HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrown Castle Monopole Hearing Examiner Decision1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
RE: Crown Castle Monopole
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan
LUA21-000203, CU-A, SA-H
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Summary
The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and site plan approval to construct a 99.1-foot-
high monopole wireless communications facility disguised as a tree at 2902 NE 12th St. The
applications are approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-15 identified at Page 2 of the February 22, 2022 staff report were admitted into the record
during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing:
Exhibit 16: City staff power point.
Exhibit 17: Google earth aerial photographs
Exhibit 18: City of Renton COR maps
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Sally Natalino, Crown Castle, 2055 S Stearman Dr, Chandler, AZ 85286.
2. Hearing. A virtual Zoom hearing was held on the application at 11:00 am on February 22,
2022, Zoom Meeting ID No. 946 7233 4580.
3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and site plan
approval to construct a 99.1-foot-high monopole wireless communications facility (WCF) disguised
as a coniferous tree at 2902 NE 12th St. The proposed height is designed to accommodate three
carriers: the stealth tower would incorporate antennas for two (2) different wireless carriers (AT&T
and T-Mobile according to the Applicant) at RAD heights of approximately 80 feet above grade and
90 above grade as well as space for a third antenna array at approximately 70 feet above grade that is
intended to be utilized by a future carrier. The subject site is 61,133 square feet (1.4 acres) in size.
The property is owned by the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). A Conditional Use Permit was
approved in April 2018 to allow RHA to operate the Sunset Multi-Service and Career Development
Center on the site (LUA18-000127). The purpose of the new facility is to replace a monopole WCF
previously located on an adjacent site. The total lease area, approximately 2500 square feet., would be
located to the north of the existing building. Maintenance access to the site is proposed via an existing
public alley that connects the site to Harrington Ave NE. A gated entrance on the north side of the
site provides access to the alley.
4. Surrounding Uses/Colocation. The project site is surrounded by duplexes to the north, east
and west and multifamily development to the south.
As to availability of alternative sites for co-location, staff determined that the Applicant submitted
satisfactory evidence that no existing tower or support structure can accommodate the needed
facilities. AT&T, one of the two (2) carriers that currently plan to install equipment on the stealth
tower, currently does not have any facilities in the Sunset area (Exhibit 14). The other carrier to locate
on the stealth tower, T-Mobile, will be removing a monopole on an adjacent parcel south of NE 12th
St due to redevelopment of the site. Relocating to the new tower would ensure T -Mobile continues to
have the ability to provide reliable service to customers in the area. According to the Applicant, a lack
of existing towers in the Sunset area, lack of tall buildings or other structures that could support
antennas, and an increase in the number housing units in the neighborhood, necessitate the
installation of a new standalone wireless facility. Staff reviewed the Applicant’s colocation feasibility
justification and concurs that no other suitable towers or structures are available in the surrounding
area.
According to the Applicant, an additional third colocation opportunity is available for another
wireless carrier to install equipment on the proposed stealth tower. In order to ensure both the tower
and the equipment enclosure can support an additional carrier based on the proposed design, a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
condition of approval requires that the Applicant shall provide a letter from a professional RF
engineer demonstrating that future collocation of at least one other wireless carrier is feasible based
on the existing site characteristics and design of the proposed monopole and associated equipment
enclosure.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Critical Area. No critical areas are mapped on the project site according to COR Maps.
B. Topography and Vegetation. The proposal will not create any significant impacts to
topography and vegetation. No significant grading is proposed as a result of this project
as the site is primarily flat. Vegetative impacts are anticipated within two (2) areas
including the pad used to support the ground cabinet equipment and support pole base as
well as the public alley to the north of the site to be used for maintenance access. The ar ea
near the equipment base would result in a 50-foot by 50-foot square foot area of
vegetation cleared, including six (6) trees (Exhibit 4). The trees proposed for removal
include two (2) 10-inch Maples, a 24-inch Maple, a 24-inch Madrona, an 8-inch Maple,
and a 10-inch Madrona. Improving a portion of the alley (APN 7227802041) to the north,
as required as part of the mitigation measure in the SEPA decision (Exhibit 12), requires
the removal of three (3) deciduous trees approximately 28, 32, and 36 inches in diameter.
The Applicant has proposed mitigating the removal of the trees by planting nineteen (19)
compact strawberry trees around the equipment enclosure. Compact strawberry trees are
short in stature and typically only grow to a maximum height of eight (8’) to ten (10’)
feet. In order provide a taller, higher quality visual buffer around facility, a condition of
approval requires the planting of larger trees.
With or without the larger tree condition the proposal meets the City’s tree retention
standards. The Applicant has proposed the removal of six (6) trees within the 50 feet by
50 feet lease area ranging from 10-inches to 24-inch DBH, resulting in a tree retention rate
of 87.5%. Therefore the proposal complies with the tree retention standards in RMC 4-4-
130.H.ii, which requires that at least 20% of trees be retained for development in the R-14
zone.
C. Height/Compatibility. The proposed height and fencing is the minimum necessary for
project objectives and as conditioned the design is compatible with surrounding
development.
The proposed height is necessary to provide adequate cell phone service. According to
the Applicant, the height proposed is the minimum necessary to avoid signal blockage
created by the area topography, achieve RF line of sight required for adequate
service/coverage, and to allow an additional carrier to collocate on the tower due to the
separation between antennas required. Staff have determined that the proposed height is
necessary for the needs of the project. Testimony at the hearing also established a strong
need for better cell phone service in the surrounding area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
The proposed faux tree stealth tower, which is designed to visually imitate a coniferous
tree, is located approximately 150 feet away from the nearest public ROW (NE 13th St)
within an existing grouping of trees ranging in height for 30 feet to 71.5 feet (Exhibit 12).
