not how I want the society that I live in to function and make decisions in an inequitable manner. He also stated at time marker 4:40 that “immediate neighbors may take a hit on their property value and may move for reasons, but I think the vast bulk of the county will have a more marketable home”. Does this plan benefit the “vast bulk of our county”? Does this essentially mean that my family’s situation does not matter no matter what the cost is and no matter what the consequence is? I do not see evidence in CCC’s Master Plan to only support a capitalistic approach no matter who it harms.

• Laurie Beckel asked the applicant how many of the 700+ homes have internet already. The applicant clearly avoided a direct answer and only referenced individuals in the Upper Bear Creek area without mentioning any statistics gathered for the Echo Hills neighborhood, yet Echo Hills is being asked to install 2 out of the 3 towers.

• The Master Plan says that CCC should address a lack of broadband and an objective was to identify and address connectivity gaps. Did the county do that?

• The applicant said that you (as in the residents and those able to see the towers) “will get used to seeing the tower after a while”. No, I do not appreciate the applicant speaking on my behalf or the behalf of my family. I will NEVER get used to seeing a tower when I open my front door, look out the large windows in my loft, sit and look out the windows in my living room windows, or the large windows in my master bedroom.

• CCB stated that on average 400 homes would “take” the service. The majority of those homes live outside of Echo Hills.

I am appalled to review the last-ditch effort and tactics used by Clear Creek Broadband (CCB) to bombard our county under the guise of intentionally delaying rezoning cases in my neighborhood, Echo Hills. This suspicious act just continues to represent Clear Creek Broadband’s lack of integrity, lack of transparency and unwillingness to share meaningful and credible information pertaining to their case. The letter that CCB sent to their mailing list soliciting county residents to contact the county in support of rezoning does not indicate that there are fellow county residents who are opposed to the towers because they are adjacent property owners and have valid concerns. Another interesting way that CCB is choosing to conduct business is to not release visual simulations of the towers at their proposed locations from multiple vantage points nor the applicant’s analysis of how their plan fits into the Master Plan ahead of time for neighbors and county residents to review before the Planning Commission meeting on 1/20/21. The Planning Commissioners explicitly requested propagation maps/study for RF coverage and that is now considered “confidential” by CCB so we will not have evidence of RF coverage to discuss with regards to rezoning for telecommunications purposes in our neighborhood. This does not make sense and further provides rationale why these rezoning cases should be declined.

The land proposed for these rezoning cases is not suitable. A total of five ADJACENT property owners have said that we do not want a tower next to our house and finding an alternate location is the way to go. The number of opposing adjacent property owners exceeds the total adjacent property owners that support tower construction in Echo Hills. We do not want a tower next to our house or in our neighborhood and do not approve of you to modify the existing residential zoning for Echo Hills. I do not consent to any of you making decisions on my behalf regarding my livelihood and quality of life that will negatively impact myself and my family’s lifestyle.

Where we live is beautiful and even one of our county commissioners said that during the site visits. The majority of neighbors who showed up to the site visits in Echo Hills do not want these towers in our neighborhood. Do you think that your legacy as Planning Commissioners should include infringing on our mountain with commercial grade tower equipment? Do you believe that this is the best option for a telecommunications rezoning case that which the county has not been presented with nor has deliberated on in a decade? Do you think that the first rezoning case you are presented with should move forward? Has the Planning Commissioners or the county completed any research on alternative locations to towers? Has the Planning Commissioners or the county completed an internal assessment of the best locations for tower construction in our county? Have any of you visited all 3 proposed tower sites? If you did, you would not pick Echo Hills’ residential sites where adjacent property owners do not want their views obstructed nor do they want to have a steady stream of radio frequency emitted at their homes all day every day.

Would any of you volunteer to put one of these towers in the middle of your living room view 100 ft or less from your front door?

Rachel and Marcus Weir From: ANN BYORICK To: Frederick Rollenhagen Cc: Ulla-Carin and Karl Johnson; Rachel Weir; Anna Moderski; Donald Hoaglin; Mary Pat DeWald Subject: CCB Property Owner Letter - 127 Lodgepole Dr Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:01:52 PM

Dear Fred,

19 years ago, when I was looking to buy property, I took a drive around Echo Hills. The friend I was with, said “you don’t want to live up here - this is bubba-ville!” Since then, the whole neighborhood has changed. There is now a beautiful large flagstone entrance sign, with planted flowers maintained by (us) gals in the neighborhood in the summer. It fell down last year and was re- resurrected in the spring by crane with the neighborhood working collectively together, as well as covering costs.

The road to our homes is now paved and many home improvements made and homes entirely remodeled.

I now live in this neighborhood. I’m in a brand new recently built house. I had an extra gable added to the street side to blend with the neighborhood improvements and fit aesthetically.

I waited all my life to be a homeowner. The one part of the house left to be completed, is a deck off the street side where there’s a guard rail presently across the slider doors to walk out. The crown jewel of my home, with Pikes peak in view, would now have an industrial tower in sight. If I were looking to buying this property now with a proposed tower on the horizon, I would certainly think to move on and look elsewhere. The tower would also be seen from my front porch, living room, and two bedrooms. Also, the tower would be seen from the top of my lot where the only flat landing on the property exists where I’ve created a sitting area with hammock in the summer.

Our neighborhood worked collaboratively, attentively and diligently to get the word out to make everyone aware of the proposed CCB plan and get things signed to move forward. No hint was given of possibility of any towers and only fiber optics were discussed. All information and much question answering among us before signing the petition, which was a lot of work, was about the fiber optic plan to be carried out. With only a few days notice before the last county Zoom mtg, did we collectively find about towers, and people are still caught off guard.

A comment was made at the end of the county Zoom meeting, something to the effect of “so a few people have to move - this project needs to move forward”. My heart sank on behalf of my neighbors because of this disregarding comment. I watched two of my neighbors closest to 1372 Sinton Rd working tirelessly with pride every possible day and weekend all summer long. The Johnson’s right below me invested in their own heavy equipment, researched, and laboriously did mitigation and outdoor ground work to the front and back of their home. There was a 100 foot long fire-hazard exposed slash berm there for years before they moved in and it’s now covered with dirt and netting for spring planting. Families have had their long term futures invested; not thinking or planning on “oh, we can just move”.

The area of homes where 1372 Sinton Rd is located, are the very first houses at the beginning of our neighborhood. This is the busiest area of our neighborhood where the first set of mailboxes are located. In addition to dropped property values from the proposed tower, most people are used to thinking there’s a health risk when they see a tower. With two going up, that potentially effects the impression of entire neighborhood.

Lastly, with serious homeowner mitigation done because of our concern of wildfire, we are now finding unhealthy mistletoe trees. The only way to fix this is with removal. The proposed towers would only be more visible as more trees need to come down in the future.

I am very much against the two towers proposed by Clear Creek Broadband’s project in Echo Hills.

Please see attached photos.

Thank you kindly,

Ann Byorick 127 Lodgepole Dr. 303-526-9589

Recent house build bedroom view. Pikes Peak. 2017

Pikes Peak from bedroom and upcoming deck. 2020