The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-07-065_Report 2PARTIES OF RECORD T-MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SE 3RD R LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Kevin Foy Wireless Facilities, Inc. 575 Andover Park W ste: #201 Tukwila, WA 98188 tel: (206) 574-6328 eml: kevin.foy@wfinet.com ( contact) Michael & Valerie O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 271-6973 (party of record) Van Slaughter 4409 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Alvin & Jacqueline Courtney PO Box 2653 Renton, WA 98056-0653 tel: (425) 226-5114 (party of record) John Ehle 406 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-0331 (party of record) Roger & Bickey Berry 4405 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) James & Kimberly Stark 4301 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 228-4968 eml: jimkimstark@aol.com (party of record) Updated: 12/11/07 T-Mobile USA 19807 North Creek Parkway Bothell, WA 98011 tel: (206) 574-6328 (applicant) Newton & Joyleen Ellifrits 4218 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Stephen Northcraft 4209 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059-5144 tel: (425) 235-0231 (party of record) Victor Bloomfield & Jennifer Skuk 4418 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-2805 eml: vic-jeni@juno.com (party of record) John Megow 4408 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 227-4379 eml: megowJ@yahoo.com (party of record) Terry Clangh 4503 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Tapke Velquist 4309 SE 3rd Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Chuck & Fran Gitchel 4401 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 eml: chuckandfrantest@comcast.net (party of record) Lewis Sezto 10875 Rainier Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 tel: (206) 772-2653 (party of record) Greg Schoendaller 4408 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael, Debby, & Hannah Ekness 4400 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Joel G. Smith 349 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-2947 eml: smith_100@hotmail.com (party of record) Dennis & Cindy Shimmel 4224 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-9573 (party of record) Joel & Heidy Barnett 4212 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 687-8088 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) Cory & Lori Foster 4413 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Pauline Blue 420 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Joyce M. Crock 414 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jeremy & Jill Peery 4432 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 793-0882 (party of record) Updated: 12/11/07 PARTIES OF RECORD T-MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SE 3RD R LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Gail & Anthony Knell 4425 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Doug Mears 4308 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-7965 eml: dougemears@msn.com (party of record) James s. Dalgleish 407 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Ken & Anne Miller 4415 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-7969 eml: kmiller@connectexpress.com (party of record) Bruce & Ruth Rutledge 4303 SE 3rd Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 255-9635 (party of record) Bonnie Watson Keller Williams Realty 615 E Pioneer ste: #203 Puyallup, WA 98372 tel: (253) 848-5304 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) ... I .... .. ~ ... C CJ m ,. -.j 0 z .. 0 z t:I :::j C CJ m u, -... ffl z C I: m ffl :a •• :a ,. m,. zO ... .. 0 Ill zm • w :e :a ~ CJ co "II g i; u, C') co m w :a a RD ~ J> z • J> n • 0 ~ :a ... ffl 0 u, ...._ Cj ,, u, ' ' ffl • ' ...._ . :a ([) 0 E • J> I ... \ \,,,/" \ \ \ \ ', -· -------\ \ \ ' ' ~ ; 1 111m11 ; '!' i q ' I ! ;ij' I : !•, I ! .. ~ i!li: 11 i i I~ • OO>'J!ll O !~~ ~ I: ~~~~ 8 ; o~~a .. j~ g '!ij11! ' 1·, • ' ,1,,m !ij'"" .. •1! . ' ' \ \ I \. \ I \ ' _J ~ ; .., Ill ' ; II ,.,<Sc.. 00 • =~s ... ffi~ ! ! -;""!":EK ; ' : E ~I:; ~. 8,,. :;~ .. ' " mz-. > ~ .. in ~ ~ ~ 0 1 ..... -\ ' [;> i I i ; • 0 ; ! ' ! I ' \ \ D>G> I,! . " , r i ! i ' ,,\ \ \ ) --\ \ \ \ ,,\ r==< ' ! ' i Ii ! • ! ! ! 6 • . ! -i . ! m ~ B ~~ ~ ,, . ' \ \ \ \ \ ) ~ ~ ! 11 ~,,: i zl: 21G = E ii ~ :O I u !~1 .. J!! -lf3 0 l ' lj• ' l;I 3: do 1!1 ~ ' -(1) • ~ ~ • [;> [;> [;> . ; i ~ i ~ I ! ~ ~ ! ~ ! ~~m m i . . ,. ' ~!C.. ' . C "'£ Cl Ii 0 ! • 0 • • .. '" 0~-d ~ i·0 1·1 lll . • ! ! ~ ' -z :!:::1111-1 . I ~ • I I iii i; :: s a !' z . : -. i ~ l,. $ ! i ~ ... ,, :II !'I ::c a: ' ! ! ~ ~!;!!gi l"i 0 r-1:1 ~~~ I ffl 11 ~ ~ ~ 1!1 S: :tailj.!" ~ • > '" ~ z Cl '" ~z~ ~ • ffl . -... ~ .j ~ m ii-:1-,, JI! (D ~ ' .. 0 ,j • !; s a r--~- 1'· ,, I •• I • • ': I, , , 'i L ___ ,c__ iJ ! ! ;!!!!!!! I~ I -II; /1 I I I I I I '1 I \ ' ' I I ; ! i i m ~ IP i' s I I I i ,, ! I i ! ... I .... l! 11 !I ., ! l!! h! ! ' - - '\~·.<//__.--· '"51:\ '(01{~\ \ ~0'~1· . . ~· )~?~\I· .... · . """ .. ) )':~ .· \s •,.:';;c.,> .. \ '2,.-/ -·· \-·/ .. \ i [)> [)> [)> • ' I ' ! i I I e i ~ ~ a o :; § ' ! ' • ; ; ,'i ! - ' ST A TE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on October 13, 2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $134.40. /5{ PJ1F,,,j, ??! )#I?{ ~ Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 161h day of October, 2007. -tid_ ,,,111111,, lbD Q}?/1<!1J/~ 1;1 .. :::.~:V;~'>., B D Cantelon .:;:-.-·~.}f1SS10,;;~.~"'( ~ Notary Public for the State of Washingt.ii>,,. 11,eM'aipg in K~ •• Q-iington -•. • 1\/6 .,,,WZ! -P. 0. Number: ;: -, : P l',if'/,, "'' = ;: }·, : U&·. r (j): -.-. ...--,~ l.lQ • ~ -:-.. (i\ \'?,-.. .: ~ :: ,,,._ -,.~/0 •• ~ .... '; :~;--}<,: -:,~·~,q: ~~ .--~~ 0 , .... ~ ,~_ ··~---.C ~..;~-n\"~\..:), ,, ',/, ,. •u, \\\' ,, ;i~ti,\\\ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMI'ITEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-..Signifi.cance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Location: Within SE 3rd Place and An11Cortes Avenue SE R-0-W, adjacent w 4401 SE 3rd Place. The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Pennit for the replacement of an exii=rt.ing 40.foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59·foot 11-inch wood power pole that wmilrl also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. Associated equipment would be located out of i::ight, helow grade in a vault within thl' right-of-way abutting a !fo,;idential -8 lR-8) dwelling unit. 1wr ane zone. Tile project .c:iif> t.ot.al:- 104 &quar0 foet in 11rea. Access to th0 .site would be providt'<l via Anacorte:; Avenue NE. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless nntennas would be a secondary function. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 29, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required S75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-S.110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process ma}' be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510. Puhlh:hed in the Renton Reporters Ocwber 13, 2007. #864268. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INffRCSTCD PERSCNS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: T•MOblla Monopole 1n SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-065, CU-A. ECF LOCATION: Within SE 3rd Place right-of-way. adjacent to 4401 SE 3rd Place DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an AdministraUve Conditional Use Permit for the repl~cem~nl uf ~n existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-mch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. Associated equipment wou,d be located ou1 of sight, below grade In a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -U IR-BI dwell,ng unit per acre zone. The project 11ite total,; 104 ,;qua re feet in area. Acces6 to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system. th~ installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary function. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRON(•/ENTAL REI/IE',',' COMMITTEE 11:::RCi HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOCS NO"' HAV[ r, SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed ,n writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 29, 2007. Appeals must be flied In wrltlng togeth~r with the required $75.00 application le., with: Hearing Examiner, City ol Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renlon, WA 98057 Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Munlclpal Code Section 4·8-110.B. Additional 1n1orrnation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clark's Office, (425) 430-651 O IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPF.ALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. CERTIFICATION I, ~ ~ , hereby certify that '.7 copies of the above document wenl"posted by me in __j_ conspicuous places or nearby the descnbed property ~~t~',:t~;tJ 111 ~ ~\\\\\\\~~;,t:..'1, .-'<:'•~ON~:· , ~~ '"' ,I,, -,;,, ,. ~-,. "" "'J. ~ ·~ DATE: /Or-/2.-/!r SIGNED: .,, ?0 -~~ ,,, A TIEST: Suhscnbed and sworn before me, a '\Jotarv Puhl1c, m and for the State of Washington res1dm:;m ~ § ~ ~-1: ,6 c., -,. - ,.6e"""o,,J:t'""""-"'L~-· on the 15 fh day or_6=~~=(:µ,~~---· ·',!"!,."'1 Uo,\ -=,_:: ~l~11 _ ~0 ~..r-,,.,_oE I ''\ ~"'C,.:,- ·'' '' .1,~-.:--''./VAS'P, ........... 1,,\\\,,,,, .......... , ENVIRONMENT AL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF LOCATION: Within SE 3rd Place right-of-way, adjacent to 4401 SE 3rd Place DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. Associated equipment would be located out of sight, below grade in a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary function. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 29, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please inciucle t' e project NUMBER when <railing for proper Ille identification. '\-i\:Y 0 ~~~ ~~< Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~'N'1' October 11, 2007 Kevin Foy Wireless Facilities, Inc, 575 Andover Park W #201 Tukwila, WA 981 88 CITWF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Dear Mr. Foy: This letter is written on behalf ofthe Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project The Committee, on October 8, 2007, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non- Significance, The City of Renton ERC has determined that it docs not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43,21C030(2)(c), This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency, This infomrntion is available to the public 'on request Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 29, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75,00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110,B, Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430~6510, · The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so, If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at ( 425) 430-7219, For the Environmental Review Committee, /1 '-1/ "17 . {jJJ n' d/--<-u· tl'~ill K, [)ing Semor Planner cc: T-Mobile USA/ Owner See attached/ Parties of Record ~~~~~~,-0-55~So_u_ili_Grad~-y-W_a_y--~R-en-to-n-,W~~-h-in-gro-n~98_0_5_7~~~~~~~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • Mi.::hael & Valerie O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 Van Slaughter 4409 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Alvin & Jacqueline Courtney PO Box 2653 Renton, WA 98056-0653 John Ehle 406 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Roger & Bickey Berry 4405 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 James & Kimberly Stark 4301 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Cory & Lori Foster 4413 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Pauline Blue 420 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Joyce M. Crock 414 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Jeremy & Jill Peery 4432 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 Newton & Joyteen Ellifrits 4218 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Stephen Northcraft 4209 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059-5144 Victor Bloomfield & Jennifer Skuk 4418 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 John Megow 4408 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Terry Clangh 4503 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Tapke Velquist 4309 SE 3rd Street Renton, WA 98059 Gait & Anthony Knelt 4425 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Doug Mears 4308 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 James S. Dalgleish 407 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Bonnie Watson Keller Williams Realty 615 E Pioneer #203 Puyallup, WA 98372 Chuck & Fran Gitchet 4401 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Lewis Sezto 10875 Rainier Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 Greg Schoendaller 4408 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 Michael, Debby, & Hannah Ekness 4400 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Joel G. Smith 349 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Dennis & Cindy Shimmel 4224 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Joel & Heidy Barnett 4212 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Ken & Anne Miller 4415 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 Bruce & Ruth Rutledge 4303 SE 3rd Street Renton, WA 98059 CIT-F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator October 11, 2007 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Detennination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 8, 2007: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way LUA07-065, ClJ-A, ECF LOCATION: Within SE 3rd Place right-of-way, adjacent to 4401 SE 3rd Place DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional lJse Permit for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole I structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. Associated equipment would be located out of sight, below grade in a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary functfon. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 29, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, I 055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infonnation regarding the appeal process may be obtaiued from the Renton City Clerk's Office, ( 425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation _E_n_c_lo_s_u_re ____ l_0_5_5_S_o_u_lh_G_ra_d_y~W-a_y ___ R_e_n_to_n_.-W-as-h-in_g_t_on_9_8_0_5_7 ________ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF APPLICANT: Kevin Foy, T-Mobile USA PROJECT NAME: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole. The new wood power pole would support PSE equipment and would also function as a monopole I structure with flush mounted wireless cellular facility antennas. Associated equipment would. be located within a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) distribution line pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Within SE 3rd Place right-of-way, adjacent to 4401 SE 3rd Place The City of Renton Department of Planning/Bui.lding/Public Works Development Planning Section · Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not svbject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4,4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to :3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. · 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven .o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-8-1200 shall be submitted at the time of Final Plan review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. 5. The project site is located within the Residential -8 dwelling unit per acr.e zoning designation. 6. Right-of-way Use Permit. Plan Review 1. The applicantshall comply with the Master Use Agreement. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Kevin Foy, T-Mobile USA T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole. The new wood power pole would support PSE equipment and would also function as a monopole I structure with flush mounted wireless cellular facility antennas. Associated equipment would be located within a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) distribution line pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Within SE 3rd Place right-of-way, adjacent to 4401 SE 3rd Place City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 29, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Planning/Building/Public Works October 13, 2007 October 8, 2007 1G,1 J/t., 7 Date /() ·a -cJ} Date . David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Departm t ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE nl'lnhe, B, 2007 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, October 8, 2007 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. T-Mobile Monopole in SE Yd Place ROW (Ding) LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole. The new wood power pole would support PSE equipment and would also function as a monopole I structure with flush mounted wireless cellular facility antennas. Associated equipment would be located within a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) distribution line pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. The proposed cellular antenna would be flush mounted and painted to match the color of the wood power pole. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary function. Associated ground equipment is proposed to be located out of sight, below grade in a vault with only the hatch door being the visible part of the vault. The vault hatch would be screened with landscaping as required by the City. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director® C. Walls, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director @ F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner B. Van Horne, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian. Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE r·, . . 