At 99.1 feet tall, the proposed faux tree clearly stands out from the existing trees as
documented by the photo-simulations (Exhibit 5) submitted by the Applicant. Although
less visually impactful than a standard, uncamouflaged monopole, the proposed stealth
tower would stand out significantly due to its sheer size and location adjacent to a
residential neighborhood with building heights typically only reaching two or three
stories. While the branches on the middle and upper portions of the tree serve to reduce
the overall visual impact when viewed from afar, the illusion is less effective when
viewed from closer to the facility due to the type of finish used on the main support pole.
In order to better approximate the look of a real tree, the main support pole should include
design elements that help it blend in with the other trees on the site. Therefore, to further
reduce the visual impact of the tree when viewed from nearby properties, a condition of
approval requires that the Applicant shall incorporate a textured finish or cladding system,
such as the Larson Ultraflex bark offered by Valmont Structures, on the main support pole
that imitates the look of natural tree park (Exhibit 15).
Another tower issue necessitating mitigation are some antennas at the top of the tower.
The plan set (Exhibit 4) shows antennas associated with the top-most antennas extending
beyond the ends of the faux branches, which reduces the visual effectiveness of the faux
tree stealth tower. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that no part of the
equipment mounted on the stealth tower support pole shall extend beyond the faux lateral
branches, unless an alternative concealment method is approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager.
The proposed structures would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
The associated equipment enclosure would include a six (6’) foot tall wood fence installed
around the perimeter which is consistent with the type screening used for at- grade utility
or mechanical equipment. The location of the enclosure near the back of the site within a
vegetated area would create a negligible visual impact on the adjacent properties and
would not look out of place on a commercial site. In addition, the recommended
condition under criterion ‘a’ above would require the Applicant to install additional
landscape elements around the perimeter of the enclosure which would further reduce the
visual impact to adjacent properties.
D. Residential Areas. The site of the proposed tower is located in the Residential-14 (R-14)
zoning district and is adjacent to both single-family and multi-family residential uses.
According to the Applicant, sites closer to residential areas are more valuable for carriers
than remote sites or industrial areas due to customer demand and the potential for growth.
The broader neighborhood to the north of site is dominated by residential multi -family,
residential single-family, and civic uses such as schools, churches, and social
organizations. While locating within a residential area is not preferred from a visual
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
perspective, growth in residential areas is the primary driver of cellular service demand
and therefore, represents an efficient area for carriers to locate their equipment, according
to the Applicant. As indicated in the RF justification (Exhibit 14) submitted by the
Applicant on behalf of AT&T, the carrier to be located at the highest point on the tower, a
substantial coverage gap exists in the greater Sunset area stretching from NE 4th St to
May Creek Park. In addition, according to the RF Justification submitted by the Applicant
on behalf of T-Mobile (Exhibit 14), who would be collocating on the tower below
AT&T’s equipment, the tower location is necessary as it will replace an existing T-
Mobile-owned monopole south of the project site along NE Sunset Blvd that will be
removed as part of the site’s redevelopment. According to the Applicant, residential
growth in the area has put a strain on the existing towers in the area and the proposed
tower would alleviate pressure on both networks due to its location between an
underdeveloped residential neighborhood and fast-growing commercial area.
While the tower is in close proximity to residential uses, staff has concurred with the
Applicant that the location of the proposed stealth tower is optimal due to its proximity to
an area experiencing significant residential and commercial growth. The Applicant has
proposed a faux tree stealth tower designed to blend into the environment, which once
constructed, would provide higher quality cellular service to residents while blending into
the environment through the use of a high quality design. In addition, staff recommended
conditions of approval adopted by this decision will further serve to reduce the overall
visual obtrusiveness of the facility.
E. Light, noise, glare and visual impacts. The impacts of light, glare, and noise are not
anticipated to be above what would be expected and permitted in the R-14 zone. The
facility will include two emergency generators, but they will only be used in cases of
emergency and tested for a maximum of about ten minutes each per week during regular
business hours.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. No water or sewer service is provided for the project and
none is needed.
B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Fire
Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that
sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development.
C. Drainage. The project proposes less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious area
and less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious area, therefore, the
project is exempt from Storm Drainage Review. Final evaluation would be based on
review of the Building Permit Application materials. If more than 2,000 square feet
of new and/or replaced impervious area is proposed, the project will be subject to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 6
CAO VARIANCE - 6
drainage review. Surface water system development fee is $0.80 per square foot of
new impervious surface, but not less than $2,000. This is payable prior to issuance of
a civil construction permit.
D. Parks/Open Space. The project is not residential in nature and no park impact fees or
specific parks facilities are required.
E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate transportation
facilities.
The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and circulation for all users. Since
the proposal will only generating approximately one trip per month, the proposal is not
anticipated to create any demand for transit or off-site traffic improvements. Site
access is and will remain adequate as determined by Public Works staff. The building
on the site is currently accessed via two (2) driveways off of NE 12th St, classified as a
Collector Arterial road. No changes to access to the main building are proposed as a
result of the project. Vehicles accessing the site for maintenance of the proposed WCF
would utilize the existing public alley to the north of the site, eliminating the need for
large trucks or cranes to use NE 12th St for ingress/egress. Due to the nature of the
adjacent uses and type of project proposed, consolidation of ingress and egress points
with adjacent uses was determined by staff to be infeasible. If the project site or
adjacent sites redevelop in the future, consolidation of access points would be re-
evaluated at that time.
The design of the existing surface parking lot and pedestrian walkway system on the
site provides high quality internal circulation and safe pedestrian connections. The
proposed WCF as finally constructed would not impact circulation on the site, as all
maintenance vehicles serving the facility would access the site from the public alley to
the north of the site. In addition, the existing pedestrian walkway connecting the alley
to parking lot in front of the building would not be impacted by construction of the
WCF or associated equipment enclosure.
The Applicant is proposing to utilize the partially improved public alley on the parcel to
the north of the site in order to access the proposed WCF for installation and
maintenance of the equipment. As part of the SEPA Determination of Non-
Significance-Mitigated issued by the Environmental Review Committee (Exhibit 12), a
mitigation measure was included that requires the Applicant to improve the portion of
the public alley extending north from the project site approximately 250 feet.
