HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.09.2004Exhibits for Public Hea ring held on Augus t 9, 2004
B Proof of Publication
C Garfield Count
D
E A licati on
F Staff Memorandum
BOCC 08109104
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REOUEST
OWNER I APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
SITE DATA
ACCESS
EXISTING ZONING
SUROUNDING ZONING
Special Use Permit for a "Communications Facility"
Chad & Kristin Campbell
Gamba & Associates
NW \I.I of the SE \I.I of Section 16, Township 7 South,
Range 95 West of the 6'h PM; practically located 1.5
miles east of Battlement Mesa
40 acres
CR 302 (Underwood Lane)
ARRD
ARRD I Open Space (BLM)
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The Applicant proposes to erect a 60-foot tall translator tower on a privately owned 40-acre property
located just east of the Battlement Mesa community. The property is zoned ARRD and is surrounded
to the south and east by BLM and by ARRD to the north and west. The purpose for the proposed
tower is to transmit an FM signal from a Grand Junction radio station to rural areas obscured by
topography. The tower is comprised of three sections that total 48 feet. A 12-foot antenna is placed
on top of the tower for a total height of 60 feet. The tower is free standing and uses no wires. The
translator (FM) is a small box measuring 19" wide, 8" high, and 15" deep which emits 34 watts with
a frequency of 101.9 and is mounted at the base of the tower and is enclosed in a cabinet. Electrical
power (underground) to the site will be provided by Holy Cross Electric. The area around the base of
the tower will be enclosed with a 6 foot high chain-link fence. This type of structure (and its
associated use) is defined in the Zoning Resolution as a Communications Facility which is
contemplated in the ARRD zone district as a special use.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
As mentioned above, the property is bordered by BLM to the south and east and by private lands to
the north and west. It is located just east of the Battlement Mesa community. The 40-acre property is
presently improved with a single-family dwelling and water tank the remaining portion of the
property consists of relatively flat open land with some mature pinion vegetation and sage brush I
scrub oak used for the grazing of horses. The south portion of the far rear of the lot where the tower is
proposed sits at the toe of significant slopes that stretch southward and eastward into BLM.
eliminating visual impact in low light periods.
Staff agrees that the tower structure is relatively thin (28" wide at the bottom and
approximately 12" at the top) does not use guide wires, is not lighted, and will be located such
that the backdrop of steep slopes behind the tower will significantly reduce the visual impact.
Further, due to the remote location of the tower, in that, it will be situated on the rear of a 40-
acre tract and approximately I to 1.5 miles from any developed area also reduces its visual
impact to the general public. Staff finds this standard is met.
B. Section 5.03.13 Review Standards: Communication Facilities
Such communication facility shall be approved by the FCC and the FAA, where appropriate. In
addition, the following standards will be used in the review application for a communication
facility:
1. All facilities shall comply with the radio ji·equency emission requirements of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and any facility in compliance cannot be
denied.
Staff Finding
Regarding compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Applicant sent the
proposal to the FAA and received a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" which is
included in the application binder. The FAA's letter stated:
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed the obstruction
standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation.
Based on this elevation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety.
However, if marking and! or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we
recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA advisory Circular
7017460-1AC70I7460-JK.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes
specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates,
heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any
future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition
of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes,
derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure.
However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above.
Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate
notice to the FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use
of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance
3
III.REFERRALS
Staff referred the application out to the following review agencies and or County Departments:
a. Town of Parachute: No comments received.
b. Battlement Mesa: No comments received.
c. Bureau of Land Management: No comments received.
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property lies within Study Area 3 and is designated on the proposed land use map as outlying
residential. The proposed tower is not located in any defined visual corridor or any urban areas of
influence as mapped in the plan.
V. REVIE\V STANDARDS
Special Uses are subject to the standards in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution. In addition, the
proposed use shall also be required to address the standards fro a communications facility found in
Section 5.03.13 of the Zoning Resolution. These review standards are presented below followed by a
response by Staff.
A. Section 5.03 Review Standards
1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering
standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place
or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use;
Staff Finding
The proposed tower is an unmanned stand-alone structure which requires no utilities for
providing water or a method for dealing with wastewater. This standard is met.
2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the
proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place
or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use;
Staff Finding
The existing access to the property is County Road 302. Proposed traffic generated to the site
for the tower will be approximately I trip to and from the site every three months. This does
not represent any measurable impact on the County road system. This standard is met.