8 2007 " " -.. , To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator L David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, October 8, 2007 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3d Place ROW (Ding/ LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole. The new wood power pole would support PSE equipment and would also function as a monopole I structure with flush mounted wireless cellular facility antennas. Associated equipment would be located within a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) distribution line pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. The proposed cellular antenna would be flush mounted and painted to match the color of the wood power pole. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary function. Associated ground equipment is proposed to be located out of sight, below grade in a vault with only the hatch door being the visible part of the vault. The vault hatch would be screened with landscaping as required by the City. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director® C. Walls. Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director Qf F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner B. Van Horne, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian. Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportatlon Systems Director R. Lind. Economic Development L. Warren. City Attorney ® City of Renton STAFF REPORT Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERG MEETING DA TE Project Name: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: Site Area: RECOMMENDATION. Project Location Map October 8, 2007 T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'd Place Right-of-Way Kevin Foy, T-Mobile USA, 19807 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, WA 98011 Kevin Foy, Wireless Facilities, Inc., 575 Andover Park W, suite 201, Tukwila, WA98188 LUA-07-065, CU-A, ECF Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of an existing 40- foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole. The new wood power pole would support PSE equipment and would also function as a monopole I structure with flush mounted wireless cellular facility antennas. Associated equipment would be located within a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. (Project Description continued on next page). Within SE 3'd Place right-of-way, adjacent to 4401 SE 3'd Place NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area: N/A 104 sq. ft. Total Building Area gsf: N/A Staff is recommending a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)be issued. ercrpt_ T-Mobile.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Oepartme. T-MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SE 3' . ACE RIGHT-OF-WAY REPORT OF AUGUST 13. 2007 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (CONT.) ironmentaf Review Committee Staff Report LUAOl-065, CU-A, ECF Page 2of4 The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) distribution line pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities The proposed cellular antenna would be flush mounted and painted to match the color of the wood power pole. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary function. Associated ground equipment is proposed to be located out of sight, below grade in a vault with only the hatch door being the visible part of the vault. The vault hatch would be screened with landscaping as required by the City. The site would be accessed via Anacortes Avenue SE, which leads directly up to the access hatch proposed within the right-of-way. Once construction is complete, one vehicle trip per month is anticipated for maintenance purposes. The proposed project would result in the removal of 32 cubic yards of soil, which would be transported to an approved off-site location. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA T/ON OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE XX Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MIT/GA TION MEASURES 1. None Recommended. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE· MIT/GA TED. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The topography of the project site is flat with the steepest slope on-site having a grade of less than 3 percent. The applicant has indicated that 32 cubic yards of soil is proposed to be excavated and removed from the project site for the installation of the monopole 1 and the associated underground utility vault. The dimensions of the vault would be 8 feet wide by 13 feet 4 inches long. The applicant's construction mitigation description indicates that large vehicles would only be required at the site on three separate occasions. A drilling rig would be required for the drilling of the tower foundation hole, a cement truck would be required to pour the cement foundation for the pole and the equipment slab, and a truck with a boom would be required to bring in the monopole pieces and lift them into place. If a crane is needed, the applicant indicates that T-Mobile will work with the FAA to obtain any necessary permits or approvals. ercrpt_ T-Mobile.doc City of Renton P/8/PW Departmer T-MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SE i' . ~ACE RIGHT-OF-WAY REPORT OF AUGUST 13, 2007 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 2. Land Use ionmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Page 3 of 4 The applicant contends that the proposed monopole I structure is compatible with the existing single-family land use designation due to the proposal to install the wireless antennas on a replacement PSE power pole and the proposal to install the associated ground equipment below grade within a vault. The applicant also indicated that the proposed location was selected in order to take advantage of existing fir trees as shown on the attached photo simulations within the project vicinity to screen the facility when seen from surrounding areas. Staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element. The following statements from the Utilities Element apply to the proposal: Preferred cell site locations include: existing broadcast or communications towers, water towers, high rise buildings, vacant open land appropriately zoned that could be leased or purchased, and areas with low population densities to diminish aesthetic impacts. Cellular communications are considered to be more reliable than conventional telephone systems because they can continue to operate during electrical power outages. Policy U-100. Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-101. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. Other than relocation, it does not appear that any mitigation measures could be implemented that would mitigate the impacts of the replacement of a 40-foot tall wood PSE pole with a 59-foot 11-inch tall wood PSE pole for the use as a wireless facility. Staff requested information regarding possible alternate locations and a list of suitable alternative sites was not provided. Mitigation Measures: None recommended. Nexus: NIA 3. Aesthetics The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall PSE wood power pole with a new 59-foot 11-inch tall wood power pole that would also function as a monopole I structure. The applicant indicates that efforts have been made to assimilate the proposed monopole I structure into the existing single family neighborhood through the utilization of an existing 40-foot tall wood power pole (proposed to be replaced with a taller power pole) as the support structure, to paint the antennas to match the proposed pole, and the proposal to install the associated ground equipment below grade in a vault. In addition, the applicant noted that the proposed location was in part selected due to the existing mature fir trees in the project vicinity that would maximize screening of the proposed monopole. During the public comment period, staff has received numerous comment letters from citizens who have expressed concern over the aesthetic impact that the proposed monopole I would have on their neighborhood. Many neighbors were concerned that the proposed taller pole would be more intrusive and more visible to more people than the existing shorter power pole that currently exists at this proposed location. Other than relocation, there does not appear to be any mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce the aesthetic impact of the proposed monopole I structure and associated equipment cabinet. ercrpt_ T-Mobi le .doc City of Renton P/8/PW Departme, T-MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SE :f' . _ACE RIGHT-OF-WAY ironmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF REPORT OF AUGUST 13, 2007 Mitigation: No mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS Page 4 o/4 The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Advisory Notes to Applicant . ....K_ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. October 29, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by the City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office at (425) 430-6510. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-8-120D shall be submitted at the time of Final Plan review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. 5. The project site is located within the Residential -8 dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. 6. Right-of-way Use Permit. Plan Review 1. The applicant shall comply with the Master Use Agreement. ercrpt __ T-Mobile.doc ' \ ' \ ' __ , ::J \ ' ' \ ' <l \ .... • ... I cc ' lc----------------------------__J l I '! t 11'• 1 I I I ~~ ~ f I i i ~ I I ; ; ' II ii l! 1! r Ii ! ,! ,, ,. I' .! ·! ' '! 1< I I ' 'I ii i / I ,i 'I I 1 1, ·1 IV I I i ~ i I :? : i . ii i / I I I I ] I I I I I 'I I• : 11 I I e ) ,,,I 3RD & Al. _ ORTES SE04619A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA 98059 EXISTING PHOT0#1 FROM ANACORTES AVE SE LOOKING NORTH-WEST T 19807 NORTH CREEK PKWY N BOTHELL WA 98011 OFFICE (425) 398-7600 3RD 8. AN 1RTES SE04619A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA 98059 PROPOSED PHOT0#1 FROM ANACORTES AVE SE LOOKING NORTH-WEST T 19807 NORTH CREEK PKWY N !JOTHELL WA 98011 OFFICE (425) 398-7600 / I I ·r ·, 1: 3RD &At... ORTES SE04619A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA 98059 EXISTING PHOT0#2 FROM SE 3RD PLACE LOOKING SOUTH-WEST '1 T . . . I '' '. _1 :_ -. .' " 19807 NORTH C;~~K :~ N DOTIIELL WA98011 OFFICE (425) 398-7600 I / i ' 3RD & AN _ JRTES SE04619A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA98059 PROPOSED PHOT0#2 FROM SE 3RD PLACE LOOKING SOUTH-VVEST 1 T I . : . '· t . ' ' .. \ 19807 NORTII CREEK P;; N BOTHELL WA98011 OFFICE (425) 398-7600 3RD & Al ORTES SE04619A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON WA 98059 EXISTING PHOT0#3 FROM SE 3RD PLACE LOOKING NORTH-EAST T 19807 NORTII CREEK PKWY N IJOTIIELL WA 96011 OFFICE (425) 39!!-76frD /:C-"'' / ~ 4} 3RD &AN lRTES SE04St9A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON WA 98059 PROPOSED PHOT0#3 FROM SE 3RD PLACE LOOKING NORTH-EAST T 19807 NORTH CREEK PKWY N BOTHELL WA 98011 OFFICE (425) 398-7600 E6 • 10 T23N R5E W 1/2 NE 4th St. CA CA NE 4lK 0 st. CA CA Q CA i:.:i CA R-1 0 z +-' i:.:i (].) h z (].) ~ E (].) NE 3rd Ct. (].) > ci R-10 CAci::i < CA R-8 R-lOCP) OQ R-8 "' R-8 I R-10 -0 6 R-10 R-10 R-8 -8 R-8 NE 2~ss R~B I ! R-8 R-4 i:.:i rn R-4 (].) > < ~ N Q R-4 ' 0 ... ... i;.:i RMH ::::, In ~ ,-,i R-4 "" R-8 "" z --i._ ___ z .., R-8 ; N ~ '° ... tlj 11\ s i;.. R-8 RMH SE 142nd St. RCCP) CP) G6 • 22 T23N R5E W 1/2 ~ ZONING R•nt.n Cit, L!ml .. ~ = TlfCHNICAL SBllVICBS • w· ... F6 1:4800 15 T23N R5E W 1/2 5315 Z<''\IING MAP B00v 74 92 81 26 T24N R4E 82 25 T24N A4E 93 455 r 83 £1 3ci T24N,A5E :6T24N RS 456 459 i 8 c, , 86---g7 2a. T24N-RSE. 27T24N ASE 26 T24N RsE 81 94W .455\t\l 458 ·450. 464j C1 C2 35 T24N"A4E 36 T24N R4E 306 309 D3 \:D4 3 2 T23N R4E T2:3N"R5E 4 T23N RSE' 3l6 : ; _J1 3.19 E4 369 ESi tT 3Nfl4E 12·T23N R4:E BT23N ASE 9T23N R5E 325'"' . 326 ·F.1\~ ~~ 4 r23N ~4E \ -13: T23N R4E 18T23NR5E 328 F4 :t7 T231't ASE 370 FS 16 T23N RSE 810 sr rrQ'-F7 14 T23N R5E 334 \335 336 .337 371 816 G1 l:s2 G3 .. G4 Gs---G7 3 T23N R4E 24 T23N R4E 19123N_RsE 20 r23r-ffi:se 22 T23N ASE 23 T23N ASE 2• 44 34 600 82.0 821 E ZH2 . ' H3 HS 2s·r2JIN R4E 30 T23N R5E ' ~ 29 23N' ASE 28T23N ASE 27_T23N ASE 25 ~o 22N R4E 603 --,s ' 36 T23N A4E 31 T23 ASE 607 608: J2 1 T22N A4E 6 T22N ASE BJIBlDENTIAL 0 Resource Conservation E[ Residential l du/ac ~ Residential 4 du/ac ~ Residential 6 du/ac ~ Residential Manuractured Homes ~ Re11idential 10 du/ac I R-141 Re11identilll H du/ac j RM-Fl Residential Multi-Famil.y IRM-T I Reeidential Multi-Family Tre.ditlonal I RM-lJ I Re11idential Multi-Family Urban Center• Printed by Print & Mail Services, City of Renton ~4 605 825 826 I . 1 ~.14 15 16 17 32T23N ASE 33 T23N ml: 34 T23N ASE 35 T23N ASE 610 632 833 J5 J6 J7 S T22N ASE 4 T22N ASE 3 T22N ASE 2 T22N ASE NIXED USE CENTER ~ Center Village luc-Nl I Urban Center -North 1 luc-N2I Urban Center -North 2 ~ Center Downtc.rwn• ~ Commercial/Ofrice/Reeidentie.l COMIIERCIA.I ~ Commercial Arterial• ~ Commercial Office• JNIDJSTRlAL ~ Industrial -Heavy G Industrial -Medium 0 Industrial -Light (P) Publicly owned ----Renton City Limit.II -·-·-·-Adjacent City Llmils -Book Pages Boundary 8 ~ 8 yUUJ 1T2 ~ Commercie.l Neighborhood KROLL PAGE • May include Overlay D111trl4:t.11. S~e Appendi:a: m11.p11:1, For additional regulatiom1 m Overlay Di11tricUI, plell.l!le nee RMC 4-3, PAGE# INDEX 'l"'',G P'--~N\'-,1· E.LO~~t:: rs?-~'f(/ 1 o'2.\J c1"' " r L 'L'('fJl j\}\. L ' f\ict\'Jt.O t:t i _ _ _ _ ..... _ ·--·· ! 0.!J_ 1.-i.i '2.0()7 _________ -... -·-- _Qs:6-.r (i_-\~ Of _'Q.~p.~n)--------------... -....... °' ·--' s rl Q ___ f) ____ -·-·-. t-::" --·--· --... . M_:;) n_ rf\e , _ _1\!_(}-,b_f ___ ~rs_ -~~~;---t ·;.-;· _-C\ S-e~ci-~ _ _a_\£:T_~h~v~- :l~f? e~~--__ Q\--( ,tcz~~!i-9f~J~~~~--:fot-~•-: ----.. --------·----: __ 7 'j~~(S_._l ~r _vr;-tih.a_"tQ .Pt~ief-t---- ------·-----·-----~------~-------.. ----,--·----·-·----- . _t b :e ? fQP OS .g,,_~ l~'-L:--_t¥-f\s: __ t~ w e~---- -------------·----·---·- _ T h~ £o__ _f.'g~_ "tQ_\j/ d---~~-h (). V1;e ~ ----- -----------------···--------___ ....... --~~--~--------·-·· ... ---·-··-· --~ _l~ --°'~~--±-i Qn£_to tr i~-1t-.t_a: _____ _ -------·--·-----.... . -1----. . J_~_l_fcet. -~\Qk~--~~~C~GY0 l ------- --7 _Q.1 e ~~}~~~~:~_Q&_ f ( G rn r12-\ D L C\,t {(S__b__, # "'2. _-1 °'J~ _: __ ~or 1 \~J _ -th~~--i_S e (_eJ 1 _· _··· t()\rJR.~ _.(9~ I 6 1~_\L_Q-t\ _ \fY\_8 _h_O_G-\,S-€ -··--·-----... ----'{'{'\-----.-----... ······--· --. -· ····· . ~9\V\o (._Y'_V\S .. ~ .-.-. ~-~---l -~O .. Lt\ lJ ~Q£t'e .·· -r_<? ~-i0-, ~ e~.?~rl-3 tf ,me-1 _ -•. --'~~-~-~Qltt-\tY\ ~~Y{\_b&JciV'I~ --! t · __ vJ o --··· --------\----·-··-· e v-· --r f ·-···-·-····-·· .· -------~t-~ -X)(C \1_~_j _________ 'd)__ . - --------------•-----•--\-_, --··-----·--="~-e~ ·tr~ tcr 6'.L-89 i[e __ 1 t (} r _Q ... _ -,~f_rc:?~~:~-I-} --5~~(~ 40_1J\ °'-~::-(\_rcci -_ ----~YY_he(-tfur ~i~--b·-o~-~Pl~ _ -~--- \ ··, ······---~ -------w i ---.~--<\~c(Ye t{J--~--··--.-· . _ __ \."1_~~--.. . .. ~ h--~---_______ \_' _ --_ faIJ ~ -or 0)0-re ·--· ·-\) \---------------~}._ _ __ ----~-_ _ _ -~ .. _. \_\J\._c_.e_.., __ r .. · ~ii. h_ 1 --·· _,,_ ------· -------·------1 ---~ ---~-------- -------------------------------------------- --------~--···----.,, _______ ., ________ _ July 19, 2007 RE: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place R-O-W/LUA07--065, CU-A, ECF Jill Ding -Senior Planner Renton City Hall Development Services Division 1055 S Grady WY Renton, WA 98057 Dear Madam: It bas come to our attention that tbe City of Renton would like to allow a cellular phone company to install a monopole in our neighborhood for a cellular antenna. This is extremely concerning for us for tbe following reasons: • There are common health concerns over tbe safe proximity of cell towers and power lines that are often conflicting. Therefore, we do not feel that it is safe to be exposed to prolonged electromagnetic fields and radiation !bat tbese structures can e1nit. • Even if studies and opinions state that tbese structures are safe, tbere is still a common conception that Ibey are not, and that will adversely affect our property value. Few potential home buyers want to buy a home that is nearby a cell phone tower or power pole. It would be a shame to see the appreciation we have seen in our home values in tbe last few years evaporate. • _The uosightliness of such a structure would also be a potential deterrent for home · buyers. Even if the monopole may not be tall initially, other cellular providers could lease space on tbe pole, creating a potentially very tall eye sore in the neighborhood. Consider tbe property values of homes adjacent to commercial areas where cell towers or power lines are located. The values of those homes are often lower !ban comparable homes. We ask that tbe City reconsider allowing the installation of this cellular tower and anteuoa. I, Jeremy Peery, have lived in Renton most of my life and the Heather Downs neighborhood is ooe of Renton 's most beautiful, peaceful, and desirable to live in neighborhoods. Why else would tbe city have just installed such a beautiful park tbere (Heritage Parle). There is no place for these structures in the middle of our neighborhoods. They should be installed where Ibey will have minimal impact on tbe character of neighborhoods. We also see no benefit to tbe community to install tbem and will not vote for or support any city couocil or staff member that supports cellular towers in our neighborhoods. Please put yourself in our place and reconsider. Sincerely, /-': Jeremy and Jill Peery .· .. '., .. !·. '!(jJ; ;_ ;1' ; 4432 SE 4TH ST RENTON, WA .9J059 425-793-0882 r,,,,. . : p:(i. '.'.l; QPMENT PLANNING OF RENTON RECEIVED ·~ ---~--· -~-· :fbl;J~ --- -=-=-=~=-~~------_ _ __ _ __ 1/:..,,~u -f--u· ~=- ____ -· .--,,µ,-"4'1,./L~-}J,\ -'><:U'.l.AL""-1. ,,,.,....,_ July 18, 2007 Ms. Jill Ding Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Case LUA07-065 T-Mobile 60 foot Monopole at 3n:1 Place ROW Dear Ms. Ding - DEVELOPMENT PLl\NNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 1 9 2007 RECEIVED I would like to see the T-Mobile cell phone tower moved to another location. Allowing a commercial structure in the middle of a residential development violates the intent of the City of Renton's Mission Statement regarding livable neighborhoods. Sincerely, . r / ~ A -~o~ Michael O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 425-271-6973 Cc. Mayor Kathy Kaelker Renton City Council July 18th, 2007 Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6th Floor 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Ding, L:-_ '.'; , r'L/1,NMING .