Laserfiche WebLink
Hays, Peter <br />From: Kristen Fienberg [KFienberg@towerco.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:11 PM <br />To: Kristen Fienberg; Hays, Peter <br />Subject: RE: Application No. M2011-001, TowerCo Site C02049 <br />Attachments: C02049 Letter from Tetra Tech.pdf; C02049 Letter to TT.pdf; C02049 Lafarge Response. pdf <br />Pete: <br />This email wasn't delivered the first time because the attachments were too large. I resaved the files and I am reattaching. <br />Please let me know that you received. Thanks, Kristen <br />From: Kristen Fienberg <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:44 PM <br />To: 'peter.hays@state.co.us' <br />Subject: Application No. M2011-001, TowerCo Site C02049 <br />Hi Pete <br />I understand that this application was ultimately assigned to you, so I wanted to reach out to you and alert you to the fact <br />that TowerCo and Lafarge have some unresolved issues with respect to the proposed mining activities at the Iverson <br />property in Weld County. <br />I spoke with Eric Scott today, who informed me that TowerCo had missed the public comment period. Unfortunately, we <br />were unaware that the notice had been published. However, given that our tower facility is within 200' of the proposed <br />mining operation, I believe that we still have some recourse. <br />I'm attaching for your review the following: <br />• Letter received from Tetra Tech dated 11/30/201o in which TowerCo was notified that Lafarge intended to mine <br />within 200' of our wireless communications facility <br />• Letter from TowerCo responding to the 11/30/201o Tetra Tech letter <br />The TowerCo response details our specific concerns regarding the proposed mining operations. While we are not <br />altogether opposed to the proposed mining activities, we believe that we have many valid concerns which Tetra Tech and <br />Lafarge have yet to address. Our concerns (which are also detailed in the TowerCo response letter) are as follows: <br />1. The safety factor used in the Stability Analysis prepared by Tetra Tech is inadequate. The 2006 International <br />Building Code requires a minimum safety factor of 2.0 for towers and the tower industry design standard, TIA- <br />222-F, specifies a minimum safety factor of 2.0 for foundation design with respect to soils failure. Ultimately, as <br />the site owner, TowerCo should be the party to deem what it considers to be an acceptable safety factor for its <br />communications facility. <br />2. We found the document that they provided with their correspondence titled Agreement to Mine Within Zoo Feet <br />of Permanent Manmade Structures' to be unacceptable it in its current form. We asked that they provide a soft <br />copy of the proposed agreement so that we could insert our requested changes, but they never provided. TowerCo <br />will at a minimum require that: <br />o Lafarge indemnify and hold TowerCo harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses and <br />damages and for any and all costs and expenses incurred by TowerCo and/or its tower tenants <br />arising from Lafarge's acts in connection with the Mining Activities, including but not limited to <br />any downtime experienced by TowerCo and/or TowerCo's tower tenants, and <br />o Lafarge post a performance bond in an amount sufficient to cover the replacement value of (A) <br />the communications facility, which includes a 109' monopole, foundation, compound, fencing, <br />grounding, all associated improvements, equipment, intangibles and personal property, and (B) all <br />wireless communications and electronic equipment owned by TowerCo's tower tenants, which <br />may include base radios and controllers, all equipment used to connect such equipment with the <br />i