3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses
of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of
the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in
such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character;
Staff Finding
The zoning for this property allows structures to be up to 25 feet tall. The proposed tower will
exceed this height limitation by 35 feet. The application states that the tower is inherently
small of profile and is located on a down slope to prevent being silhouetted against the sky.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not require the tower to be lighted
2
responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or
local government body.
Therefore, the FAA has approved the tower. Staff suggests that should the Board approve the
request, these points above be considered conditions of approval. This standard is met.
Further, the application states that the proposed tower and the emanating frequencies have
been approved by the FCC under a permit number ofBNPFT-2003081 IADV. The application
also contains a print-out of a form from the FCC website that indicates an approval from the
FCC for 101.9 MHZ. Staff contacted the FCC regarding the form and the tower and its
frequency has been approved by the FCC. This standard is met.
2. The co-location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the
denial of a landowner/ lessor of the co-location of a site shall be based on technical
reasons, not on competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number
of communication facilities by the encouragement of co-locating such facilities.
Staff Finding
The application states that Maranatha Broadcasting investigated other co-location
opportunities and that the other towers in the area were not acceptable for the proposed
facility. In an additional supplement at the request of Staff, the Applicant elaborated on their
endeavors and provided the following reasons why co-location was not a possibility:
"Maranatha has three FM stations, two of which are presently rebroadcast in Garfield County,
K-JOY 92.3 and Magic 93.1. We hope to add the signal from another one of our stations,
Moose Country 100.7, in the near future. For a translator signal to reach Rifle, an intermediate
hop between Rifle and Grand Junction needs to be established. A site east of Battlement Mesa
that is line of site to Anvil Points is ideal. Both the proposed Kimball property site and Dog
Head Electronics Site (owned by American Tower) reach Anvil Point. And both our proposed
site and Dog Head reach Parachute/Battlement Mesa."
Point #I: Interference
"We are concerned about interference. If two antennas are positioned too close to each other,
they will interfere with each other. On FM, this takes the form of noise, hiss, and loss of
frequency response -all of which result in a decrease in the quality of service being provided
to residents of Garfield County. On cellular, this takes the form of noise, dropped calls, and
voice distortion. With FM, transmit and receive antennas need to be separated by 10 feet
vertically, or perhaps as much as I 00 feet horizontally to eliminate interference. We think
adding another 3 FM translators at the existing, crowded Dog Head site has the likelihood to
cause numerous interference issues, issues that may never be completely eliminated."
"We are also concerned about interference from services outside the FM band. There are
dozens of transmitters at Dog Head, representing numerous services in a wide range of
frequencies like wireless, two-way, FM translator, TV translator, business band, public safety,
etc. Adding three additional FM signals on Dog Head to the already crowded spectrum, with
4
each frequency having multiple harmonics, and then concentrating them all within a few feet
of each other, plus resolving all the combinations and permutations of the intermixing of all
the frequencies together is a serious concern. We need to receive 4 crystal clear signals from
the FM band, as well as be able to transmit 4 crystal clear signals. This is much easier to
accomplish when the antennas are widely separated from each other, as we are proposing with
the Kimball property site."
"Interference is difficult to predict and remove. At Black Ridge Electronic Site (above Grand
Junction) one of our primary FM stations has caused interference with a cellular provider.
Tens of thousands of dollars have been invested to correct this interference, all to no avail. The
station's transmitter is within specifications, so the cellular provider will either have to live
with the interference, or move off the site. Another example of interference on a crowded site
was Gray Head Mountain near Telluride. There, an FM translator caused interference to San
Miguel County emergency services. That interference issue is still not satisfactorily resolved."
Point #2: Unreasonable Fees
"A second concern is fees. Maranatha Broadcasting and translator operators, who rebroadcast
our signals, expect to pay reasonable fees for our translator sites. In our opinion, the Dog Head
site on BLM land has become unreasonable. Below are found the potential numbers of
listeners at each site, and the approximate fees at each site."
Montrose, CO
Cedaredge, Orchard City, CO
Moab, UT
Rifle, CO
Eagle, Gypsum, CO
12,000 people
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
$250 I month 2.1 ¢ I person
$100 I month 2.0¢ I person
$100 I month 2.0¢ I person
$125 I month 2.5¢ I person
$120 I month 2.4¢ I person
However, American Tower at Dog Head Electronic Site proposes the following base rate:
Parachute, Battlement Mesa 3,000 people $500 I month 16.6¢ I person
"We think a rate 8 times higher than those at comparable sites is unfair and unreasonable. Our
translators serve thousands of Garfield County citizens with news, weather and unique
programming. K-JOY is also the primary Emergency Alert Station, not only for our home
Mesa County, but for Garfield County as well. Emergency messages go out immediately on all
our stations as they come to us from the Weather Service, State of Colorado, Department of
Homeland Security, and various county governments. We have been serving Garfield County
in this capacity since the EAS system started. We hope to keep serving the people of Garfield
County, but costs need to be reasonable."