-.ENTOM JUL 1 9 2007 RECEIVED I am writing to voice my opposition to a cell tower being constructed at the corner of SE 3rd place and Anacortes in Renton. My backyard is approximately 150 feet from the proposed location and I'm certain it will impact my views from my backyard. Who wants an unsightly cell tower as a view from their backyard deck? The proposition states that the cell tower will be 60 feet, but I'm concerned that it could be as high as 100 feet if the cell tower owner should lease it to another cell company. Although unfounded, I am also concerned about the health is- sues these towers carry with them. Finally, I am also concerned about the impact on the property values of our neighborhood should such a tower be built. I understand the necessity of cell coverage (I own a cell phone myself), and the impor- tance to line of sight to a tower, but I think this tower could be placed in an area where it won't have as much impact on views and property valuation. There are several wooded sections in this neighborhood, perhaps it could be placed in one of those areas and camouflaged as well? I understand that Southern California has adopted some unique ways to camouflage their cell towers. Thank you for your consideration and time, Greg Schoendaller 4408 SE 4th ST Renton, WA 98059 July 18, 2007 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Case LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF TMobile 60-foot Monopole at SE J'd Place ROW Dear Ms. Ding, DEVELOPMENT PL/\NNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 1 9 2007 RECEIVED Pursuant to the above-referenced Land Use permit, a proposed 60-foot monopole cellular tower would be placed via underground vault on a rigbt of way on the southeast comer of SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Avenue. It is my understanding that this is the first such conditional permit to place a cellular tower in a residential neigbborhood, all previous placements having been on commercial or public land. The City of Renton is known for its neighborhood-focused initiatives with emphasis on quality-of-life enhancements. The opening statement of the City's mission is "Providing a healthy, welcoming atmosphere where citizens choose to live, raise families and take pride in their community". This concept was perfectly reflected in the recent dedication of Heritage Park on Union Avenue SE. Heritage Park is a fantastic addition to the neighborhood and brings pride, as well as recreation, to all who live in the area. The park is at the gateway to the Heather Downs neighborhood, the proposed site of the cellular tower. It seems inconsistent for the City to establish a beautiful park for citizens to enjoy, yet allow the placement of a commercial structure in the midst of their homes. There are a dozen residences where the proposed tower will be in view from windows, yards or decks, even with the mature trees and landscaping in the area. I understand that this proposed location was selected in part because of the elevation of this comer. I would like to submit the following alternative, non-residential locations for consideration: • The southern-most end of Union Avenue is only 3 blocks from the proposed site and is King County property overlooking Maple Valley Highway and the Cedar River Valley. • The south end of Union is also home to a Seattle Water Pump Station. • The Olympic Pipeline right-of-way is less than a mile west of the proposed location. • Heritage Park itself is another possibility. The tower could be placed on one of the corners and it would not detract from the beauty or use of the park. The height of the tower could be increased to compensate for the loss of elevation at these alternative locations. The impact to people of a height increase in these locations would be negligible. In summary I oppose the placement of a commercial structure, regardless of how aesthetically camouflaged, in a residential neighborhood. I believe this sets an unfavorable precedent that is contrary to Renton's message and vision. Thank you for your consideration of alternative, non-residential locations for the placement of commercial structures such as this proposed cellular tower. Sincerely, Valerie O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 425-271-6973 Cc: Kathy Kaelker, Mayor Renton City Council July 19, 2007 City of Renton Development Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Jill K Ding, Senior Planner File No.: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3ro Place R-O-W/LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Dear Ms. Ding: We are writing to voice our protest of the planned cell phone tower that will be located in our neighborhood. Besides being an eyesore we will see from inside our home and outside from our patio, we will have to contend with the blinking light( s) that they have to place on cell towers. We also fuel this tower will lower our property value that we've spent over 40 years trying to increase! Have you considered placing the tower in the stand of trees at our new Heritage Park? Have you looked at the south end of Union Avenue where there are also trees that would help camouflage the tower? We ask you please not to place this tower on the proposed site of 4401 SE Jro Place. Sincerely, Alvin L. Courtney P 0Box2653 Renton WA 98056-0653 425-226-5114 Physical Address: 4325 SE Third Street 4418 SE 3n1 Place Renton, WA 98059 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Ding: We are writing in reference to the T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'd Place R-0-W project, Land Use Number LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF. We are opposed to this project and request that you terminate it. Our reasons are as follows: • A 59-foot, I I-inch monopole with its associated equipment vault is in itself ugly • Having a pole in the neighborhood would lower our property values • The pole is counter to the efforts of the City of Renton to improve neighborhoods. The city has passed and enforced codes that are used to prevent blight and related degradations. For example, there are codes that limit the height of weeds, require the removal of garbage, require that homes be maintained, etc. The pole would degrade the comer of SE 3n1 Place and Anacortes Avenue SE as well as the surrounding properties. • There are other more suitable locations for a cellular tower. Towers such as this do not belong in a residential neighborhood. They should be placed on government property or at business locations. • As a I-Mobile customer, our service is adequate. A pole would not provide any additional benefits that would improve our service. Once again, please terminate this project at once. We do not want a cellular tower in our neighborhood. In addition to the address above, we can be reached by phone at 425-228-2805 or by e-mail at vic-jeni@juno.com Thank you, tj/~ Z. QI~ £ , I -----------------~- Victor E. Bloomfield ----+--~~+-------~{,)~A~.[ ~-;---fl I. '5 /1#.e. f'i ~ AJ S I #e: k ~ p/J pL <[n..e <:(aw<-v, 1f 1'f 6ec&Mc 1.T 1S'1.AJ l ' --~::..#-.(,.L.,)-_:!<C_-L\.~<.)~CK C-aA)Ce tu:) / ECE/V~n Rex-\,~ . )~ "I ;;i O O 7 tJ"-°'"' ~("'s{_J-,[)unq1 ,4&: G.c,~S (Q_QQ 7~ ~ '" 5 J LocATloN (~ r-=~~ c.Q_®-rtl.6>--Q_ ;..~'--. u5 = _M--ti>-& s~~ c5 d ~ __ 4 307 5£ ,HtR.D oTR£ET. - ~ 8~ usY;_,~J~ o-fi (»cu J~Yca rQ.Jyl~,J,J)J~ ( k_ -Z8rck cf 41,Lci;__ 0-_ ~~'L ~l ~~cj-+lo. ll 0<--~ 1 d .. \1..z_"""~ evv'-ol {L C~~ c} ~~- -<(b /\_c,_c,4_~U 'cs;_~J1c_~d sa ~_gL~ ~?_ ~OU) ~\... ~ C C>LL,_,~ /h\_d ~=-<&.~L C6¥~..-....-',../ ~ Q~ Lk\. ~LQ a_;:,_() J (' _~ <:.QA., ~) R CJU,yc,~ .• ,,,.,<.,--ZJ ~~~Cl\ ~.i-Q,' [\.. \ . --.\ c.J ~j~-=c, 8 0',~ el: 4"' ~= ~c~ d)~ "J "1L ~ . '2d ~~ Q.,;,"~ o.Jt. S E '3 -~°'--c...Q..~ ~ ~ Gb'h. C:...:..c\_'U)_ 0..... ~ <-hc.l &./L~Q.L_ ~~ Ct.A, ~ s~ ~ c( ~ u.,Yl.,V'Sv'-' ~. ~J, ~w~ ~l.t(~ RrCEIVEd R£cElVEd ·JuL 2 3 2001 RENTON CiTY CouNcil Jill K. Ding Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 jding@ci.renton.wa.us Re: proposed cell phone tower on public right-of-way at 4401 SE 3n1 Place. Dear Ms. Ding, S:L'1 J_\2C(Tt RECEiVEd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Cily CouNcil I would like to enter my strong objection to the proposed building of a 60 foot tall cell phone tower and associated vault on the public right of way at this address. This tower and associated vault will result in lowered property values, obstructed views, and create potential safety and health hazards for the children in the neighborhood. Further, I do not believe the neighborhood was adequately notified, nor were more suitable alternative sites considered. The site selected is conspicuously placed at the intersection of two residential streets. It would literally tower over the neighborhood, obstructing views and lowering the quality of life for the residents. This neighborhood is almost entirely owner occupied houses. Placing the tower at the very center of the neighborhood only assures that a maximum number of home owners will be negatively impacted. The result will be lowered property values in a neighborhood of almost exclusively owner-occupied homes. These homes will quickly turn into low income rentals. Placing this tower so near homes may cause serious health problems to those who live around it. Cell towers operate on radio waves, with the antennae collecting, strengthening, and redirecting the radio waves from one tower to another. Studies have shown that exposure to high levels of these radio waves cause serious health issues. Those of us living near the tower will have no way of knowing how whether or not we are being exposed to an unsafe level of these radio waves. Our children will be living, playing, sleeping almost directly under this tower. While some studies have shown cell phone towers are safe, others have not. Even if it could be shown that this tower is safe in terms of radio wave levels, we have other very legitimate concerns. There is no way to prevent our children from playing on or around them. The notice states the vault will occupy a 104 square foot area, on a right of way that is only four feet wide. There will certainly be no way to fence it off. Children playing around it could easily be injured by the equipment itself. There are many more suitable locations nearby for such a tower. There is public right-of- way in several locations along 4th Avenue NE between Union Street and Duval Street that could be used, as well as commercial land in that area that could be lease by the company for this purpose. There is City of Renton owned land and city right-of-way immediately south of the cemetery and east of Edmonds Ave. This would be perhaps the most suitable, as it is far away from any residential area. The far southeast or northwest comers of the new park could be used ( at these locations the tower and vault could be properly fenced and screened from public view). There is public right-of-way available along Duval St. south of 4th Ave NE. And there is space available at the far south end of Union Ave SE in the Seattle City Light compound. None of these locations would have the impact of the site chosen. Finally, I do not believe the neighborhood was properly notified of this proposal. Signs were posted on utility poles in only a portion of the area that would be impacted. The design of the diagram was confusing, showing only the entire lot on which the tower and vault would be placed. It did not give a description of the vault, did not indicate if either the vault or tower would be fenced to prevent children from being hurt around it, and did not state if it would be shielded from public view. Notification by mail only came several days later and was not more specific than the original posted notices. At no time did T-Mobile or any of its agents or contractors contact me regarding this project. Please place these concerns into the official record. I am available for questions, and ask to be informed of any future public hearings, appeals, or other opportunities to give input on this important matter. 1-ib-- JohnMegow 4408 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (425) 227-4379 megowj@yahoo.com Ms. Jill Ding Renton Planning Department Renton City Hall 6th floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ms. Ding, RECEiVEd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Ci,y CouNcil 4209 SE 3ni Place Renton, WA 98059 July 19, 2007 I am writing to express my concern over the proposed installation of a cell phone tower less than one block from my home in the Heatherdowns area of the Renton Highlands. The reference for this proposed cell tower which would be located at 4401 SE 3rd Place is R-0-W/ #LUA-065 CU-A ECF. Frankly, I do not understand why a cell tower needs to be located in the middle of a residential area when there are several locations very close by that would not be as intrusive to the residential area. And as a matter of City building code, new residential neighborhoods are required to have all utilities underground. It is inconsistent with this policy to allow a cell tower to be located a residential neighborhood. Obvious alternative locations (shown on attached map) include sighting it within the water pump station complex at the south end of Union Avenue, or among the trees in the newly developed Heritage Park on Union, or in the construction area to the west. Additionally, there are a myriad of potential locations in the publicly owned wooded area between the Heatherdowns development and the Maplewood golf course to the south. My biggest objection to this proposal is the potential impact on property values in this area. A cell tower at the proposed location would certainly limit the prospective buyers. Just the appearance of the tower in the neighborhood is enough to scare away potential buyers with concerns over health issues, in addition to being an eyesore. I ask the City to reconsider the proposal to locate a cell tower in my neighborhood and reject it. Sincerely, ace Rent n, WA 98059-5144 425-235-0231 cc: CG C 0 ~ (.) 0 Cl) +-' <ti C '- Q) +-' <( ~ '- <ti a.. C .o +-' (.) 2 ..... (/) C 0 0 <ti Cl) '- <( 2 C <ti 0 C ·-'-..... Cl) <ti ..... (.) -0 <( - "'O C ~ 0 o+=-o.. <ti 0 (.) '-0 a.. - C 0 +-' <ti (.) +-' 0 ~ Cl) (/) +-' 0.. <ti EE ::::i 2 a.. <( RECEIVEd July 22, 2007 JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Ci,y CouNcil 4400 SE 3rd PL Renton, WA 98059 Subject: Proposed cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3rd PL To: The Renton Planning Department; Attn Jill Ding Cc: The Renton City Council I am writing to express my extreme disagreement with the proposed placement of a cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3rd PL. I have several reasons for my grave concern over this site and would like to ask that you reject this location for the cell tower and work with the builders on a better site. First, this site is right in the middle of a residential neighborhood and couldn't be more out of place. At the 4401 SE 3rd PL, there is no way you can disguise this tower and avoid it from being an eyesore. I've seen some creative ways of disguising these towers but this 60-foot monstrosity would be among a grouping of rambler homes and on a street comer. There is no way to hide a 60-foot tower at this location. Second, on a personal consideration, this 60-foot tower directly in front of our home would block the view from our front window and porch at 4400 SE 3rd PL. We enjoy our view out over the neighborhood and would be very much saddened to have a 60-foot ( or more) tower in that view. We already contend with utility poles but there is no comparison between a 20-30 foot tall telephone pole versus a 60-foot tower. This is a personal loss that we'd have to deal with 365 days a year. We are also aware that this might negatively impact radio and satellite TV reception. Third, we are convinced that this 60-foot tower directly in front of our home would have a grave impact on our home values. This is due to the fact that our view would be hindered greatly. In addition to the loss of our view, we'd still have to deal with the likely fear of future home buyers might have about health concerns a cell phone tower 25 feet from their perspective home. I know the jury is not out on the health concerns but the studies don't have to be conclusive to scare off prospective buyers. So we would most assuredly have a negative impact on our homes resale value. If you question this; then ask your realtor, like I have, on how your home value would be affected if you allowed a cell phone company build a 60 foot tower 25 feet directly in front of your home? So please reject this location of the 60-foot cell phone tower at 4301 SE 3rd PL as it is just out of place at this location. Instead, there have to be some locations that would be more suitable along Union. I don't want to pass this problem onto other landowners but there are some tall trees that this tower can be built amongst and be disguised as a tree where it f. I ol 2 doesn't have to be so obtrusive. There is even a utility yard at 450 Union Ave SE that a tower could be built on and the tower could be disguised as a pine tree to fit in with the other trees. This site would be advantageous in that you don't have to intrude on a landowner. I also have read that shorter towers could be built and serve the same function and could be an alternative for a residential neighborhood like ours. Perhaps in this way, utilizing the existing utility poles along Union could be considered. Thank you for considering our comments and hope that you work with the cell phone company to find a better location for their tower. We all appreciate our cell phone coverage but it's clear that there has to be a better location for this cell phone tower and ask that you work for a better solution. Sincerely, ~1£f~w Michael and mbbbyikness PCO RNT 41-2475 ~onn ll..