Improving the alley section to City of Renton street standards represents a significant
step towards improving the entire alley which will be used by future development for
access. While the project does create an additional connection, it improves an existing
connection that will be important and beneficial for future development in the adjacent
neighborhood to the north.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
Existing conditions provide for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties. A five-foot wide sidewalk is located along the NE
12th street frontage near the site that allows pedestrians to safely access the site. In
addition, an onsite sidewalk provides a protected, dedicated pedestrian route from the
public sidewalk to the front entrance of the building. No changes to pedestrian
circulation are proposed as part of the project. Vehicular connections to adjacent
properties are not currently present due to the existing development pattern. Pedestrian
connections to adjacent properties are provided via the public sidewalk along NE 12th
St. In addition, an existing concrete walkway extends from the onsite walkway near the
front entrance to the public alley to the north of the site. No changes to the concrete
walkway are proposed as a result of the project.
F. Schools. The project is not residential in nature. No impacts to schools are anticipated
and no fees are required.
G. Refuse and Recycling. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and
recycling facilities. No refuse and recycling facilities are required for the proposal.
H. Parking. City code standards do not apparently require any parking for the site and
existing on-site parking is available should the proposal create any need for parking.
I. Landscaping. As conditioned, it is determined that the proposal provides for adequate
and appropriate landscaping.
Due to the height of the proposed WCF, the installation of additional landscaping
would not significantly reduce the visual impact of the main monopine pole structure.
Existing trees on the site (Exhibit 4) provide a moderate level of screening and help
camouflage the proposed monopine, which is designed to have characteristics of an
evergreen tree. The Applicant has also proposed the installation of additional trees
around the lease area space, which would contain both the main monopine support
structure and the associated equipment. A condition of approval requires the installation
of larger, native trees in lieu of the species proposed. If complied with, the condition
would result in landscaping that will provide a higher quality transition to the
neighboring properties and increase the overall appearance of the project at ground
level.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. Hearing Examiner site plan review qualifies as Type III review pursuant to RMC
4-8-080(G). As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold hearings
and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City
Council. The conditional use permit is classified as a Type II permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). RMC 4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 8
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number
procedure,” which is the Type III review for the conditional use permit.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Residential
High Density Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential-14 (R-14) zoning
designation
3. Review Criteria/Modification Approval. RMC 4-9-200D2biv requires hearing examiner site
plan review for monopoles exceeding 60 feet. RMC 4-2-060O requires administrative conditional
use permits for monopoles sited in the R-14 district. Conditional use criteria for wireless
communication facilities such as monopoles are governed by RMC 4-2-0601. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)
governs site plan criteria. Applicable conditional use and site plan standards are quoted below in
italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
Conditional Use
RMC 4-2-0601a. Height and Design: The height of the proposed tower and/or antenna as well as
incorporation of design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual
obtrusiveness.
4. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the monopole is of the minimum height necessary
to provide service in a service deficient area. As further detailed in 5C, the monopole has been
designed to visually integrate into the landscape with its faux tree design, conditions that require
enhanced faux design and conditioned planting of surrounding trees.
RMC 4-2-0601b. Proximity to Surrounding Uses: The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby
properties and the proximity of the tower and/or antenna to residential structures and residential
district boundaries.
5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C and 5D, the monopole is compatible with
surrounding development.
RMC 4-2-0601c. Nature of Surrounding Uses: The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby
properties. The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse
effects on adjacent property.
6. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5, the proposed use is fully compatible with
adjoining uses. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant
adverse impacts. For these reasons, the proposal will not result in substantial or undue adverse
effects on adjacent property.
RMC 4-2-0601d. Topography and Vegetation: The surrounding topography and tree canopy
coverage.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 9
CAO VARIANCE - 9
7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposal will not create any significant impacts
to topography or vegetation.
RMC 4-2-0601e. Ingress/Egress: The proposed ingress and egress.
8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6E, the proposal is served by adequate access.
RMC 4-2-0601g. Collocation Feasibility: The availability of suitable existing towers and other
structures to accommodate the proposal.
9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, there are no other suitable areas available for co-
location.
RMC 4-2-0601h. Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The compatibility with the general
purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, this Title, and any other City
plan, program, map or ordinance.
10. As determined in Findings of Fact 16 and 17 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with
the comprehensive plan and zoning code.
RMC 4-2-0601i. Landscaping: Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
11. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5F, landscaping beyond that proposed by the Applicant
and conditioned for the proposal is not necessary as the Applicant will be installing as much as can be
reasonably effective in buffering impacts to adjacent properties.
SITE PLAN
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to
be in compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and
approvals, including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives,
and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the
Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 10
CAO VARIANCE - 10
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in
RMC 4-3-100.
12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent
with the City’s comprehensive plan and development regulations.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities,
rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from
surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance
the appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6E,
the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6G, the proposal complies with the
City’s refuse and recycling standards as City standards require no refuse or recycling space for
such a facility. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal will not adversely affect
any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6I, the proposal is adequately landscaped to
reduce impacts to adjoining properties. The proposal will not create any significant light
impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No.
5E.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 11
CAO VARIANCE - 11
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian
and vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and
protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or
pedestrian movements.
14. The criteria quoted above are met. The structure is separated reasonably far from other uses
on the project site and surrounded by trees as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5, which should
reasonably serve to protect both on and off-site privacy for the infrequent number of times the
project site is accessed for maintenance. All other impacts addressed in the criterion quoted
above are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for
all users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on
the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
15. The proposal as conditioned provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the
criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6E.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the
occupants/users of the site.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 12
CAO VARIANCE - 12
16. The project is exempt from open space requirements.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing
natural systems where applicable.
18. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of
significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project site has no critical areas.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact
No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development
phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
20. The project is not phased.
DECISION
As determined in the Conclusions of Law above, the conditional use permit and site plan applications
satisfy all applicable conditional use and site plan criteria and are approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the following mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated July 12, 2021.
a. The Applicant shall improve the portion of the public alley (APN 7227802041)
extending north from the project site with a length of approximately 250 feet per
the City of Renton street standards contained in RMC 4-6-060. The final design
and extent of the alley improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Plan Reviewer at the time for Civil Construction Permit review.