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant finds that interference with other translators (FM, TV,
cellular providers, etc.) would diminish their FM service and possibly jeopardize the
transmission of public safety information. Further, this supplemental information admits that
co-location continues to be possible by the number and varied type of uses already co-locating
at the Dog Head site. No technical data was provided to support this finding. Lastly, the
5
applicant is also concerned with the inflated cost of the base fee ($500 per month) charged at
the American Tower at Dog Head Electronic Site.
As an interesting note, the standard above states that ... [ inter-alia J the denial of a landowner/
lessor of the co-location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not on competitive
interests. The Applicant makes a point in stating that an existing tower site is charging "a rate
8 times higher than those at comparable sites which is unfair and unreasonable." Arguably,
the tower owner and not this applicant is in conflict with this language. Co-location should be
allowed except where technical reasons such as interference preclude additional users. In the
same manner, the Applicant's proposed tower should be available for additional users at a
reasonable rate and can only deny co-location requests for technical reasons. This standard is
met.
3. A freestanding telecommunication facility, including antennas, shall not exceed the
maximum structure height (25 feet) in the applicable zone district unless an exception
is approved by the Board based on the applicant demonstrating the following:
a. Use of existing land forms, vegetation and structures to aid in screening the
facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built natural
environment;
Staff Finding
As mentioned above, Staff finds that the tower structure is relatively thin (28" wide at the
bottom and approximately 12" at the top) does not use guide wires, is not lighted, and
will be located such that the backdrop of steep slopes behind the tower will significantly
reduce the visual impact and allow it to blend with the surrounding environment rather
than skyline against the open sky. Further, due to the remote location of the tower, in
that, it will be situated on the rear of a 40-acre tract and approximately 1 to 1.5 miles
from any developed area also reduces its visual impact to the general public. Staff finds
this standard is met.
b. Design, materials and colors of antennas and their support structures, shall be
compatible with the surrounding environment, and monopole support
structures shall taper from the base to the tip; and
Staff Finding
The proposed tower is a mono-pole design that tapers from the base to the tip. The
Antenna is an FM Dipole Antenna. The application contains the technical specifications
(dimensions) of the both the support tower and the antenna. The tower is constructed of
gray colored steel. The design of the tower is ofa tripod construction (three sides) that is
approximately 28" wide at the base tapering to approximately 10-12" at the top ( 48 feet)
where a 12-foot antenna mast (monopole) is attached that will hold the actual antennas.
These dimensions outline a tower that is relatively "thin" and also does not use guide
wires for additional support. However, Staff suggests, should the Board approve the
request, that the Applicant indicate that all colors used on the tower shall not make the
tower reflect light or stand out from the surrounding and background vegetation.
6
c. It is consistent with existing communication facilities on the same site.
Staff Finding
There are no other communication facilities on the same property. This standard is met.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Special Use Pe1mit
for a "Communications Facility" for a property owned by Chad & Kristin Campbell located in the
NW \,,; of the SE \<! of Section 16, Township 7 South, Range 95 West of the 6" PM; practically
located 1.5 miles east of Battlement Mesa with conditions.
VII. RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I move to approve a Special Use Permit for a Communications Facility" for a property owned by
Chad & Kristin Campbell located in the NW \'4 of the SE \'4 of Section 16, Township 7 South, Range
95 West of the 6'h PM; practically located 1.5 miles east of Battlement Mesa with the following
conditions:
I) That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval,
unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2) The Applicant shall continuously remain in compliance with the requirements of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), as stated in the "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation"
including:
a. Based on this elevation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety.
However, if marking and/ or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we
recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA advisory Circular
70/7460-1 AC70 I 7460-IK.
b. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific
coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and
frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction
or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters,
requires separate notice to the FAA.
c. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes,
derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However,
this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which
has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA.
d. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of
navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance
responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation ofany Federal, State, or local
7
government body.
3) That all colors used on the tower, if any, shall not make the tower reflect light or stand out from
the surrounding and background vegetation.