~ll1t REAL ESTATE Jollnl. Stollt,..S-Ro,o,,0111<, To,,oll~o"~""""'h"""Od_.,..,a,,~ 4735 NE 4,h St. Remon, WA 98059 direct: (206) 718-SELL (7355) July 23, 2007 Michael and Debbie Eckness 4400 SE 3rd Pl Renton. WA 98058 Dear Michael and Debbie, This letter is in regards to your recent inquiry regarding your home in Renton. The question was raised to me about property values with regards to cell towers in the near vicinity. There is an old saying "Perception is Reality". I live with this quote on a daily basis. Buyers come to me with ideas that are their reality. Whether it is accurate or not, is not the issue. It is their reality. One large perception is that power lines and possibly cell towers can cause cancer. Whether this is true or not. ... I do not know or represent. One thing I do know, homes near power lines or cell towers sell for less and it takes much longer for them to sell. So the answer to your question, "Will a cell tower lower my property value or make my property harder to sell?" The answer is a definite ... YES! If the cell tower is in the vicinity but not easily seen by your home and does not cause interference with other equipment, there is not an issue. If the cell tower is easily visible from your home and/or causes interference, this must be considered in pricing your home when the home goes on the market. It is important to remember that many people think that the REALTOR sets the price of the home. This is incorrect. It is important to understand that buyers determine the value of the market. If it is a seller's market, it will be easier to sell but will always still sell for less. If it is a slower market, pricing will be very important. I hope this is helpful information and that it answers the questions that you have. I hope you have a wonderful summer and eajoy lots of great time with your family. Warmest regards, Lauri Amandus CRS Certified Resident' 1 S July 22, 2007 R1:crivrd To whom it may concern, JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Ciry CouNcil I am a property owner in the Heather Downs subdivision located in the Renton Highlands. My address is 406 Anacortes Avenue SE. It is my understanding that there is a proposal to build a cell phone tower within blocks of my home. I would not appreciate this as the value ofmy property would significantly decrease. Please look for an alternative location. Thank you. 'l, -<._-z---------.:-~---,. John Ehle 406 Anacortes Ave Se Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-0331 Home (206) 290-714 7 Cell July 22, 2007 Mr. Chuck Gitchel 4401 Southeast Third Place Renton, Washington 98059 Re: Proposed T-Mobile Cell Tower Site Mr. Gitchel, RECEIVEd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON City CouNcil As a member of this community, I do not support the construction of the proposed T-Mobile Cell Tower located at 4401 Southeast Third Place. There arc two (2) existing cell phone towers located less than one mile from the proposed T-Mobile site, (by Union and Fourth), T-Mobile should not be allowed to desecrate our neighborhood with another unsightly cell phone tower, when T-Mobile could use existing cell towers already in place. If the use of existing cell towers are not an option, 1 would expect the Renton City Council and T-Mobile would respect this community's wishes to move the proposed site to a different location, which would be more discrete, such as at the south end of Union Avenue, by the existing tree line. Why place a cell tower exactly in the middle of a residential community? It makes no sense at all. lfthe Renton City Council does not listen to the community memhers, and still allows the proposed T- Mobile site construction, I would expect lo see an immediate and substantial DECREASE in my property taxes, as the land value of our entire community would be permanently and irreparably harmed. Has anyone from the City Council even seen the proposed site from ground level? The proposed site is LITTERALL Yin the exact middle of our residential community. It's funny how the proposed T-Mobile site is not located anywhere near any of our elected City Council Officials' houses, isn't it? Of course, the City of Renton and City Council Members would not want to loose valuable revenue from existing tax paying citizens. If the proposed T-Mobilc site construction continues as planned, land values will drop, and elected city officials will not be elected again, as they obviously do not listen to the communities whom have elected them. ~"1!~~ 349 Anacortes Avenue Southeast Renton, Washington, 98059 .;;mi1h Inn :uhotmail c0_m H -425-271-2947 C -509-470-0600 Jill Ding Renton City Hall 6"' Floor 1055 Grady Way Renton EA 98057 RE: Land Use#: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Project Name: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3"1 Place R-0-W R£CEivrd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON City CouNcil We are writing th.is letter to express our concerns regarding the above proposed cell phone tower. There have been no studies regarding the radiation concerns for cell phone towers. Therefore, we are greatly concerned about the health issues that co11lcl result from a cell phone tower being installed in our neighborhood, especially since our home is right nexl door to the proposed site. Besides adults working in their yards, there arc many children in the neighborhood that play on the street nexl to the proposed site, including our own grandchildren. It is also our understanding that ate property values will decrease or that our property would become un-sellable due to these health concerns. We have been told that a real estate agent would not even show our home due to these issues. In addition, a cell phone tower in the middle of our neighborhood would be unsightly. Who would want to look out their window and sec an ugly tower) We suggest that the tower be built within the grern belt three blocks south of the proposed site or within the woods behind Heritage Park on Union Ave. We also suggest that the tower be designed to look like a fir tree so that it will blend into the surroundings. Thank you for your consideration in th.is matter. Renton, WA 98059 cc: Renton City Council Dennis Law • July 21, 2007 REcrlvEd JUL 2 3 200"1 RHllON Ci,Y couNcil Renton City Council, Denis Law, Jill K. Ding : 4224 SE 3rd Pl. Renton, WA. 98059 425-271-9573 We are addressing the proposed installation on the roads edge of a monstrous 60 root tower. This abomination is likely to grow much taller over time with the leasing to other companies. There is no logical reason to allow this eyesore to be built in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Plus there is no doubt that it will extremely affect all of our property values in a negative way. If the value of our homes are affected by allowing this to be built at this location we will be forced to take steps against the city to recoup our losses. There are multitudes of places in this area that a tower could be placed that wouldn't be in the middle of a residential family neighborhood. It could be placed at the very end of Union where I believe there is only two houses, it could be placed in Suunydale along the back where there is open sight lines , or along the west property line of the Leisure Estates complex and probably the best or second best spot(best at end of Union) would be in the new park on Union. It is my understanding these eyesores can be dressed up to look like many things including trees to help mitigate there obtrusiveness. At any of the sites listed the tower could be placed on the edge of a housing area or in the case of the park anywhere, would bother know one. Not in the middle of a neighborhood on the edge of the road! Please do your jobs as elected officials and stand with the citizens of your city you are supposed to represent and not with big business. This cannot be allowed to happen. Ifit goes forward the people of this area are prepared to ban together to contact the Attorney General and to hire an Attorney to fight this and our city. &~~ ~£, D~s ancr'tindy Shimmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECEIVEd July 19, 2007 JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Cily COUNCil To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my extreme concern that our neighborhood will become the site for a new cell phone tower. Of course we are aware of the published studies trying to prove that these towers are not harmful to our health, however we are unconvinced by these attempts by the cellular industry to downplay the dangerous effects oflow-level radio-frequency emissions. Federal law (designed to promote the development of cell phone service in the area) prevents us from petitioning these towers based on health concerns because there is no conclusive evidence to prove that towers are responsible for the cancer, tumors, headaches, and nausea suffered by the residents living around them, so I would be glad to address several other reasons why the proposal for this tower should be rejected immediately. In addition to the negative impact this tower could cause to the health of our community, it also jeopardizes the value of our property which is absolutely unacceptable. We have owned property on 3'd Place in Renton for over two decades and so have my neighbors. We have too much invested in this street, and community, in the form of property value, neighborhood relationships, and family memories to allow a cell phone tower to deface it. It is a known fact that power lines, busy streets, and cell phone towers all reduce property values and make homes less desirable to prospective buyers. The appeal of our beautiful and serene neighborhood is enhanced by the distance from the busy freeway and crowded downtown metro areas. It is a quiet and friendly community that does not need to be disrupted by the inevitable grating sounds of construction required to erect this prospective tower. Besides the construction process, the tower once complete will be an eye-sore jutting out and disrupting the unblemished expansive sky line between our charming one story houses. This tower would be an unwelcome visual impediment. It is understandable that the demand for cellular phone use and better service is desirable to cellular phone customers, however that does not justify moving these towers into the heart of our residential community. There are numerous other less objectionable sites in close proximity that should be considered, for instance the south end of Union Ave in the trees or at Heritage Park. Placing the tower in a wooded area and designing it to resemble the fir trees would be a more acceptable proposal. Thank you for your consideration and your prompt attention to the resolution ofthis matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, James & Kimberly Stark 4301 SE 3nt Place Renton, WA 98M9 (425) 228-4968 JIMKIMSTARK@aol.com Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6th Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98507 RECElvEd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Ciry CouNcil Dear Ms. Ding, Subject Proposed cell phone tower site on SE 3'd Place, Renton, WA July 18, 2007 We live on SE 3rd Place approximately half a block from the proposed site for a T-Mobile cell phone tower. We are writing to express our dissatisfaction with the decision to place a large cell phone tower in such a residential location. In fact, one home owned by Mr. Gitchel, will sit directly under the cell phone tower. Our neighborhood is deeply concerned about this decision and asks you as a representative of our community to help us fight this installation. We can list the reasons simply that we DO NOT want this tower placed on our neighborhood street. First, regardless of what people say, our property value will decrease. No one wants to live under a cell phone tower. Secondly, real or not, there are perceived health impacts ofliving so close to a cell phone tower. We do not want our child impacted by that and realize that someone thinking of purchasing our home would consider that fact as well. Please consider other sites for this cell phone tower and do not impact our neighborhood in this negative way. Sites that immediately come to mind include Heritage Park at the west end of the park. Celt phone towers can be disguised as trees and in fact might provide some wildlife benefit (nesting and roosting for birds) in an area like Heritage Park where trees are in such close proximity. This site would have a much lower impact to neighbors in our community. In addition, you might consider looking at a site at the south end ofUnion Avenue. Again, the cell phone could be disguised as a tree. We provide a few links to disguising cell phone towers as trees and ask that you press T- Mobile to choose a less residential site and hide the unsightly cell phone tower from view. The best situation would be to place the tower at one of the sites listed above and disguise it among the native Douglas Fir trees. http ://wa ynesword. palomar .edu/ foketree. htm }ittpjJwww.flicJa.com/photos/xcni/528725576/ ;;;u 4V ~~ Joel and Heidy Barnett ~ 4212 SE 3'd Place Renton, WA 98059 (425)-687-8088 7/20/07 Ms. Jill Ding, R£CEIVEd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON CiTy CouNcil This letter is to inform you of our strong concerns regarding the proposed cell phone tower placement in our neighborhood. We fear first for our health and well being as nothing good can come from having radiation from the proposed tower engulf our block. As we live only two doors down from the site we feel that our concerns are well founded. The fact that federal law does not allow you to consider the effects of radiation upon our health is most disturbing, but not surprising considering the many poor choices our federal lawmakers have made. With this in mind, we as citizens of Renton must be able to count on our elected leaders to protect us from situations that put us in harms way, whether the federal government cares about us or not. Also, we believe that allowing this unsightly tower within the confines of an established working class neighborhood can only reduce our property values, and in some cases render a home incapable of being sold. A conversation with a friend of ours who is a real tor confirmed our fears of diminished values. Finally, let us be honest with one another. Having a tower such as this in our neighborhood will be an ugly, constant reminder that financial considerations often take precedent over quality of life and consideration for those who do not have the power to stop such a travesty. Ms. Ding, you DO have the power to put a stop to this horrible plan, and with power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Please do not allow our neighborhood, our neighbors, and our families to be subjected to this "experiment". We thank you for your time and consideration. DEAR SIRS: RECEiV(d JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Ciry CouNcil 4425 SE 3 PLACE RENTON,WA IN REGARDS TO THE CELL PHONE TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 4401 SE 3PL YOUR DECISION TO INST ALL SUCH A TOWER IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHTBOURHOOD CLUSTERED WITH HOMES NEAR SCCH A POLE IS STUPIDITY IN ITSELF. YOU HA VE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND IT INCLUDES TREES AND IS NEAR THE CANYON. THAT LOCATION IS FAR BETTER SUITED AS IT WILL BE PARTIALLY HIDDEN FROM DIRECT VIEW AND NOT ON THE STREET NEXT TO A NEIGHBOUR'S BEDROOM. THE TOWER WILL BE UGLY AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND WILL BRING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES AS DEMOSTRA TED BY OVERHEAD POWER LINES IN OTHER NEIGHBOURHOO YOU SAY YOU CANNOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RADIATION FROM SUCH A TOWER HOW STUPID THAT STATEMENT IS WHEN THERE IS OTHER PROPERTY AVAILABLE THAT HAS LESS IMPACT OF EVERYDAY LIFE IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD. FOR ONCE USE A BIT OF COMMON SENSE. YOURS GAIL AND ANTHO~ KNELL (PROPERTY OWNERS) / . July 19. 