2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan showing sight-obscuring native
trees around all four sides of the equipment enclosure perimeter. The Applicant shall
utilize trees that grow to a large size at maturity and may include species such as Western
Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, or an alternative native species. The detailed landscape plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 13
CAO VARIANCE - 13
3. The Applicant shall incorporate a textured finish or cladding system on the main support
pole, such as the Larson Ultraflex bark offered by Valmont Structures, that imitates the
look of natural tree park. The Applicant shall submit a physical sample of the proposed
finish to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit issuance.
4. The Applicant shall submit an engineering analysis prepared by a professional engineer
that makes a specific finding confirming the reduced setback is safe. The analysis should
be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the
City’s structural engineer.
5. The Applicant shall submit an updated construction plan set and photo simulations that
clearly documents the code-required branch density as well as shows the branches
installed down to a minimum of 20 feet above grade. The updated plan set and photo
simulations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to building permit issuance.
6. The Applicant shall utilize a design that mimics a tree species native to western
Washington including for structure features such as faux bark, branches, and needles. The
tree species utilized for the design shall be reviewed and approved by Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
7. The Applicant shall add antenna socks with realistic faux foliage to all antennas. In
addition, the Applicant shall paint all other cabling and equipment on the stealth tower
brown or green depending on location in order better blend into the environment. All
future new or swapped equipment on the stealth tower shall also utilize antenna socks
with faux foliage, regardless of the carrier. The antenna sock specifications shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
issuance.
8. No part of the equipment mounted on the stealth tower support pole shall extend beyond
the faux lateral branches unless an alternative concealment method is approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager. The Applicant shall submit an updated plan set and
photo simulations showing the updated design to be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
9. The Applicant shall provide a letter from a professional RF engineer demonstrating that
future collocation of at least one (1) other wireless carrier is feasible based on the existing
site characteristics and design of the proposed monopole and associated equipment
enclosure. The letter shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for
review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
DATED this 10th day of March 2022.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN- 14
CAO VARIANCE - 14
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s)
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision.
A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal
period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 14
Appendix A
February 22, 2022 Hearing Transcript
Crown Castle Monopole -- LUA21-000203, CU-A, SA-H
Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The
reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the
limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available
from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. It's February 22nd, 2022, 11:00 AM. I'm Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton,
and this morning we are entertaining or hearing a conditional use and site plan review for a concealed
cell tower. The hearing format will start off with a presentation from staff. I take it, Mr. [Morganroth
00:00:21], that you're taking care of that one today. Is that correct?
Alex Morganroth:
Yes, sir.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And once Mr. Morganroth is done we'll then allow the applicant team to add any comments that
they wish. Don't have to, but that's your opportunity to do so. Once we're done with that, we'll move on
to public comment, and it looks like we do have at least one member of the public today. When we get
to that portion of the hearing, we'll explain how the public can participate, and we'll make sure that
they're heard. Once we're done with public comments, we'll go back to staff rebuttal. That's a chance
for Mr. Morganroth to answer any questions that were asked from previous speakers, as well as to
present any rebuttal evidence that he believes is necessary. Then we'll move on to applicant for final
comments. After that, I have 10 business days, that's a couple weeks, to issue a final decision.
Phil Olbrechts:
So, by state law, I'm only allowed to consider exhibits that are entered in the record and the testimony
today. I'm not allowed to talk to staff or the applicant before the hearing about the project or read up
on it in any other way. That ensures that everyone has equal access to the information and evidence
that's considered to make that final decision. And I am given a copy of the staff report prior to the
hearing, and I know Mrs. Cisneros usually have an exhibit list all ready to go. So, why don't you show us
right now? Okay. And how many exhibits do we have Mrs. Cisneros, today? It looks like 18.
Mrs. Cisneros:
We have a total of 18, but we'd like to add into the record Exhibit 16, 17, 18 like we normally would.
Phil Olbrechts:
Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 14
Okay. So, as you can see there, we've got a bunch of information that's been given to me to consider,
which includes a tree survey, a bark example of what the cell tower will look at, the staff PowerPoint,
which is being presented today by Mr. Morganroth, core maps. Those are city of Renton maps which
includes zoning maps and vicinity maps. The project site available at the city's website. You can see the
link right there, and Google Earth gives us an aerial photograph of the project site as well. And, Mrs.
Cisneros. I believe all these documents, right, are available at the city's website if anybody needs to see
them.
Mrs. Cisneros:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
So, at this point, just want to ask if there are any objections to entry of any of those documents. That
doesn't mean you disagree with the contents. Obviously, if you're opposed to the project, you would
disagree with some of what's said in some of these documents, but just in terms of objections over
relevancy or authenticity whether the documents aren't what they report to be. So, if you do object, just
go ahead and raise your virtual hand at the bottom of your screen or unmute yourself and say, "I
object," so that's-
Alex Morganroth:
So, yeah.
Phil Olbrechts:
I see one raised hand in the panel.
Alex Morganroth:
Yes, that's me, Mr. Examiner.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh.
Alex Morganroth:
[crosstalk 00:02:52] Morganroth. Yeah. So, no objection. I do have one additional exhibit. This is a public
comment that came in from a Miss Madeline Chaney, who's actually the member of the public that's
joining us today.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Alex Morganroth:
So that is an email that will be in the exhibits folder [inaudible 00:03:05] this meeting.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 14
Alex Morganroth:
But that is a public comment.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. So we'll make that Exhibit 19. Does anyone need to see that email that just came in? In
particular, the applicants? All right. Okay. Any objections over those exhibits 1 through 19? Okay.
Hearing none. Then those are admitted into the record. So, with that, Mr. Morganroth, let me swear you
in so we can get started on your testimony. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Alex Morganroth:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Alex Morganroth:
Okay. Thank you. Share my screen here quick. Okay. You can see PowerPoint okay?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yes.