4) The tower shall be available for additional users to co-locate on the tower at a reasonable rate and
the owner of the tower can only deny co-location requests for technical reasons.
8
) ) EXHIBIT
"
'
---------~
Maranatha Broadcasting
1360 E. Sherwoo d Drive Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (970) 254-2100 Fax 245-7551
June 9, 2004
Fred A . Jarman, AICP, Sen ior Planner
Garfield County Building & Planning Dept.
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Special Use Permit request for a "Commun ication s Facili ty"
Dear Mr. Jarman,
Maranatha Broadcasting has proposed to erect a tower on the Kimba ll property east of
Battlement Mesa . This letter further explains the efforts Mara na tha Broadcasti ng has
made towards el iminating other co-location possiblities, and why those alternatives have
been rejected.
Maranatha has three FM stations, two of wh ich are presently rebroadcast in Garfield
County, K-JOY 92.3 and Magic 93 .1. We hope to add the signal from another one of
our stations, Moose Country 100.7, in the near future. For a translato r signal to reach
Rifle, an intermediate hop between Rifle and Grand Junction nee ds to be estab lis hed. A
site east of Battlement Mesa that is line of site to Anvil Points is ideal. Both the
proposed Kimball property site and Dog Head Ele ctronics Site (owned by American
Tower) reach Anvil Point. And both our proposed site and Dog Head reach
Parachute/Battlement Mesa.
We are concerned about interference. If two antennas are positioned too close to each
other, they wi ll interfere with each other. On FM , this takes t he form of noise, hiss, and
loss of frequency response -all of which result in a decrease in the quality of service
being provided to residents of Garfield County. On cellular, this takes the form of noise,
dropped calls, and voice distortion. With FM, transmit and rece ive antennas need to be
separated by 10 feet ve rtically, or perhaps as much as 100 feet horizon tally to eliminate
interference. We think adding another 3 FM translators at the ex isting , crowded Dog
Head site has the likelihood to cause numerous interference issues, iss ues t hat ma y
never be complete ly eliminated.
' I
KMGJ 93.1 KJYE 92.3 KMOZ 100.7 KNZZ 1100 KTMM
Page 2
We are also concerned about interference from services outside the FM band. There are
dozens of transmitters at Dog Head, representing numerous services in a wide range of
frequencies like wireless, two way, FM translator, TV translator, business band, public
safety, etc. Adding three additional FM signals on Dog Head to the already crowded
spectrum, with each frequency having multiple harmonics, and then concentrating them
all within a few feet of each other, plus resolving all the combinations and permutations
of the intermixing of all the frequencies together is a serious concern. We need to
receive 4 crystal clear signals from the FM band, as well as be able to transmit 4 crystal
clear signals. This is much easier to accomplish when the antennas are widely
separated from each other, as we are proposing with the Kimball property site.
Interference is difficult to predict and remove. At Black Ridge Electronic Site (above
Grand Junction) one of our primary FM stations has caused interference with a cellular
provider. Tens of thousands of dollars have been invested to correct this interference, all
to no avail. The station's transmitter is within specifications, so the cellular provider will
either have to live with the interference, or move off the site.
Another example of interference on a crowded site was Gray Head Mountain near
Telluride. There an FM translator caused interference to San Miguel County emergency
services. That interference issue is still not satisfactorily resolved.
A second concern is fees. Maranatha Broadcasting and translator operators who
rebroadcast our signals, expect to pay reasonable fees for our translator sites. In our
opinion, the Dog Head site on BLM land has become unreasonable. Below are found the
potential numbers of listeners at each site, and the approximate fees at each site.
Montrose, CO 12,000 people $250/month 2.1¢/person
Cedaredge, Orchard City, CO 5,000 $100/month 2.0¢/person
Moab, UT 5,000 $100/month 2.0¢/person
Rifle, CO 5,000 $125/month 2.5¢/person
Eagle, Gypsum, CO 5,000 $120/month 2.4¢/person
However, American Tower at Dog Head Electronic Site proposes the following base rate:
Parachute, Battlement Mesa 3,000 people $500/month 16.6¢/person
We think a rate 8 times higher than those at comparable sites is unfair and
unreasonable.
Page 3
Our translators serve thousands of Garfield County citizens with news, weather and
unique programming. K-JOY is also the primary Emergency Alert Station, not only for
our home Mesa County, but for Garfield County as well. Emergency messages go out
immediately on all our stations as they come to us from the Weather Service, State of
Colorado, Department of Homeland Security, and various county governments. We
have been serving Garfield County in this capacity since the EAS system started. We
hope to keep serving the people of Garfield County, but costs need to be reasonable.