2007 DearRentea City Ceooeil, 1:,e.,.,is [,.,...J R1:CE1vro JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON CiTY CouNcil We are writing this letter to express our grave concerns regarding the installation of a cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3rd Place. Our foremost concerns are health issues. Regardless of what is directed by federal law, radiation should be a consideration when installation of such a tower affects the health of the general public. The desire for clarity of phone calls should not outweigh the increased health risks to area residents. These towers are unsightly, especially in someone's backyard. There are many areas of the United States where cell towers are made to look like part of the landscape, sometimes in the form of trees. If the lower were "disguised" and located in an area of trees, possibly at the south end of Union Avenue or within the current trees of Heritage Park, the impact on the neighborhood would be greatly reduced. It has been stated that the initial tower would be 60 feet high, with the potential for extensions to reach up to 100 feet. It is absurd to place a structure ofthis size in the backyard of a residential home! The City should regulate the maximum height of these towers to reduce the possibility of unlimited extensions. We would encourage the City to explore alternative solutions in regards to the location and appearance of the tower before deciding the outcome of this request. Placing the tower as currently proposed would directly affect the health and property values of area residents. As Renton continues to improve its regional image, it would be a mistake to allow structures ofthis type to hinder the positive image we are working so hard to achieve. We strong!x recommend that you deny the request for placement of a cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3 Place. Sincerely, k~ Anne Miller JL\~ Ken Miller 4415 SE 4th St. Renton, WA 98059 425-271-7969 kmiller@connectexpress.com Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6th FL Doug Mears 4308 SE 3rd PL Renton, WA 98059 (425) 235-7964 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Re: INSTALLATION OFT-MOBILE TOWER July, 20, 2007 Dear Ms. Ding: Recrlvtd ·JuL 2 3 2001 RENTON CiTY CouNcil It is with great concern that I learned ofT-Mobile's plan to install a new tower at the intersection of SE 3rd PL and Anacortes streets in the Heather Downs neighborhood of the Highlands. When my wife (3 months pregnant at the time) and I were looking to purchase a home in the fall of 1994, we were looking for a neighborhood free from overhead power lines or other sources of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). A number of studies had just been concluded around that time which confirmed a very strong correlation between high levels of this radiation and various types of physical ailments, including brain tumors and other types of cancers. While industry argued the study results (naturally), the correlative evidence was, and still is, very compelling. It was compelling enough, in fact, that we wouldn't consider purchasing a home in such close proximity to high-powered lines or towers of any type. Even if it could be proven that the radiation produced by these towers is not harmful (which certainly has not happened yet), the controversy surrounding these towers is commonly known, making homes in close proximity to these towers nearly impossible to sell, or at the very least, impossible to sell at a price close to homes situated away from such towers and high-voltage power sources. Therefore, the damage which will be caused by this tower, ifT-Mobile is allowed to build it, will be economic at the very least; if the various studies about the effects of EMR are correct, the damage done to those living around the tower will be physical as well as economic. In either case, it is a frightening prospect. Of course, I-Mobile can argue that the protests over their proposed new tower are just another example of the "not in my back yard syndrome," and that these towers have to be built somewhere. Yes, they DO have to be built somewhere, ifwe want to keep this type of technology, but why do they have to be placed in the middle of residential neighborhood, with streets which are always full of playing children? The people who purchased homes in this neighborhood could NEVER have imagined such a thing would be constructed in such a bizarre location. There are still plenty of wooded areas nearby which could hold such a tower without the risks associated with building the tower (literally) in our front yards. One does not have to be far away from these towers to dramatically reduce the levels ofEMR exposure. It is impossible to avoid the highest levels of exposure, however, for the many houses crowded around the proposed tower location. I urge you to reconsider the location of this T-Mobile tower. I have spoken to my neighbors at length about this issue, and I assure you that we are unified in our opposition to it. We have all promised to band together in whatever legal action is needed to stop its construction. We all strongly believe that there is more at stake here than property values. We believe that the health of our families may very well be at stake, and as you know, there is nothing that people will fight harder to protect than their children. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this very important matter. Sincerely, ~{~ Doug Mears (dougemears@msn.com) cc: Renton City Council Mr. Dennis Law , .;iaa 7 RECEiVEd ·JuL 2 3 2001 RENTON CiTY CouNcil JLRLU~ 0~1'.:z_ !17, fu e_L 411-(!/u/futL {(J,lt. :>f. lbzlim, '-tu~· ?Jv:ii JUL 2 3 2007 --------?&~----RE_N_ro_N_C_iry-CouNcil KELLER WILUAMSs, R E L T y I'm writing this letter on the behalf of the residents ofHeatherdowns regarding the proposed placement of a T-Mobile cell phone tower on the comer of SE 3rd Place & Anacortes A venue. I myself for 17 years owned & lived 5 houses to the west of the proposed cell tower site. I understand my neighbors concerns about a 60 foot monolith being constructed in their small single family one story home residence neighborhood. Especially with the potential of the tower reaching 100 feet is concerning. 1 am a licensed realtor in the State of Washington and an owner ofmy Keller Williams Puyallup office. It is my opinion that the marketable value of the properties located within this area would be affected dramatically. Even though the proposal states that there is no conclusive evidence of environmental impacts of the project that has nothing to do with marketability of a property with a structure of this magnitude standing out like a sore thumb. The one uncontrollable factor in real estate sales is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!!! Constructing a cell phone tower is affecting the location of this quiet neighborhood whether significant environmental impacts or not. Sellers will see an impact on the marketable and sellable value of their homes. Buyers will see the tower and say, "What is that?" Buyers set the market value of homes. If a buyer has a choice of identical homes, both priced in the $300,000 range, one with a cell phone tower in close proximity and one without, buyers will choose the home without the tower. Unless the home with the cell phone tower was priced dramatically less. I have seen this time and time again. I feel there are plenty of other suitable locations to build a cell phone tower rather than a small residential neighborhood. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at my numbers listed below. Best regards, Bonnie Watson Keller Williams Realty 615 East Pioneer, Suite #203 Puyallup, WA 98372 Office #253-848-5304 Cell #253-906-7284 CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 1/)9) 0( RECEIVES CITY CLERK'S FflCE '•' •' CJ,/;~:JJi ,.-~, 1-;.:-~r >ii-'"~ 1 , ,(-, . ! . l July 23, 2007 Jill K Ding, RECEiVEd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Cily CouNcil Regarding the proposed site of a I-Mobile Monopole, to be located at the comer of SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Ave SE. I am a neighbor of the Gitchels, even though I live a block away at 407 Anacortes Ave SE. From my house you can see the corner of the proposed I-Mobile Monopole. I am appalled that you would even consider having a company come in and put in an unsightly pole, sticking out like a sore thumb, for all to see, even from my house, the view would be unsightly. A lot of us have lived in Heather Downs, raised our families, and now have grandchildren, or will have grandchildren, visiting and possibly playing in the streets nearby. Who knows what the health affects may be from having such a pole so close by. We are a Family Neighborhood, not an Industrial Park I'm sure there are other areas in the Highlands where such a pole would be better suited. What's wrong with putting it at the end of Union Avenue, in the tree line, make it look like a tree or something and not have it stick out in plain sight. What's wrong with up at the new Heritage Park, up on Union Avenue? I'm sure there's room in the back, among the trees where it wouldn't be such an unsightly eye sore. I wouldn't purchase a house ifI had to look at that I-Mobile Monopole everytime I went out or looked out my front door. I don't think any perspective home buyer would even consider buying in this neighborhood, with that ugly pole sticking out, staring you in the face. I, as a homeowner, and resident of this neighborhood, ask that you reconsider relocating the site of any purposed I-Mobile Monopole. 7'°/~/~ .::F/1 !?/c-5 _»47,7f £7/1'~/ e/54 407 Anacortes Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 CC: Renton City Council, Denis Law July 18, 2007 Jill K Ding, We are responding to the T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'd Place R-0-W RECEiVE<l . JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Ciry CouNcil This tower will not be placed near our home without the City of Renton or T-Mobile purchasing our home at today's value! We Charles & Frances Gitchel live at 4401 SE 3'd Place. The proposed location of this Antenna is in the corner of our front yard. Our house is not big and fancy, but it is our home. We live in a neighborhood where there aren't any sidewalks. Men, women and children walk and play in the street The proposed location of this Antenna is where a city sidewalk should be. My wife purchased this home in 1966 and raised her children here. I grew up in Renton and went to Renton High School. During the Vietnam War I enlisted in the Air Force (Active Duty) and was trained in electronics as a Radar Repairman and later in the Air National Guard Reserves as a Radio-Telephone Communications Technician. I was taught extensively the dangers of frequency radiation. I talked to Stephen Ames, CRS, our Real Estate Broker, about the affects of this proposed ce11 tower on our property value. His letter is attached. Listed is his long list of Real Estate Credentials, including him being an expert witness in court. In his letter, when he refers to the radiation issue, he states "A buyer who perceives the risk, whether real or imagined, will usually avoid it, which means no sale for you if you are trying to sell, regardless of the price, because life is not worth money to most people -there's no exchange rate." It is very evident that the Renton City Hall needs to be educated on the health and financial consequences of these towers. I was taught that frequency radiation greatly increases the risk of medical problems like cancer, brain tumors, birth defects, sterilization ... the list goes on. The question has and still is "How much is too much?" In the past, some military men stood near antennas because it made them warm. Further research led to the invention of the microwave oven. Microwave ovens are built with a metal casing and screening in the oven door to help block the radiation from harming you. -Microwave is at a different frequency than are cell phones, radio and television, but they all use frequency radiation. The dangers exist in all cases. I will use a microwave oven as an example because it is something people can relate to. -The amount of danger from frequency radiation is directly related to the power output of the antenna. Example: If you place a glass of water in a high-powered microwave oven, it will boil in about 2 minutes. But if you place that same glass of water in a cheap low powered microwave oven, it will take 3 or more minutes to boil. -The amount of danger from frequency radiation is also determined by how far you are from the antenna. The closer you are, the more power you receive. A good example is the signal bars on your cell phone. -In the water example the water boiled sooner if the oven had more power, but the water still boils at a lower power level. This shows that the danger from frequency radiation is also determined by the length oftime you 're being radiated at any given power level. As an example: You can put a cold glass of water in a high powered microwave for 5 or more seconds, the water will still be cold. It wasn't radiated long enough to have any noticeable affect. Cell Phone towers are transmitting to hundreds or thousands of cell phones continuously. If you are too close to these towers, it is like having you and your children being completely covered with transmitting cell phones, all the time, day & night. [t doesn't end until you get away from the antenna. But how close is too close? What effect will it have even at low levels? Who knows? The water still boils! Cell phone companies only care about the bottom line. Are you gullible enough to believe them? Would you take that chance with your children or grandchildren's health? My wife and I will not! No responsible person would gamble with anyone's lives! A neighbor gave us this letter from Bonnie Watson at Keller Williams Realty. Her letter is attached. She states in her letter: "It is my opinion that the marketable value of the properties located within this area would be affected dramatically." Our Broker, Stephen Ames, has a lot of information in his attached letter. He concluded it with: "The tower presents a very real blockage to your ability to sell your home at any price." Do you understand what he's saying? Anyone, with any common sense, would know that placing a 60-foot tower in your front yard, 45 feet from your house, would lower your property value. But he's saying our house would be worthless! This insanity needs to end. City Hall is supposed to protect it citizens. We were let down. Our back is against the wall. The regulations on cell tower locations needs to be modified so that no one else has to go through the many sleepless nights, the mental anguish and having the runs. These towers should all look like fir trees and be placed in wooded areas, greenbelts or water run- off holding ponds. Even City Parks, where the exposure would be for a limited amount of time, would be better than destroying neighborhoods and radiating families 24 hours a day. There are wooded areas 2 blocks south and another 3 blocks east of our home. So why here? The wooded area at the south end of Union Avenue is only 3 blocks away. Heritage Park is just up the street. So why here? If you say the law will not allow you to place it in these areas ... Change the laws! Any trees that are disturbed, require the cell companies to replace them. If you are one of those that say you can't disturb the animals, your priorities are in the wrong order. Your saying it's OK to put us through hell but you can't bother the Rats in the forest? City of Renton' s regulations on cell phone towers has allowed T-Mobile to apply for a permit to place this tower just 45 feet from our home! Would you let them? Would you want an ugly, radiating antenna in your front yard this close to your children? Would you like your home equity stolen from you? Of course not! Does this situation fall into the category of'To Serve and Protect the Public"? It was suggested to me, that Rats from the cell phone industry, might have influenced City Hall. I ask you, do you represent the citizens of Renton? Or do the Rats have priority? Please end this "NIGHTMARE!" C~~rances L. Gitchel CC: Renton City Council, Denis Law, July 18, 2007 Renton City Council, torre.sporid ..... 7-.J.3. ;J.007 ~~ /CITY OF RENTON JUL 18 2007 As per the attached letter, I'm requesting that your cell tower regulations need to be modified. I would like this topic be added to your agenda for the next meeting, Monday, July 23'd. Chuck Gitchel 4401 SE 3'd St Renton, WA 98059 425-255-0077 chuckandfrantest@comcast.net July 17, 2007 Charles and Frances Gitchel 4401 SE 3rd Pl Renton, WA 98059-5140 Dear Chuck and Fran: Per your request, I am writing you this letter to render my professional opinion concerning the marketing effects of a cell tower on or near your property. Licensed in Real Estate in 1975, and a broker since 1979, I have had many experiences including being an expert witness in court, liquidation of large receivership estates for the courts, as well as owned and operated my own firm, and managed others. During the 32+ years I have been in the field of Real Estate, I have achieved and been awarded CRS designation (Certified Residential Specialist) by the National Association of Realtors since 1999, which is only held by some 25,000 agents across the country. I have been ranked in the top 1% internationally since 1996 while with Coldwell Banker, and Top GOLD Producer since being bought-out by Prudential, both the very top ranks achievable. My full credentials are listed below. During the last few years, the saturation of interest and activity in the arena of real estate has become higher than ever. The advent of increased access to information through the internet has made the industry a full disclosure enterprise. Full disclosure is in at least two forms: ( 1) Seller's disclosure of what they know to be defective about their property; (2) Buyer's discovery of defective aspects of a property by way of inspection and other forms of due diligence. The latter of the two means of disclosure poses the most difficulty for you in the sale of your home should there be a tower placed on it: discovery. This process includes the Buyer being able to research all aspects of possible threats to their quality of life should they purchase your place. Controversy on the internet and in libraries concerning EMF and other forms of radiation, radiation fall-out, and rads is as wide-spread as the topics themselves. Whether or not there is a direct threat to people's health, the perception of the risk involved is of significance. As you well know, your perception of things is your connection to reality for you -right? Well, to be honest, this is true for most everyone. A buyer who perceives the risk, whether real or imagined, will usually avoid it, which means no sale for you if you are trying to sell, regardless of the price, because life is not worth money to most people -there's no exchange rate. This is not the whole story, however. When it comes to Buyers and Agents, it is the Agent's responsibility to point out known defects or possible defects that would likely be in question even before showing the house to a prospective purchaser. What this means to you is, you won't even get showings as a result of the potential risks to health in the ownership as perceived by the professionals who "weed-out" properties that would not be to a Buyer's liking, or would pose potential risks to the Buyer and/or that Agent who could be sued later for what he or she should have known, even if the Buyer did not know at the time. My advice to you is to not allow the tower to go on or near your property, to assure you highest and best use and ultimate value from your property. Should you wish to have .. me further attest to these factors, I will gladly assist you. The tower presents a very real blockage to your ability to sell your home at any price. ,,. Very truly yours, Stephen T. Ames, CRS Associate Broker Prudential NW Realty Assoc. LLC 622 S. 320th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 0: 253. 