Alex Morganroth:
Great. So, this is actually... I'm doing it on a different software because I was having issues with sharing
PowerPoint, so if anything comes up let me know. That's why it looks a little different than normal.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Alex Morganroth:
Good morning. Alex Morganroth, Senior Planner. I'm going to be making a staff recommendation for the
Crown Castle Wireless Communication facility project. This is LUA 21000203.
Alex Morganroth:
This project proposal, this is for a 99.1-foot-tall monopine cell tower, which is classified as a wireless
communications facility. Otherwise known as a cell tower. The purpose is to replace a previous cell
tower that was located across the street that I'll show you in a second across Northeast 12th. And that
tower was just a regular monopine that was removed for redevelopment of the site, so this is essentially
kind of filling in for that and then providing some additional coverage for some gaps that were
identified. There is room for two carrier, or the proposal is for two carriers with potential for a third
carrier. So, you've got the antennas, the RAD centers there, three of them, so each one represents one
carrier. One at 90 feet, one at 80 feet, and then one at about 70 feet above grade on the tower there.
Project would require the removal of six trees out of a total of 48 on the site and maintenance access to
this facility would be taken from the existing alley to the north, which I'll talk a bit more on in a second.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 14
Alex Morganroth:
So, the applicant's requesting a conditional use permit site plan review approval from the hearing
examiner in order to construct this stealth tower. And like I said, we did get one public comment, and
that was a comment in support from a resident nearby. Basically, to summarize, the comment will be
uploaded later, but cell service has suffered in the area due to that removal of the other site. I don't
know exactly when that came down. I want to say maybe a year, year and a half ago, roughly. Maybe a
little before that. And so that was just the comment is that they do have poor cellular service, and so it
was in support of the proposed project. And then we did not get any agency comments as part of the
notice of application.
Alex Morganroth:
Project location. So, this is a overview map here. So, this is in the Highlands community planning area, so
[inaudible 00:05:52] the Sunset area. You can see Northeast Sunset Boulevard and the intersection of
Northeast 12th, so it's the highlighted site there. It used to be the Highlands Library. 2902 Northeast
12th Street. It's owned by Renton Housing Authority. It's their Sunset Multi-Service Career Development
Center. It's in the R-14 zone and residential identity comp plan designation. There are residential uses to
the northeast and west. You can see there a lot of duplexes, some single-family. To the south, there's
some CVs, so center village zoning, and obviously, it kind of transitions into a more commercial area to
the south and some multifamily uses, and then some... an area that will be redeveloped soon with
mixed-use development.
Alex Morganroth:
Again, access to the site is proposed via... so is already via Northeast 12th, and that's just a surface
parking lot for the existing use on the site. Access for this, maintenance for this facility actually taken
from this... This alley actually starts north up off the screen here, and then it comes down south, and it
goes in between the homes along Jefferson and then Northeast 13th Street there and connects to this
site. It is a parcel. It's actually a city-owned parcel, but it was designated as a public alley for a resolution
from council a few years back. The intended use of it is a public alley, even though it's a city-owned
parcel, if you will.
Alex Morganroth:
Some site characteristics. I've got two maps here or two images here. One on the top left, I got a yellow
X roughly where the facility would be located, and then this is a view looking north from the parking lot.
Here you can see the Sunset Multi-Service Career Center there run by RHA. Then the arrow is roughly
where this would be located. So, yeah, about 1.4 acre site. The building's about 6,000 square foot, one
story with the associated surface parking. It's pretty heavily vegetated with trees and ground cover
going north, so back the building. It's a pretty flat site. No critical areas are located on the site.
Alex Morganroth:
There is a pedestrian path, though you can't really see here, but it basically connects the surface parking
lot and winds through and connects up to kind of the alley here. There's actually a little pedestrian route
that connects this Northeast 13th Street and over to Jefferson there. It's kind of unapproved, but that's
what designated for at one point when the plat was recorded. So, that pathway will not be changed. The
facility will be located just to the west of that pathway.
Alex Morganroth:
Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 14
Zoning and land use. So, again, I got the parcel highlighted there in yellow. In the R-14 zone. Everything
to the north, and then the adjacent properties to east and west are all zoned R-14, so that's a zone that
allows for townhome development and some apartments and flats. Residential flats on kind of a lower
scale than, obviously, an RMF zone, but it's greater intensity than single-family. So, it allows single-
family. That's why you've got a lot of single-family duplexes, things of that nature there. To the south,
again, you've got that CV zoning transitioning to commercial.
Alex Morganroth:
For wireless communications facilities, there's a specific set of zoning development standards that are
applied instead of the traditional, Just because the characteristics of a wireless communications facility
are much different, and so the code requires different standards to be met than the traditional R-14
district standards. And the staff did find that the proposal did comply with those standards if all
conditions of approval were complied with as shown in the staff report.
Alex Morganroth:
These are some renderings provided by the applicant. I think it's fairly obvious, but you can see there is a
rendering of the stealth tower, the monopine tree there. You can see also this is a little bit further
looking from the west, so looking east, you can see it sticking up there. So, obviously, it's large. It's a
large structure. There's no getting around that. As far as height, I just want to touch on this really quick.
So what the standards allow for is the height of a... We actually have specific standards for a monopine-
type stealth tower, and so it says for the height basically the applicant takes a tree survey of all, I think
the code uses the term nearby trees. It doesn't define the exact area, but nearby trees.
Alex Morganroth:
In this case, they used... I can't remember the exact. I don't think it's a quarter-mile quite, but it was kind
of in the surrounding neighborhood there and found that the average height was about 69.1 feet. And
they submitted a tree survey showing that the code allows for either the stealth tower to exceed that
height by either 30 feet or 20% of that amount, whichever is greater. So, in this case, 30 feet is greater
than 20% of 69 feet, and so that's how they got to the 99.1 feet. There are some other trees that are
taller nearby. There's one that's 110 feet, I want to say. 105 feet. There's a number that are shorter,
obviously. Trees do grow, and so some of... I think the allowance code is so that when you put
something up like that, it's not immediately shielded by trees and you can still get a connection there.