Thanks for your help.
Jim Terlouw, GM, Maranatha Broadcasting
Jim.terlouw@knzz.com
970 254 2112
• •
FCC Home Page Commissioners Bureaus!Oflices Finding Info
Application Search Details
File Number: BNPFT-20030811ADV
Call Sign: K270AY
Facility Id: 152271
FRN: 0008607855
Applicant Name: PROFESSIONAL ANTENNA, TOWER AND TRANSLATOR
SERVICE (PAITS)
Frequency: 101.9
Channel: 270
Community of License: BAITLEMENT MESA, CO
Application Type: ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
Status: GRANTED
Status Date: 07/30/2004
Expiration Date: 07/30/2007
NCE Supplement Date:
Tolling Code:
Application Service: FX
Disposed Date: 07/30/2004
Accepted Date: 10/10/2003
Tendered Date: 09/10/2003
Amendment Received 09/09/2003
Date:
Last Public Notice: 08/04/2004
Last Report Number: 45791
Authorization \li~wAuthod~<ition
Engineering Data View Engineering Data
Legal Actions View Legal Actioni;
PN Comment Public Notice Comment
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubac .. ./a pp_ <let.pl? Application _id=68521 8/4/2004
United States of America
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
FM BROADCAST TRANSLATOR/BOOSTER STATION
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
Authorizing Official:
Official Mailing Address:
PROFESSIONAL ANTENNA, TOWER AND TRANSLATOR E George H. Gwinn
P.O. BOX 1738 Supervisory Engineer
12469 64. 50 ROAD Audio Division
MONTROSE co 81401 Media Bureau
Facility Id: 152271
Grant Date: July 30, 2004
Call Sign: K270AY
Permit File Number: BNPFT-20030811ADV
This permit expires 3:00 a.m.
local time, 36 months after the
grant date specified above.
Commission rules which became effective on February 16, 1999, have a
bearing on this construction permit. See Report & Order, Streamlining of
Mass Media Applications, MM Docket No. 98-43, 13 FCC RCD 23056, Para.
77-90 (November 25, 1998); 63 Fed. Reg. 70039 (December 18, 1998).
Pursuant to these rules, this construction permit will be subject to
automatic forfeiture unless construction is complete and an application
for license to cover is filed prior to expiration. See Section 73.3598.
Name of Permittee: PROFESSIONAL ANTENNA, TOWER AND TRANSLATOR SERVICE
(PATTS)
Principal community to be served: CO-BATTLEMENT MESA
Primary Station: KJYE (FM) 'Channel 222, GRAND JUNCTION, co
Via: Direct -off-air
Frequency (MHz): 101.9
Channel: 270
Hours of Operation: Unlimited
FCC Form 351A October 21, 1985 Page 1 of 3
Call sign: K:.:!"/UAY Permit No. BNPFT-20030811ADV
·Antenna Coordinates: North Latitude:
West Longitude:
39 deg 26 min
108 deg 00 min
17 sec
03 sec
Transmitter: Type Accepted. See Sections 73.1660, 74.1250 of the Commissio1
Antenna type: (directional or non-directional): Non-Directional
Major lobe directions (degrees true) : Not Applicable
Horizontally Vertically
Polarized Polarized
Antenna: Antenna:
Effective radiated power in the Horizontal Plane (kw): 0.034
Height of radiation center above ground (Meters) : 11
Height of radiation center above mean sea level {Meters) : 1844
Antenna structure registration number: Not Required
Overall height of antenna structure above ground: 11 Meters
Obstruction marking and lighting specifications for antenna structure:
It is to be expressly understood that the issuance of these specifications
is in no way to be considered as precluding additional or modified marking
or lighting as may hereafter be required under the provisions of Section
303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
None Required
Special operating conditions or restrictions:
1 Prior to commencing program test operations, FM Trans~ator or FM
Booster permittee must have on file at the Commission, FCC Form 350,
Application for an FM Translator or FM Booster Station License,
pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section 74.14.
2 The permittee/licensee in coordination with other users of the site
must reduce power or cease operation as necessary to protect persons
having access to the site, tower or antenna from radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields in excess of FCC guidelines.
FCC Form 351A October 21, 1985 Page 2 of 3
Callsign: K~"/UAY Permit No.: BNPFT-20030811ADV
Special operating conditions or restrictions:
3 Warning signs which describe the radiofrequency electromagnetic field
must be posted at appropriate intervals. Access must be restricted to
prevent the exposure of humans to RF emissions in excess of the FCC
guidelines (OET Bulletin No. 65, Edition 97-01, released August 1997).