765.2327 C: 206.498.2637 F: 253.839.7066 CREDENTIALS -Real Estate Sales License 1975 -Associate Broker of Real Estate License 1979 -NAR Certified Residential Specialist (CRS) -Certified 1031 Exchange Specialist -Certified Previews® & Luxury Properties Specialist -Chairman's Circle Office Top Agent 96-06 -Chairmen's Circle Gold Producer 96-06 -NAR /WAR/ SKAR Realtor® Member -Member NWMLS (Nation's Largest MLS) -Member CSA (Commercial Broker's Assoc) CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator September 24, 2007 Kevin Foy Wireless Facilities, Inc. 575 Andover Park W #201 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Dear Mr. Foy: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place ROW LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Thank you for the additional information that you supplied to aid in the review of your project. Your project has been taken off hold and review will continue. The project has been tentatively scheduled for review by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 8, 2007. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, c:~ cl 1{ ;[2· ~~,, u Senior Planner cc: T-Mobile USA/ Applicant Parties of Record -------,-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s-hi-n-gt-on_9;..80'-5-7 ______ ~ (i} This p~percontams 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF ,THE CURVE City of r<enton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: {Jr,",, :, I C::.,,tr"", ' J APPLICATION NO: LUA0?-065, CU-A, ECF APPLICANT: T-Mobile USA PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'' Pl R-0-W SITE AREA: 104 sauare feet LOCATION: Adiacent to 4401 SE 3'' Place COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 10, 2007 t., ". i:,: ,.,._. r.":.i',.,E D PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dinq !"'I · .. ·. PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian BUILDING AREA lnross): N/A WORK ORDER NO: 77772 Cl 1 1 or= RENTON UTiLITY S'lSTEMS SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B, POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS .", \ ... ,/ ( ( \(!]_/) ) Mo,e Information Necessary ' Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housinn Aesthetics L,aht/Glare Recreation Utilities Transnortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ~~;-~.~~ ?3NrtO;..----------------------- August 14, 2007 Kevin Foy Wireless Facilities, Inc. 575 Andover Park W #201 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Dear Mr. Foy: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place ROW LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has requested additional information before they issue a SEPA threshold determination. Based on comments received from surrounding property owners, they are concerned about the aesthetic impacts and the impacts on property values that the proposed developrnent would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Please submit 2 copies of a .narrative detailing out how this location was selected as the preferred location for the proposed monopole. Please include in the discussion whether alternate locations that might have less of an impact on a single family neighborhood (such as along Union Avenue, Duvall Avenue, or NE 4th Street) were analyzed and if so, why they \vere not selected as the preferred location. Review of your project has been placed on hold pending the receipt of the additional information requested. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, j~1i'.P/J Jill K. Ding l/ Senior Planner cc: T-Mobile USA I Applicant · Parties of Record -------,-0-55_S_o_u~th-G_ra_d_y_W-ay ___ R_e_n_to-n,-W-as-h-in-gt-on-. -9-80_5_7 ______ ~- @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD· OF THE CU;RVE (\'.Y CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator \~~~ .<\~'~ ,t' "', Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~N~O:,,------------------------------ August 2, 2007 Parties of Record (See attached) RE: I-Mobile Monopole (File No. LLA07-065) Comment Letter Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your comments on the I-Mobile Monopole. Your comments have been included in the official file and you have been made a party of record for this project, Your comments will be considered by the Reviewing Official before a decision is made, I have also relayed many of the concerns expressed by you and your neighbors to the applicant, Kevin Foy, who has asked that I give you his contact information so that you may contact him with your concerns directly. You may reach Kevin by phone at (206) 574-6328 or by email at kevin.foy@wfinct.com. You may also contact me with any questions at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, -------l-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_ay ___ R_e_n_lo-n.-W_a_· ,-h1-.n-gt-on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper cont.i1.,c. c,.-;o,,o ,,,~·Fled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THI'. CUR\'E PARTIES OF RECORD T-MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SE 3RD R LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Kevin Foy Wireless Facilities, Inc. 575 Andover Park W ste: #201 Tukwila, WA 98188 tel: (206) 574-6328 eml: kevin.foy@wfinet.com ( contact) Michael & Valerie O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 271-6973 (party of record) Lewis Sezto 10875 Rainier Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 tel: (206) 772-2653 (party of record) Greg Schoendaller 4408 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael, Debby, & Hannah Ekness 4400 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Joel G. Smith 349 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-2947 eml:.smith_100@hotmail.com (party of record) Dennis & Cindy Shimmel 4224 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-9573 (party of record) Updated: 08/02/07 Kevin Foy T-Mobile USA 19807 North Creek Parkway Bothell, WA 98011 tel: (206) 574-6328 (applicant) John McGow 4408 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Vaw Slaughter 4409 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Alvin & Jacqueline Courtney PO Box 2653 Renton, WA 98056-0653 tel: (425) 226-5114 (party of record) John Ehle 406 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-0331 (party of record) Roger & Bickey Berry 4405 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) James & Kimberly Stark 4301 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 228-4968 eml: jimkimstark@aol.com (party of record) Chuck & Fran Gitchel 4401 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 eml: chuckandfrantest@comcast.net (party of record) Newton & Joyleen Ellifrits 4218 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Stephen Northcraft 4209 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059-5144 tel: (425) 235-0231 (party of record) Victor Bloomfield & Jennifer Skuk 4418 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-2805 eml: vic-jeni@juno.com (party of record) John Megow 4408 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 227-4379 eml: megowj@yahoo.com (party of record) Terry Clangh 4503 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Tapke Velquist 4309 SE 3rd Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) PARTIES OF RECORD T-MOBILE MONOPOLE IN SE 3RD R Joel & Heidy Barnett 4212 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 687-8088 (party of record) Ken & Anne Miller 4415 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-7969 eml: kmiller@connectexpress.com (party of record) Bruce & Ruth Rutledge 4303 SE 3rd Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 255-9635 (party of record) Bonnie Watson Keller Williams Realty 615 E Pioneer ste: #203 Puyallup, WA 98372 tel: (253) 848-5304 (party of record) Updated: 08/02/07 LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Cory & Lori Foster 4413 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Pauline Blue 420 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Joyce M. Crock 414 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jeremy & Jill Peery 4432 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 793-0882 (party of record) Gail & Anthony Knell 4425 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Doug Mears 4308 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: ( 425) 235-7965 eml: dougemears@msn.com (party of record) James S. Dalgleish 407 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE usl 13, 2007 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday,August13,2007 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3d Place ROW (Ding) LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) power pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole. The new wood power pole would support PSE equipment and would also function as a monopole I structure with flush mounted wireless cellular facility antennas. Associated equipment would be located within a vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. The proposal would include the replacement of an existing 40-foot tall wood Puget Sound Energy (PSE) distribution line pole with a 59-foot 11-inch wood power pole that would also serve as a monopole 1 structure supporting wireless cellular facilities. The proposed cellular antenna would be flush mounted and painted to match the color of the wood power pole. The primary function of the pole would remain as part of an electrical distribution system, the installation of the proposed wireless antennas would be a secondary function. Associated ground equipment is proposed to be located out of sight, below grade in a vault with only the hatch door being the visible part of the vault. The vault hatch would be screened with landscaping as required by the City. cc: K. Keolker. Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director® C. Walls. Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® "11·.,lauflnan, Hearing Examiner M. Peterson, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® August 13, 2007 AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Russell - Index Pl NE, A&D Quality Construction Company, V AC- 07-001 Citizen Comment: McOmber ·· Index Pl NE, A&D Quality Construction Company, V AC- 07-001 Citizen Comment: Ellifrits -T- Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd Pl, CU-07-065 CONSENT AGENDA Appointment: Airport Advisory Committee Renton City Council Minutes Page 279 Kevie Russell, 2906 NE 7th St, Renton, 98056, spoke on the topic of the vacation of a portion of· Index Pl. NE. He objected to the City's retainage of a 15-foot-wide strip, which is to be used for a walkway, out of the east portion of the right-of-way that is to be vacated. He noted the existence of a pedestrian right-of-way one building Jot away from his house, saying that two parallel walkways arc not necessary. Pointing out that the vacation will make an unattractive, junk-car and litter-attracting area, a productive area, Mr. Russell requested that the Council equally divide the right-of-way. Howard McOmber, 425 Olympia Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, displayed photographs of the ponion of Index Pl. NE under consideration for vacation. Mr. McOmber asked Council to vacate the entire area and to accelerate the process. He stated that Index Pl. NE is not an asset for the Highlands neighborhood and objected to the current proposal to retain a 15-foot-wide easement for a pedestnan right-of-way when another pedestrian walkway already exists near the vacation area. (See page 281 and 283 for further discussion on this matter.) 'Newton Ellifrits, 4218 SE 3rd PL, Renton, 98059, expressed his opposition to T-Mobile's proposal to locate a cell phone tower in his neighborhood. Mr. Ellifrits also asked if there were any ordinances restricting the placement of cell , phone towers in residential neighborhoods. !city Attorney Warren commented that the Environmental Review Committee is 1 currently reviewing the application for the cell phone tower. He indicated that a j decision from the Development Services Director should be available within the j next couple of wi..'ck:-;. 1 Chief Administrative Onicer Covington stated that an ordinance does not exist , that specifically prohibits monopoles from residential neighborhoods, but noted , that staff reviews each application for potential impacts to neighborhoods. I Councilmembcr Cunnan reflected on the past and present efforts of Council and 1 staff to enforce rules regarding cell phone towers as allowed by Federal regulations. He stated his assumption that companies applying for these types of permits would know that placement of monopoles in commercial areas was · preferred over re~idential areas. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. As requested by Councilmember Persson, item 6.e. was removed for separate consideration. Mayor Keolkcr reappointed the following individuals to the Airport Advisory Committee for three year terms expiring on 5/7/20 I 0: Highlands neighborhood representative Michael O'Halloran, 4420 SE 4th St., Renton, 98059, primary; North Renton neighborhood representative Richard Zwicker, 446 Pelly Ave. N., Renton, 98057, primary; Renton Hill/Monterey Terrace neighborhood representatives M ichacl Schultz, 150 Monterey Dr. NE, Renton, 98056, primary, and Dina Davis, 433 Cedar Ave. S,, Renton, 98057, alternate; Airport Leaseholders representatives Michael O'Leary, 22823 NE 54th St., Redmond, 98053, primary, and Frank Marshall, 3521 SW 327th St., Federal Way, 98023, alternate; and Aiq1ort-at-Large representative Diane Paholke, 325 Edmonds Ave. SE, Renton, 98056, primary. Council concur. August 6, 2007 Added Resolution #3898 Airport: 2008 Runway Paving Design, FAA Grant Human Services: Summer Lunch & Housing Repair Assistance Programs, Budget Amend Utility: Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration, King Conservation District Number 9, Budget Amend NEW BUSINESS Solid Waste: Sustainable Solid Waste Collection Pilot Program Renton City Council Minutes Page 272 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a Federal Aviation Administration grant for the engineering and design phase of the 2008 airport runway paving project. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUI\CIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 8/13/2007 for second and final reading: An ordinance was read amending the 2007 General Fund Budget to appropriate $37,734 for the Summer Lunch and Housing Repair Assistance programs, which are funded by grant revenues. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL REAJ2]NG ON 8/13/2007. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending the 2007 Budget by increasing the amount of funds in the Surface Water revenue account and expenditure account by $50,000 pursuant to the Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration project agreement with the King Conservation District Number 9. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 8/13/2007. CARRIED. In response to Council member Com1an's questions pertaining to citizen comments regarding the Sustainable Solid Waste Collection pilot program, Solid Waste Coordinator Knight explained that the five-month pilot program, which nms from August 13 to December 31, is being conducted only in the Glencoe and Tiffany Park general neighborhoods. She expressed her concern that by placing the pilot program's information on the City's website, confusion may occur for regular solid waste customers who are not in the pilot area. Therefore, to prewnt confusion, a specific website for the pilot participants was launched. Ms. Knight indicated that a link to that specific website will he placed on the City's website. Responding lo Councilmember Clawson's inquiries, Ms. Knight reviewed the pilot program's collection schedule, food waste disposal, and container sizes. She stated that data collected from the survey given at the end of the pilot program will guide decisions about the City's future solid waste contract. Transportation: Permit-Parking Councilmember Persson recommended listing the permit-only parking hours on Hours Listing on Parking Lot , the parking signs at the City's parking lot located behind the RAYS building on Signs S. 3rd St. Planning: Low Impact Development Regulations AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Gitchel -T- Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd Pl, CU-07-065 Pointing out that the City is using older methods to handle stormwater runoff, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. In response to the comment by Chuck Gitchel, 4401 SE 3rd Pl., Renton, 98059, Councilmembcr Persson assured that Mr. Gitchel is not wasting Council's time by expressing his concerns regarding the potential placement ofa monopole in 1 his neighborhood. August 6, 2007 Citizen Comment: Persson - Index Pl NE, A&D Quality Construction Company, VAC- 07-001 Citizen Comment: Gitchel -T- Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd Pl, CU-07-065 Citizen Comment: Mears -T- Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd Pl, CU-07-065 Citizen Comment: Demps - Index Pl NE, A&D Quality Construction Company, V AC- 07-001 CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 7/23/2007 CAG: 07-134, NE 4th St/Hoquiam Ave NE Signal Improvement, Transtech Electric Renton City Council Minutes Page 267 Councilmember Briere suggested that Mr. McOmber (who is a member of the Highlands Task Force) bring forward the topic of pedestrian walkways for discussion by the task force. Terry Persson, 2821 NE 8th Pl., Renton, 98059, spoke on the topic of the vacation of a portion of Index Pl. NE. He displayed photographs and a map showing public walkways and a public use area that already exists in the area. Mr. Persson expressed support for Mr. Russell's original request to vacate the street, saying that an additional pedestrian right-of-way is not necessary. Chuck Gitchel. 