Alex Morganroth:
So, site plan review, one of the entitlements. So, again, access via the public alley to the north, which
you can see here in between the lots. There is one SEPA mitigation measure that was required in order
to mitigate for the project, and that was paving the alley to City of Renton standards. They've already
proposed a 12-foot wide porous asphalt road, so this would just be per paving it. Making sure it's paved
per our standards, and that was measured at 250 feet north. So, basically, when you get to the property
line, measuring north 250 feet. That is the area they would need to pave, and that gets them to about
where there already is existing gravel. It's already partially improved to them, but once you get past that
area south, it turns into vegetation.
Alex Morganroth:
So, they're going to be removing some of that scrubby vegetation and one tree in order to pave and
connect up to that existing gravel so they can access the site for maintenance. That way instead of off of
Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 14
Northeast 12th. And I think maintenance and the applicant can jump in once it's their turn, but will be
fairly infrequent for something like this. It's not like there's going to be huge trucks going back there or
anything. But again, they can speak more to that if they'd like to.
Alex Morganroth:
So, the site, you can see the yellow is where the enclosure will be. It's about a 50 by 50-foot lease area,
so 2,500 square feet where they're going to have the equipment cabinet. I'm sorry. This is a holdover
mix of app to the passive open spaces from a different project, but there are actually a number of
passive open spaces on the site. There's a park. Little park-like area located here with benches, and then
again, the pedestrian pathway back here, which won't be impacted by it. The equipment will be
screened via a six-foot-tall fence, so fully [inaudible 00:13:19] fence, and then the applicants propose
some perimeter landscaping. Staff has recommended a condition of approval that the perimeter
landscaping tree species be changed so it's something that will grow a little taller and then just will help
screen it a little better using the native tree species. Again, no impact to that existing pedestrian
pathway there.
Alex Morganroth:
Conditional use permit. So, again, a stealth tower does require a hearing examiner conditional use
permit in R-14 zone per our zoning use table. Some mitigating characteristics. I mean, the obvious one is
that it's not just a monopole. They are designing it to look like a tree so it blends in with the natural
environment a bit more. A couple conditions that I ran by staff that will mitigate it even more was the
use of high-quality faux bark on the support pole. There is an exhibit. I don't know which number, but
there's an exhibit as part of the staff recommendation that shows an example from the same company
that they're using of this kind of bark. That just helps it look more natural when viewed from a ground
level. Another condition of approval is just mimicking a native tree canopy. So, there aren't really many
native pines, I don't believe, in Western Washington, so just basically making... They offer a number of
different types of foliage, the company they're using, so making sure that the foliage best mimics a
natural, a native tree to our area.
Alex Morganroth:
And then another condition of approval is just, again, a big one for us is making sure the antennas
located at the top of the structure are actually screened and don't kind of stick out and kind of ruin the
effect, I guess. So, there are things like antenna socks, which basically are what they sound like. Covers
that cover the antennas to blend in better, or perhaps that would require them to extend some of the
branches at the top. But just making sure that the effect is not lost if the antennas kind of stick out way
further than the faux branches go.
Alex Morganroth:
Also again, the environmental review. So, the city acted as the SEPA lead agency for this one and issued
a determination of non-significant [inaudible 00:15:32] mitigated, and that was issued on July 12th of
last year. No appeals or no comments. And then one mitigation measure, again, paving 250 linear feet of
the alley to the north per City of Renton alley street standards.
Alex Morganroth:
Some individual project features. Many which I just covered. Installation of additional landscaping
around the equipment enclosure to make sure that's really screened because it is about 20 feet from the
Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 14
nearest residential used there. The six-foot-tall wood fence around the equipment enclosure just
important. We don't want chain link with slats or something like that. We want something that'll look
more natural and that will fully screen it. Again, utilizing the faux tree design that life-like and reflective
of a native tree here, and then that the faux tree, the monopine is proportionate and scaled with nearby
trees in the neighborhood, and screens the antennas and all of their equipment on there, and also
providing the ability for future co-locations so we don't need, hopefully, another one of these built.
Alex Morganroth:
I think we all understand that cellular coverage is required to be used for everything from emergency
services to texting your friends. And it's one of those things we need these facilities in our community.
And again, we've had, aside from the public comment, I've heard from other folks too that the service is
just not good up here. And something that was not necessarily part of staff's analysis, but just a note is
that RHA will be being paid to lease their space for this, which is just another thing to note. That they'll
be getting some monetary amount to lease the rear of their site for this, which presumably will help
with their programming stuff. So, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit and site
plan review subject to the nine conditions contained in the staff report. I'm happy to answer any
questions.
Phil Olbrechts:
I was a little curious about the noise impacts. I think the staff report kind of said that the applicants said
there wouldn't be many, but I'm just... I mean, does it generate any noise at all? Is there an emergency
generator that's tested every few months or something? And what kind of noises are associated with
something [crosstalk 00:17:36]
Alex Morganroth:
Yeah. So, typically, no, there's no noise associated. I do believe, yes, there's an emergency generator
associated with most of these. I think this one, and I don't know how often it's tested. I would refer to
the applicant on that. But yeah, I don't think with these cell towers there's really any noise on just a day-
to-day basis. Same for light. There's no light on there, but again, that's something maybe the applicant
can address if they... if there are potential other noise impacts sporadically for testing.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thanks, Mr. Morganroth. All right, let's move on to the applicants at this point. Anyone
from the applicant team want to say anything right now? You don't have to, but now if you want to add
something, it's your chance. Any takers? Okay. Oh, I see Jennifer Taylor has her hand raised. And Mrs.
Cisneros, I think she's not muted, right? So, she can go ahead and speak?