Permittee shall submit documentation of compliance with this special
operating condition when filing FCC Form 350, application for license.
*** END OF AUTHORIZATION ***
FCC Form 351A October 21, 1985 Page 3 of 3
KNZZ KJYE KMGJ KMOZ KTMM KDTA
Memo
To: Garfield County Building and Planning Department
From: Jim TerLouw, GM
Date: 8/9/2004
Re: Electromagnetic Radiation at the
The Staff had a concern about the radio frequency radiation emanating from the KJYE translator.
In response: The Office of Engineering and Technology of the Federal Communications Commission
has adopted limits for radio frequency radiation from broadcast stations. The limit for the FM band (88
to 108 MHz) is 0.2 mW/cm2 for the general population. An accompanying chart shows that no radiation
in excess of this amount is received at a distance of 19 feet from the FM antenna. Since the antenna is
at the 60-foot level , no significant radiation reaches ground level.
Antennas used for FM radio broadcast stations normally consist of an array of
elements stacked vertically and typically side-mounted on a tower. The elements are usually
spaced about one wavelength apart and are fed in phase with power distributed equally among
the elements. FM radio stations transmit in the 88-108 MHz band. Consulting Table 1 in
Appendix A of OET Bulletin 65 ~hows that at these frequencies the MP~ l~mit for general
pcpulation/uncontrolled exposure 1s 0.2 mW/cm2 (200 µW/cm2) and the lumt for
occupational/controlled exposure is 1 mW/cm2 (1000 µW/cm2).
Section 2 of Bulletin 65 explains how calculations can be performed to predict RF
field-strength or power density near various antennas, including those used for FM radio
transmissions. In addition, in 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a
computer model for estimating ground-level power densities in the vicinity of typical FM
broadcast towers. The EPA model estimates power densities in the vicinity of typical FM
broadcast antennas for various antenna types and patterns. With some minor modifications,
the FCC has successfully used this model over the past several years to predict ground-level
power densities near FM towers. The EPA model considers the following variables of an FM
antenna in arriving at is predictions: (1) the total effective radiated power (both horizontal
and vertical), (2) the height above ground to the center of radiation of the antenna, (3) the
type of antenna element used in the antenna array and (4) the number of elements (or bays) in
the antenna array. The model is discussed in detail in an EPA publication by P. Gailey and
R Tell (Reference 11 in Bulletin 65). The FCC' s version of the FM computer model can be
downloaded from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology World Wide Web site.3
The FM computer model uses element and array radiation patterns to develop
predicted field strengths and power densities on the ground.4 Ground reflection is taken into
account in these calculations (a factor of 1.6 for field strength as discussed in Section 2 of
Bulletin 65). Although the model is theoretical, measurements made by the EPA and by
others around existing FM antenna towers have shown good agreement with predicted values.
3 The FCC's FM computer model ("FM Model") may be downloaded via the Internet from the FCC's
Web Site at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/software/. Any furore revisions to this software may be found at this
location. For further details contact: rf safety@fcc.gov or the FCC's RF Safety Program at (202) 418-2464.
4 The EPA measured the vertical radiation patterns of several element types and incorporated the
measurement data into its computer model. The FCC has also used the EPA element pattern data and has added
Other data submitted by manufacrurers for additional antenna elements.
11
Appendix J -21
> :g
El
Q.
~ :p
~
Main-Bea1n Exposure (No Reflection)
100000 ~-
;:;--s ~ ~ .....,,
0
·~ "' i::
0)
Cl ....
0)
::;::
&:
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
•
"'-
"'-•
• •
"
"'-. ./
' • •Oa
"'-./.a "'9000 . . v '.:;,;, tv ~Oo, . ~<?,o
. . ~qoa "'-tv Ji'. • °"'
. vtv .~ "'-
'<oa •• ~...o. °"' . v tv • '":" "' . ~ . ./ootv 'Z~ . . . "
./o ~Jr,o "'-. . . "'-.. tv~~ ~"" " . • • • . . "'-"
0.01 I ' > ' ' ' ' ' ' I • ' > ' ' ' ' ' . . . I I t I ' I ' ( t 'I I I ' I ' I I I
1 10
6 fr!-e,ferJ -
;91
FIGUREl.
100 1000 10000
Distance From Antenna (meters)
;•.=