440 I SE 3rd Pl., Renton, 98059, stated that T-Mobile is proposing to place a 60-foot cell phone tower near his house. He expressed concerns regarding the radiation hazard and the reduction of the value of his I property. Mr. Gitchel noted that nothing has been done since he last spoke to \ Council on the matter. j Mayor Keolker reported that the proposal is still going through the \ administrati\·c process. Doug Mears, 430X SE 3rd Pl., Renton, 98059, expressed his opposition to T- Mobile's proposal to locate a cell phone tower in his neighborhood. He voiced concerns about the electromagnetic radiation and the negative effect the tower . will have on property rnlues. · Councilmember Persson pointed out that if Council takes any type of action at this time, Council may be precluded from acting on the matter in the future if the issue is ultimately appealed to the Council. Mayor Keolker reviewed the administrative conditional use permit process for this project. Assistant City Attorney Fontes noted that the Administration is proceeding with its review and decision on the matter, which is expected to be released in a few weeks. Keith Demps. 2308 :\JC 24th St., Renton, 98056, spoke on the issue of his request to vacate a portion of Index Pl. NE. He indicated that he already went through the rncation process, which included obtaining the adjacent property owner's signature on the petition (Kevie Russell). Mr. Demps expressed concern that he \\'ill have to start the process over again because of the adjacent property owner's concerns, and the City's decision to retain right-of-way for a trail. Councilmember Corman assured Mr. Demps that he will not have to start the process over again. He indicated that the Council still has flexibility to modify the vacation and needs time to resolve the questions surrounding the matter. Councilmember Briere assured that the Planning and Development Committee will review the matter this week. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request ofCouncilmember Palmer, items 6.e. and 6.f. were removed for separate consideration. Approval of Council mecting minutes of 7/23/2007. Council concur. City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/31/2007 for CAG-07-134, NE 4th St./Hoquiam Ave. NE Signal Improvement; three bids; engineer's estimate $279,573.53: and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Transtech Electric, Inc., in the amount of$289,295. Council concur. City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Vr . ""'Iv' '/'!ov COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 10, 2007 APPLICANT: T-Mabile USA PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dina PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Mononole in SE 3'' Pl R-0-W PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 104 snuare feet BUILDING AREA lorossl: NIA LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3'' Place WORK ORDER NO: 77772 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The pro1ect site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mora Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Ear1h Housinn M Aesthetics Water Liaht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shore/me Use Utili/1es Animals Transportalion Environmental Health Public Sen1ices Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /, C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with pa,ticufar attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal , I -/ ' . /-,/~.// / :)/ (_<',(,(~. J, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ) .-:, / I /,?-, July 23, 2007 Resolution #3895 CAG: 01-155, Maple Valley Hwy (SR-169) HOV/Queue Jump Phase 2, WSDOT NEW BUSINESS Development Services: Clover Creek Homeowners Association, Building Practices & City Inspections Development Services: Wireless Communications Facilities Regulations Budget: Position Requests AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Slaughter - I-Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd Pl,. CU-07- 065 EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ADJOURNMENT Recorder: Michele Neumann July 23, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 259 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute supplements to conrract CAG-01-155 with the Washington State Department of Transportation for the construction of the Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-I69) HOV /Queue .Jump Improvements Phase 2. MOVED BY BRJERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. In response to Councilmember Palmer's inquiry regarding the status of the investigation regarding the building practices and City inspections associated with the Clover Creek subdivision, City Attorney Warren stated that a response has been drafted and is forthcoming. Councilmember Persson inquired as to whether the City's cell phone tower regulations should be reviewed. Councilmember Briere noted that the ordinance was reviewed not too long ago. Councilmember Clawson suggested having the City Attorney investigate whether there have been any changes in the law. City Attorney Warren briefly reviewed the issue, pointing out that any changes to the law. particularly those by the Federal Communications Commission, have not been to the advantage of cities and citizens. Councilmember Briere suggested that a briefing on the City's regulations occur at a future Committee of the Whole meeting. Councilmcmber Persson asked to see all of the positions that are requested in the City's budget. Van Slaughter, 4409 SE 3rd Pl., Renton, 98059, expressed concern about the proposed cell phone tower at SE 3rd Pl., saying that he does not agree with where the tower is to be placed. MOVED BY NELSON. SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES TO DISCUSS LITICiATION WITH NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING BE ADJOURNED WHEN THE EXECUTIVE SESSIO's IS ADJOURNED. CARRIED. Time: 8:11 p.m. Executive session was conducted. There was no action taken. The executive session and the Council meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ~-l&Ja~ Bonnie I. Walton. Cv!C. City Clerk Ju(y 23, 2007 CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 7/16/2007 Appointment: Advisory Commission on Diversity CAG: 07-104, 2007 Street Overlay with Curb Ramps, Lakeside Industries Plat: Monterey Place II, NE 16th St, FP-07-040 Finance: Capital Expenditure Reimbursement from Utility Bond Revenue Vacation: Index Pl NE, A&D Quality Construction Company, VAC-07-001 CAG: 01-155, Maple Valley Hwy (SR-169) HOV/Queue Jump Phase 2, WSDOT CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Comment: Gitchel - Wireless Communications Facilities Regulations Added Citizen Comment: Various - T-Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd PI,_<;:U:07- 065 Renton City Council Minutes Page 257 Council and an aide to King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn is looking into the matter_ He encouraged the City to take action on this noise problem. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of7 /16/2007. Council concur. Mayor Keolker appointed the following individuals to the Advisory Commission on Diversity: Serena Aquino, 4317 SE 4th Pl., Renton, 98059 (term expires 12/31/2009); Audrey Godwin, 913 S. 32nd St., Renton, 98055 (term expires 12/3 \ /2009); Raymond Lam, 511 Rosario Pl. NE, Renton, 98059 (to fill the unexpired term, 12/31/2007, of Kelly Roberts who resigned); and Erica Rehberg. I .JOOS. Eagle Ridge Dr., R-1119, Renton, 98055 (term expires l 2/31/2009). Refer to Community Services Committee. City Clerk repo11ed bid opening on 7/17/2007 for CAG-07-104, 2007 Street Overlay with Curb Ramps; three bids; engineer's estimate $846,842.21; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, Lakeside Industries, in the amount of$856,702.77. Council concur. Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the Monterey Place II Final Plat; two single-family lots on an 11,459 square foot parcel located at NE 16th St. and Monterey Ave. NE. Council concur. (See page 258 for resolution.) Finance and Information Services Department requested authorization to reimburse cenain cap,tal expenditures from the proceeds of the sale of utility revenue bonds to be issued in the future. Refer to Finance Committee. Technical Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the vacation of a portion of Index Pl. NE, north of NE 7th St. (petitioner A&D Quality Construction, LLC), and requested Council accept the appraisal and set compensation at S57JOO for the right-of-way. Council concur. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of two supplements to CAG-01-155, agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation for Maple Valley Hwy. (SR-169) HOV/Queue Jump Improvements Phase 2, regarding cost sharing terms and adding $2,500,000 in construction funding and construction management services. Council concur. (See page 259 for resolution.) MOVED BY :<ELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT /\GE!\DA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Correspondence was read from Chuck Gitchel, 4401 SE 3rd St., Renton, 98059, 1 requesting modification to the cell phone tower regulations, claiming that i towers hinder prope11y owners' ability to sell their homes. ,! Correspondence was emered into the record from the following parties I expressing concerns regarding the proposal to place a T-Mobilc monopole at SE 3rd Pl.: James Scott Daljleish; Bruce and Ruth Rutledge; Charles D. Gitchel and Frances L. Gitchcl; Stephen T. Ames, Prudential NW Realty; Bonnie Watson, Keller Williams Realty; Joyce M. Crock; Doug Mears; Pauline Blue; Anne Miller; Gail and Anthony Knell; Cory and Lori Foster; Joel and Heidy Barnett; J.E. Telquist; Dennis and Cindy Shimmel; James and Kimberly Stark; July 23, 2007 Citizen Comment: Draper - Northwest Pipeline UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning & Development Committee Planning: Highlands Task Force, Phase II Finance Committee Finance: Vouchers RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution #3894 Plat: Monterey Place II, NE 16th St, FP-07-040 Renton City Council Minutes Page 258 \ Terry Claugh; Roger E. Berry and Vickey L. Berry; Joel G. Smith; John Megow; John Ehle; Stephen Northcraft; and Michael and Debby Ekness. I MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER ALL / CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE CELL TOWER ISSUE TO THE • ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. [ Correspondence was read from Del Draper, Williams, PO Box 58900, Salt Lake City, UT, 84 I 58, providing information regarding the Northwest Pipeline, a high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline, which crosses through Renton and is operated by Williams. MOVED BYLAW, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR A BRIEFING. CARRIED. Councilmernber Law clarified that he wants a briefing from staff regarding the pipelines going through Renton that are vulnerable in the event of a major disaster. Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following appointments to the Highlands Phase II Task Force: I. Robert Bonner, Planning Commission 2. Howard McComber, Highlands Neighborhood Association 3. Penny EskenaLi, Property Owner 4. Jennifer Hawton, Property Owner 5. Evelyn Mitchell, Property Owner 6. Roxanne Johnson. Property Owner 7. Sandel DeMastus, Renter 8. LeKechia Jones, Renter 9. Scott Anderson, St. Andrew Presbyterian Church I 0. Marcie l\faX\,clL Renton School District Board 11. Steven Beck, Business Owner/Property Owner 12. Jerri Broeffle Jr., Business Owner/Resident/Properly Owner 13. Kirn Howard, Business Owner/Resident/Property Owner 14. Due Tran, Business Owner 15. Vacant, Renton I lousing Authority Board 16. Chuong Brian Do, (Alternate) Property Owner MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMJTTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Mayor Keolker recognized those task force members present in the audience and thanked them for their willingness to serve. Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 26 I 797 -262336 and two wire transfers totaling $3,429,584.35; and approval of315 Payroll Vouchers, zero wire transfers, and 723 direct deposits totaling $1,384,003.47. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED fl Y I ,AW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: A resolution was read approving the Monterey Place TT Final Plat consisting of l l ,459 square feet located between Monterey Ave. NE and Monterey Ct. NE and NE 16th St. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Tl IE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. .. July 18, 2007 Renton City Council, lo rre.sponden J.;3,:1,007 ~~ /Cf))' Of RENTON JUL 18 2001 As per the attached letter, I'm requesting that your cell tower regulations need to be modified. I would like this topic be added to your agenda for the next meeting, Monday, July 23'd. Chuck Gitchel 4401 SE 3'd St Renton, WA 98059 425-255-0077 chuckandfrantest@comcast.net July 17, 2007 Charles and Frances Gitchel 4401 SE 3rd Pl Renton, WA 98059-5140 Dear Chuck and Fran: Per your request, I am writing you this letter to render my professional opinion concerning the marketing effects of a cell tower on or near your property. Licensed in Real Estate in 1975, and a broker since 1979, I have had many experiences including being an expert witness in court, liquidation of large receivership estates for the courts, as well as owned and operated my own firm, and managed others. During the 32+ years I have been in the field of Real Estate, I have achieved and been awarded CRS designation (Certified Residential Specialist) by the National Association of Realtors since 1999, which is only held by some 25,000 agents across the country. I have been ranked in the top 1% internationally since 1996 while with Coldwell Banker, and Top GOLD Producer since being bought-out by Prudential, both the very top ranks achievable. My full credentials are listed below. During the last few years, the saturation of interest and activity in the arena of real estate has become higher than ever. The advent of increased access to information through the internet has made the industry a full disclosure enterprise. Full disclosure is in at least two forms: (1) Seller's disclosure of what they know to be defective about their property; (2) Buyer's discovery of defective aspects of a property by way of inspection and other forms of due diligence. The latter of the two means of disclosure poses the most difficulty for you in the sale of your home should there be a tower placed on it: discovery. This process includes the Buyer being able to research all aspects of possible threats to their quality of life should they purchase your place. Controversy on the internet and in libraries concerning EMF and other forms of radiation, radiation fall-out, and rads is as wide-spread as the topics themselves. Whether or not there is a direct threat to people's health, the perception of the risk involved is of significance. As you well know, your perception of things is your connection to reality for you -right? Well, to be honest, this is true for most everyone. A buyer who perceives the risk, whether real or imagined, will usually avoid it, which means no sale for you if you are trying to sell, regardless of the price, because life is not worth money to most people -there's no exchange rate. This is not the whole story, however. When it comes to Buyers and Agents, it is the Agent's responsibility to point out known defects or possible defects that would likely be in question even before showing the house to a prospective purchaser. What this means to you is, you won't even get showings as a result of the potential risks to health in the ownership as perceived by the professionals who "weed-out" properties that would not be to a Buyer's liking, or would pose potential risks to the Buyer and/or that Agent who could be sued later for what he or she should have known, even if the Buyer did not know at the time. My advice to you is to not allow the tower to go on or near your property, to assure you highest and best use and ultimate value from your property. Should you wish to have '. l : If me further attest to these factors, I will gladly assist you. The tower presents a very real blockage to your ability to sell your home at any price. « Very truly yours, Stephen T. Ames, CRS Associate Broker Prudential NW Realty Assoc. LLC 622 S. 32oth St. Federal Way, WA 98003 0: 253.765.2327 C: 206.498.2637 F: 253.839. 7066 CREDENTIALS -Real Estate Sales License 1975 -Associate Broker of Real Estate License 1979 NAR Certified Residential Specialist (CRS) -Certified 1031 Exchange Specialist -Certified Previews® & Luxury Properties Specialist -Chairman's Circle Office Top Agent 96-06 -Chairmen's Circle Gold Producer 96-06 NAR / WAR / SKAR Realtor® Member Member NWMLS (Nation's Largest MLS) -Member CBA (Commercial Broker's Assoc) • 7-23-2007 Correspondence was received late this afternoon in response to an administrative comment period, expressing concern regarding a T-Moble application for installation of a monopole within the right-of-way adjacent to 4401 SE 3rd Pl. The 22 letters are from: James Scott Daljleish Bruce and Ruth Rutledge Charles D. Gitchel and Frances L. Gitchel Stephen T. Ames, Prudential NW Realty Bonnie Watson, Keller Williams Realty Joyce M. Crock Doug Mears Pauline Blue Anne Miller Gail & Anthony Knell Cory & Lori Foster Joel & Heidy Barnett J. E. Telquist Dennis & Cindy Shimmel James & Kimberly Stark Terry Claugh Vickey Berry Joel Smith John Megow John Ehle Stephen Northcraft Michael & Debby Ekness T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place Right-of-Way 1. 6/29 Application files for proposed monopole 2. 7/24 End of 14-day public comment period Residents must submit their comments in writing to Jill Ding July 23, 2007 CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3. 8/6 Project scheduled to go before Environmental Review Committee for an environmental determination Administrative decision on the Conditional Use Permit will likely be issued concurrently with the environmental determination. 4. 14-day appeal period 5. If appealed, the appeal will be heard by the Hearing Examiner, and a public hearing conducted. 6. After the Hearing Examiner's decision, another 14-day appeal period will commence. 