Mrs. Cisneros:
Yeah, she can.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Ms. Taylor. Go ahead. Let me swear you in real quick. Just raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Jennifer Taylor:
Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 14
I am.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Jennifer Taylor:
Before I go too far, I just want to double-check. I had some audio issues in the beginning. If anyone can't
hear me, needs me to speak up, please let me know.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. You're coming in just fine. We're not getting your video, but that's okay. I mean, the audio's just
fine.
Jennifer Taylor:
Okay, great. So, yeah, I think Alex covered it pretty well. I would just add a couple. Since you just spoke
about the noise question, I'll go ahead and answer that. They are proposing a couple backup generators.
They do occasionally come on for testing. My understanding is that is sometimes a 10-minute item,
should be no more than once a week at the most, and generally less than that. The equipment itself
sometimes does have a small equipment noise, not unlike what we're probably all used to with electrical
equipment, but it shouldn't be anything excessive. And I believe at least one of the carriers is proposing
to have everything within a shelter-type unit, which does alleviate some noise concerns.
Phil Olbrechts:
Anyhow, I take it... Oh, sorry. I take it the equipment or the generator testing's not going to be done at
3:00 in the morning or something [crosstalk 00:19:46]
Jennifer Taylor:
Oh, no. No, no, no. Definitely regular business hours.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Jennifer Taylor:
Yeah.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah.
Jennifer Taylor:
Very short time period.
Phil Olbrechts:
Great.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 14
Jennifer Taylor:
Yeah, in terms of traffic they're often... We generally say typically once everything's on-air and operating
and you're not still dealing with getting things functioning, you maybe would have someone out there
once a month, just as an average. So, we don't generally see a lot of traffic. We do have to have good
access just in case sometimes when things do go down and they do need to be able to quickly access the
site.
Jennifer Taylor:
And then I think the only other comments I would want to make is just a couple of the concerns with
some of the recommended conditions of approval. Just to sort of explain the landscaping that was
proposed, what they were proposing were sort of dwarf strawberry trees. They get to be about six to
eight feet, and one of the reasons for proposing that type of feature is that this site already has a large
number of trees and a large number of mature trees that are being retained. So, what we were
proposing is sort of a more mid-height to help fill in some of the visual aspect, as well as the wood fence
to screen the ground equipment. I think the staff reported a few times, made reference to some really
large species firs and cedars, and just because of the spacing and other mature trees already on site sort
of surrounding the compound, I'm not sure that's necessarily a good choice as opposed to sort of these
mid-height trees that are actually a bit more dense and kind of fill in space a little bit better.
Phil Olbrechts:
Is the concern on that that larger trees would interfere with the cell phone coverage? Is that a potential
problem?
Jennifer Taylor:
Well, that is. I mean, it definitely becomes a problem. That's always a concern, trees that continue to
grow and can eventually block antennas, especially for the lower RAD centers. I mean, if you're talking
about, I guess the... If the concern is more to block some of the lower portion of the compound on the
actual base of the compound then those trees, those types of tree heights aren't necessarily the most
beneficial as well. And they also take up a larger amount of canopy space and trip line, so you can
actually fit more smaller landings around the compound as opposed to fewer very large trees.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Anything else, Ms. Taylor?
Jennifer Taylor:
I think the other item I wanted to comment on is just making sure that we're sort of are understanding
what the other steps would be if there is a condition of approval about mimicking native tree canopy
and appearance. My understanding is the code is specific as to the density of the faux tree branches. We
can certainly meet that and make sure we're designed for that. But some of the other condition
recommendations are somewhat vague and just wanting to make sure that we really understand what
exactly the criteria is we're trying to hit so that we don't have additional delays in trying to get a building
permit and actually move to construction because of not necessarily knowing exactly what they're
looking for. I think we provided the brochure to make sure that you understood what the designers who
manufacture these structures can do and what they provide. So, we just want to make sure there won't
be necessarily too much vagueness in what else is needed.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 14
Phil Olbrechts:
So, are you specifically referencing condition number two? That seems to be the one that talks about
mimicking native tree growth around the project site.
Jennifer Taylor:
Yeah, I think in the staff report there was some question about looking at specific types of the materials,
and so that would be part of, I guess, the...
Phil Olbrechts:
So, that would be condition three maybe. The applicant shall incorporate a textured finish or cladding on
the main support pole. Is that the one?
Jennifer Taylor:
No, you're right.
Phil Olbrechts:
[crosstalk 00:24:09] materials?
Jennifer Taylor:
It must've been number two. Yeah, the bark-
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Jennifer Taylor:
The bark is fairly clear.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Thanks, Ms. Taylor. At this point, let's move on then to public
comments. Any members of the public want to speak? Just raise your virtual hand. Don't see any takers
right now. This is your one chance. It's not going to go to council unless it's appealed, so-
Alex Morganroth:
We do have one.
Phil Olbrechts:
I see Madeline Chaney. Okay. All right, Ms. Chaney, go ahead, and you need to unmute yourself. And
Jenny, how would she do that? Oh, she's unmuted. Great. Okay. Ms. Chaney, let me swear you in real
quick. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?
Madeline Chaney:
I do.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 14
Phil Olbrechts:
And just for the record of your last name is spelled C-H-A-N-E-Y. Is that correct?
Madeline Chaney:
That is correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Madeline Chaney:
My husband and I have been residents in the Highlands for 20 years and homeowners for 18. We believe
that the proposed design for the facility is going to be an asset to the community. We all tolerated a
pretty horrible configuration behind the old Viet Hoa store for years and years, and this will be a vast
improvement over that. The additional height will give some additional penetration to the cell coverage
in our area, which really turns into a public safety issue. Frankly, I can't use my cell phone for anything
that's important at home. I have to drive to a parking lot where I can get decent coverage. So, if I have
an important matter, I just can't do it at home anymore because I don't have a landline. We would
appreciate anything the city can do to expedite the process for permitting because we really have
suffered here in the Highlands for about the last year to 14 months since the old tower came down. So,
anything that can be done on the staff side, we would appreciate it very much. Thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Thanks, Ms. Chaney. All right. Anyone else? Any other members of the public? At this point, I
think, Mrs. Cisneros, you can advertise your email address and phone number. And I'll just say if
someone else out there wants to say something and is unable to because you can't figure out how to be
heard or you're having technical issues, go ahead and then give a call to Mrs. Cisneros at 425-430-6583,
or email her at J-C-I-S-N-E-R-O-S @rentonwa.gov, and we'll figure out a way for you to be heard. I'm
going to leave the record open until 5:00 PM tomorrow for you to email or call Mrs. Cisneros and get
your comments in. Again, that's only if you're unable to participate today because of technical reasons.
Your internet's down, something of that nature. Go ahead and get some written comments to Mrs.
Cisneros by email, preferably, and then we'll... I'll give the applicant and staff a chance to respond to
that and make all that part of the record.
Phil Olbrechts:
So, with that, I'll then move on back to Mr. Morganroth. Any response? I'm kind of thinking on the
condition number two, I mean, would it help maybe to leave the record open a couple days so you and
the applicant can work out some more, I guess, precise language that they feel more comfortable with?
Is that worth taking a stab, how do you want to handle that?
Alex Morganroth:
Yeah. So, yeah. Great question. Do you mind if I just cover... if I cover a couple of other things first?
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 14
Alex Morganroth:
[crosstalk 00:27:27]
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, go ahead.
Alex Morganroth:
... in chronological order. So, with regard to the trees, yeah, the original, what was proposed was it was
not a terrible tree, by any means. I think they were mainly looking for native trees. So, the compact
strawberry is an evergreen tree, which would obviously meet the intention of screening, but we really
are trying to push just for more native trees for ecological, a number of other reasons. They just tend to
do better and live longer.
Alex Morganroth:
So, I think we left that condition fairly open. We did say or an alternative native species. So, I just want
to say I'm happy to work with them. I'm not as worried maybe about the height. Doug firs and stuff like
that grow at a foot or two a year. So, I don't know what the life cement of a cell facility is, but it would
presumably be many decades before you'd have any kind of impact from those trees, but I'm certainly
happy to work with them. That's how we left it, I think, a little more open-ended on that. The main thing
is a native species and something that will grow a little taller eventually.
Alex Morganroth:
So, moving on from that, and as far as, yeah, the vagueness of the conditions, these structures are
tricky, to be honest, because you don't really know what it's going to look like until it's up. One of these,
when you're looking at elevations and stuff and looking at the photo sims it looks great. I think one
reason why we added some more conditions in here in that is that in original photo sims we got from
them the tree didn't look as full, and you could very... It was a lot more sparse, and these newest ones
look great, but we just want to make sure that's what they're going to actually look like when they come
in. So, I guess as far as process, yeah, it is a little more open, I guess, but again, we recognize that there
needs to be cell service up there ASAP, and so I will work with them as quickly as possible. We just want
to make sure, again, that they are meeting the code, which is kind of a baseline as far as the actual
proportion of how many branches per foot and all of that.
Alex Morganroth:
But again, that's just the baseline. If they need to go above and beyond that in order to mitigate for this
impact that's right next to a residential neighborhood, then that's about... They'll need to show that, and
I think they can do that by submitting either updated elevations and renderings. Because I want to be
able to go out there when it's done say, "This looks like what we were told it's going to look like." So, I
think that's maybe why it seems a little vague. It's just with these kind of structures, it's really... it's hard
to kind of have a super prescriptive condition that's... and knowing what the outcome's going to be and
what it's going to look like. So, it is a little bit more... Perhaps it sounds a little more nebulous than our
typical conditions, but it's just it's difficult with structures like these.
Alex Morganroth:
Transcript by Rev.com Page 13 of 14
And we're still learning. This is our first stealth tower, monopine stealth tower in the city. And then,
yeah, so I guess I'm fine with not... Again. I think our conditions do leave enough wiggle room and
enough kind of working with them on things that we can work this out during... prior to the building
permit stage without keeping the record open. And I do understand that suggestion. I don't know. I
think at this point we just need to see some updated photos sims showing the bark and again, making
sure that the branch density is how it's supposed to be per code. But I think we can work that all out,
again, prior to the building permit stage. Again, we do recognize that there needs to be... A tower needs
to be constructed. There is a issue with the cell service up there.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Is that it?
Alex Morganroth:
That's all I got. Yep. That's all I got. Yeah. Thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. Let's move on to Ms. Taylor. Any final comments?
Jennifer Taylor:
No, I think that probably covers the concern. Yeah, if we're just looking at updated rendering then that
makes more sense. My concern was they were going to be asking for other materials as well.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So, you're okay with the conditions as-is? Because, I mean, I can't... I'll leave that largely up to you.
I mean, if you believe you can come up with some wording that's a little more precise in the next couple
days, I could just leave the record open to see if you can work that out with the city, and then you
submit that, and then I close the record at that point and you have something that makes you a little
more comfortable. But I'm just trying to balance the importance of getting this process quickly versus
your need for more specificity.
Jennifer Taylor:
No, I think this works.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Jennifer Taylor:
I think I have a good idea of another way we can respond with rendering.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Okay. Fantastic. All right. Well, then I will go ahead then and close the record, except for,
like I said, persons having technical issues. They can still submit comments by tomorrow. Assuming
nothing like that comes in then the record will be officially closed as of tomorrow, and I'll have a couple
weeks to issue that decision. I think this is the first cell tower hearing I've had in about almost 30 years
where someone actually spoke in support of the project. That's pretty unusual. It kind of shows how
Transcript by Rev.com Page 14 of 14
important these towers are and how much people miss them when they're not there. You know? So, it
looks like it meets the criteria fairly squarely, and there's obviously a lot of effort been made to make
sure that it's compatible with the neighborhood as possible, and that's all we're looking for in this
conditional use permitting process. So, should be a fairly easy approval from my end, barring any
significant comments to the contrary coming in by tomorrow. But it looks pretty good so far. So,
anyway, appreciate all your participation today and we're adjourned for this afternoon. Have a great
day.
Alex Morganroth:
Great. Thank-