7. If the Hearing Examiner's decision is appealed, the appeal will go to City Council and probably referred to the Planning & Development Committee. From: To: Date: Subject: Julia, Jennifer Henning Ding, Jill; Medzegian, Julia 7/13/2007 1 :00:36 PM Re: Fwd: Councilmembers Jill is out until Monday, and I had another call from Michael OHalloran yesterday on this same issue. The project was accepted by the City, and a public comment period commenced on July 10th. This comment period runs 14-days or until Tuesday, 24th. This project is subject to an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and SEPA environmental review. An existing (approx 38-foot high) PSE power pole will be changed out with an approximate 60-foot high pole that would have PSE facilities and T-Mobile facilities. A vault would be underground in the right-of- way for the related equipment. We have made Mr. Megow and Mr. OHalloran parties of record. We will forward materials received by the public thus far, plus black & white copies of the photo-simulations of the facility. >» Julia Medzegian 07/13/07 9:49 AM »> Jill, Can you please enlighten me regarding the process for this issue? Councilmembers wanted me to make sure that Mr. Megow will have ample opportunity to share his concerns. Also, could we get a copy of the information that was sent out to interested parties? Thanks for your help, Julia »> Citizens to Council 7/13/07 9:38 AM>» CC: Watts, Neil • JUL 1 7 2007 RENTON Ci1)' Corn11cil NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: July 10, 2007 LUA0?-065 CU-A, ECF T-Mobile Monopole ln SE 3'0 Place R-0-W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant i'.S requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of 8 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and assoClated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwellmg unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access tu the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE id Place OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE {DNS): As the lead Agency, the City of Renton has deterrnined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely t::i r·esult from the proposed project Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated rnto a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the 1ssuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 29, 2007 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 10. /007 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Foy, Wireless Facilities, Inc.; Tel: (206} 574-6328; Emf: kevin.foy@wfinet.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Conditional Use Permit Other Permits which may be required: Building and Right-of-Way Permits Requested Studies: NIA Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Planning/Building!Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 NIA The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the City of Renton Cornprer1cnsive Land Use Map and Residential -8 (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map Envrro11rncntal (S[PA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate 3RD & ANACORTES SE04619A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA98059 T ~-.. ·-,,-'.\'.' I. > 7 ;.·, 19807 NORTH CREEK PKWY N 1ti\i<::IL: BOTHELL WA 98011 ~;1;:,:.,, OFFrc:= it.25'1 39S-7601'J i;/~,~ E..~.r;;;::;;,~-0:.-~,~1<-;,,:::·r ,,.._;..::c:.·-.~~"i~ ,--,-_.-~. '\",., '~·· .,, a . ~ '•\'. ,,, .. , '\ ''.'.\i-:::'.. ;;.;,-.• -~:), ·t·· ·~ . ,,'.(-:· ,, .;_. ' .. , ~.· ' ,r,t:;( ,-,-i. ' 3RD &Al )RTES SE04-, 9A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA98059 EXISTiNG PHOT0#1 T 19807 NORTH CREEK PKWY N IJOTHaL, WA 98011 OFFICE (425) 398-7600 I / I . . . JRD & AN/ nes SE04 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA 98059 EXISTING PHOT0#2 PlttiM se ~811 #~jlt lWPKING sol.itl-1,Wgif ,,,,.. -.:_·- -,-,, ,·'·.: ,,.,. .. ; ·----,'.,"..'. 19807 NORTH CREEK PKWY N BOTHELL WA96011 OFFICE {425) 398-7600 I I I I \ \, ----.,~-, '"'\ ,\ , 3RD & AN >RTES SE04_ .~A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA 98059 PROPOSED PHOT0#2 T 19807 NORTII CREEK PK\VY N ~ BOTHELL WA98011 li OFFICE {425) 396-760~ 3RD &ANAC TES SE0461 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON. WA 98059 PROPOSED PHOT0#1 T . 19807 NORTli CREEK PKWY N BOTHELL WA 98011 OFFICE (425i 398-7600 3RD & AN iRTES SEO• A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON WA 98059 EXISTING PHOT0#3 ./ fRQM$£l~ f'LACE LOOKING N(i)RfHcEi\ST . -.---_. _-·-. __ , ... ,-. ·,_. --' . . _,-_ -, -·· ., .·.-.. ~-,- T 19807 NORTH CREEK PKWY N !JO THELL WA 98011 OFFICE (425) 398-760,J . ' 3RD &ANA1 TES SE046 · 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON WA 98059 PROPOSED PHOT0#3 ~-·-~c.. -=-·-- / l, · . T 19807 NORHi CREEK PK\l'\fY N BOTHELL WA 96011 OFFICE (425) 398-7600 .;c-:i,. 'J 'Ti< • • Zoning // / /' I/ / )t' . I , ' t;(-1~<"7,i .,,?, '~ ,, ~ -'~,~ ·:· ...... ~ ": '. . ~ ~·· ~,, . ~:\:<.'· .. ~,. < PROPOSED VAL/LT WITH LANDSCAPING 3RD & ANACORTES SE04619A 4401 SE 3RD PLACE REl1(T9l,(1,I. WA9.6fll59 :r.· :.:.; .. 19ll07 NORTli CREEK PKW'>' N s.o:ni:ELL. WA 98011 :;,.~~~!PE (425) 398-7600 .. ·:;:::,, . ' ·-.IJ-······.··.·,,, .. ~ • July 23, 2007 Jill K. Ding, Crtv OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 CITY &'JBi!/l~EBFFICE Regarding the proposed site ofa T-Mobile Monopole, to be located at the corner of SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Ave SE. I am a neighbor of the Gitchcls, even though I live a block away at 407 Anacortes Ave SE. From my house you can see the corner of the proposed T-Mobile Monopole. I am appalled that you would even consider having a company come in and put in an unsightly pole, sticking out like a sore thumb, for all to see, even from my house, the view would be unsightly. A lot of us have lived in Heather Downs, raised our families, and now have grandchildren, or will have grandchildren, visiting and possibly playing in the streets nearby. Who knows what the health affects may be from having such a pole so close by. We are a Family Neighborhood, not an Industrial Park. I'm sure there are other areas in the Highlands where such a pole would be better suited. What's wrong with putting it at the end of Union Avenue, in the tree line, make it look like a tree or something and not have it stick out in plain sight. What's wrong with up at the new Heritage Park, up on Union Avenue? I'm sure there's room in the back, among the trees where it wouldn't be such an unsightly eye sore. I wouldn't purchase a house if I had to look at that T-Mobile Monopole everytime 1 went out or looked out my front door. I don't think any perspective home buyer would even consider buying in this neighborhood, with that ugly pole sticking out, staring you in the face. I, as a homeowner, and resident of this neighborhood, ask that you reconsider relocating :~~':"':~:;;:;,~ /h~it""./'I ~ ' J/'lnt <'$ .5,•&l'f £;7#,?/</5./ 407 Anacortes Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 CC: Renton City Council, Denis Law • CITYOFR JN JUL 2 3 2007 1//9) 0( RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE '-· ~ave OJ1 t>uv f_V'ofe 1<_+1 V e.._}t,(_es /s CLV\ o-H,,e r it; i' tJ· ' \µ e_ +ti ; 11 f Z a, b e:f! t> r Sfa::> f • )t,f2.-yt7v<r Tp-U)efe wp,u_fJ; __ be_ ~ I ._-, . ·~~ :The: SOU,+~ end t>t-J,Jr1t'crn Ave. ;'1 i+he-frees, rY\x.~e-'it )oor.-}/J<e. a.- -A--ree.-\ ; f<.e_ -t~, e i 0\ o i >1 ~av( ~ ~o,i N r A , : W e__. u r1 e y rn -h r,:: c 6' ;td, . re Ch'\ s t')e e__ tK e...-s Flf-e ~, .'V~ 7WC (<-, \))o-u_,) &_ 'f C>u_ ~<2ui f--I -f- ; l (\ v·cn1 r n er1k. ht1l We Do_ 1th,{_ ~ . w~ + '{. 01,{ r C,h (1 Id ~re I'( , ~ c£.. ~q y4+1& ;c..-"1; )tRre-ln E-f f£JSe!i., ~ rAA/DL 't--10"--M._ .. ; 'r°tjs, We J~+-~/0 k S6), ~-a.c£d2~ if (-2At~~,K.,- f;;,S-~5.!? -9t 3_5'- • ' I~ i,W. I REcelvEd JUL 2 3 2007 RENTON Ciry CouNcil 1/11/~1 Ce.-11 ~e -r;wr:~ : kw·; , qr,r ·' . , -, '"U' ,.I .. J'i)• \ ,J .~ . ·-. .. ' • July 18, 2007 Jill K Ding, We are responding to the T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3.-d Place R-0-W CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 CITY c'l1iifi~,~E8FF,cE This tower will not be placed near our home without the City of Renton or T-Mobile purchasing our home at today's value! We Charles & Frances Gitchel live at 4401 SE 3'ct Place. The proposed location of this Antenna is in the corner of our front yard. Our house is not big and fancy, but it is our home. We live in a neighborhood where there aren't any sidewalks. Men, women and children walk and play in the street. The proposed location of this Antenna is where a city sidewalk should be. My wife purchased this home in 1966 and raised her children here. I grew up in Renton and went to Renton High School. During the Vietnam War I enlisted in the Air Force (Active Duty) and was trained in electronics as a Radar Repairman and later in the Air National Guard Reserves as a Radio-Telephone Communications Technician. 1 was taught extensively the dangers of frequency radiation. I talked to Stephen Ames, CRS, our Real Estate Broker, about the affects of this proposed cell tower on our property value. His letter is attached. Listed is his long list of Real Estate Credentials, including him being an expert witness in coun. In his letter, when he refers to the radiation issue, he states "A buyer who perceives the risk, whether real or imagined, will usually avoid it, which means no sale for you if you are trying to sell, regardless of the price, because life is not worth money to most people -there's no exchange rate." It is very evident that the Renton City Hall needs to be educated on the health and financial consequences of these towers. I was taught that frequency radiation greatly increases the risk of medical problems like cancer, brain tumors, birth defects, sterilization ... the list goes on. The question has and still is "How much is too much?" In the past, some military men stood near antennas because it made them warm. Further research led to the invention of the microwave oven. Microwave ovens are built with a metal casing and screening in the oven door to help block the radiation from harming you. -Microwave is at a different frequency than are cell phones, radio and television, but they all use frequency radiation. The dangers exist in all cases. 1 will use a microwave oven as an example because it is something people can relate to. -The amount of danger from frequency radiation is directly related to the power output of the antenna. Example: If you place a glass of water in a high-powered microwave oven, it will boil in about 2 minutes. But if you place that same glass of water in a cheap low powered microwave oven, it will take 3 or more minutes to boil. -The amount of danger from frequency radiation is also determined by how far you are from the antenna. The closer you are, the more power you receive. A good example is the signal bars on your cell phone. -In the water example the water boiled sooner if the oven had more power, but the water still boils at a lower power level. This shows that the danger from frequency radiation is also determined by the length of time you're being radiated at any given power level. As an example: You can put a cold glass of water in a high powered microwave for 5 or more seconds, the water will still be cold. It wasn't radiated long enough to have any noticeable affect. Cell Phone towers are transmitting to hundreds or thousands of cell phones continuously. If you are too close to these towers, it is like having you and your children being completely covered with transmitting cell phones, all the time, day & night. It doesn't end until you get away from the antenna. But how close is too close? What effect will it have even at low levels? Who knows? The water still boils! Cell phone companies only care about the bottom line. Are you gullible enough to believe them? Would you take that chance with your children or grandchildren's health? My wife and I will not! No responsible person would gamble with anyone's lives! A neighbor gave us this letter from Bonnie Watson at Keller Williams Realty. Her letter is attached. She states in her letter: "It is my opinion that the marketable value of the properties located within this area would be affected dramatically." Our Broker, Stephen Ames, has a lot of information in his attached letter. He concluded it with: "The tower presents a very real blockage to your ability to sell your home at any price." Do you understand what he's saying? Anyone, with any common sense, would know that placing a 60-foot tower in your front yard, 45 feet from your house, would lower your property value. But he's saying our house would be worthless! This insanity needs to end. City Hall is supposed to protect it citizens. We were let down. Our back is against the wall. The regulations on cell tower locations needs to be modified so that no one else has to go through the many sleepless nights, the mental anguish and having the runs. These towers should all look like fir trees and be placed in wooded areas, greenbelts or water run- off holding ponds. Even City Parks, where the exposure would be for a limited amount of time, would be better than destroying neighborhoods and radiating families 24 hours a day. There are wooded areas 2 blocks south and another 3 blocks east of our home. So why here? The wooded area at the south end of Union Avenue is only 3 blocks away. Heritage Park is just up the street. So why here? If you say the law will not allow you to place it in these areas ... Change the laws! Any trees that are disturbed, require the cell companies to replace them. If you are one of those that say you can't disturb the animals, your priorities are in the wrong order. Your saying it's OK to put us through hell but you can't bother the Rats in the forest? City ofRenton's regulations on cell phone towers has allowed T-Mobile to apply for a permit to place this tower just 45 feet from our homel Would you let them? Would you want an ugly, radiating antenna in your front yard this close to your children? Would you like your home equity stolen from you? Of course not I Does this situation fall into the category of"To Serve and Protect the Public"? It was suggested to me, that Rats from the cell phone industry, might have influenced City Hall. I ask you, do you represent the citizens of Renton? Or do the Rats have priority? Please end this "NIGHTMARE!" Cha& Gi~ances L. Gitchel CC: Renton City Council, Denis Law, • July 17, 2007 Charles and Frances Gitchel 4401 SE 3rd Pl Renton, WA 98059-5140 Dear Chuck and Fran: CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Per your request, I am writing you this letter to render my professional opinion concerning the marketing effects of a cell tower on or near your property. Licensed in Real Estate in 1975, and a broker since 1979, I have had many experiences including being an expert witness in court, liquidation of large receivership estates for the courts, as well as owned and operated my own firm, and managed others. During the 32+ years I have been in the field of Real Estate, I have achieved and been awarded CRS designation (Certified Residential Specialist) by the National Association of Realtors since 1999, which is only held by some 25,000 agents across the country. I have been ranked in the top 1% internationally since 1996 while with Coldwell Banker, and Top GOLD Producer since being bought-out by Prudential, both the very top ranks achievable. My full credentials are listed below. During the last few years, the saturation of interest and activity in the arena of real estate has become higher than ever. The advent of increased access to information through the internet has made the industry a full disclosure enterprise. Full disclosure is in at least two forms: (1) Seller's disclosure of what they know to be defective about their property; (2) Buyer's discovery of defective aspects of a property by way of inspection and other forms of due diligence. The latter of the two means of disclosure poses the most difficulty for you in the sale of your home should there be a tower placed on it: discovery. This process includes the Buyer being able to research all aspects of possible threats to their quality of life should they purchase your place. Controversy on the internet and in libraries concerning EMF and other forms of radiation, radiation fall-out, and rads is as wide-spread as the topics themselves. Whether or not there is a direct threat to people's health, the perception of the risk involved is of significance. As you well know, your perception of things is your connection to reality for you -right? Well, to be honest, this is true for most everyone. A buyer who perceives the risk, whether real or imagined, will usually avoid it, which means no sale for you if you are trying to sell, regardless of the price, because life is not worth money to most people -there's no exchange rate. This is not the whole story, however. When it comes to Buyers and Agents, it is the Agent's responsibility to point out known defects or possible defects that would likely be in question even before showing the house to a prospective purchaser. What this means to you is, you won't even get showings as a result of the potential risks to health in the ownership as perceived by the professionals who "weed-out" properties that would not be to a Buyer's liking, or would pose potential risks to the Buyer and/or that Agent who could be sued later for what he or she should have known, even if the Buyer did not know at the time. My advice to you is to not allow the tower to go on or near your property, to assure you highest and best use and ultimate value from your property. Should you wish to have me further attest to these factors, I will gladly assist you. The tower presents a very real blockage to your ability to sell your home at any price. Very truly yours, Stephen T. Ames, CRS Associate Broker Prudential NW Realty Assoc. LLC 622 S. 320th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 0: 253. 765.2327 C: 206.498.2637 F: 253.839.7066 CREDENTIALS -Real Estate Sales License 1975 -Associate Broker of Real Estate License 1979 -NAR Certified Residential Specialist (CRS) -Certified 1031 Exchange Specialist -Certified Previews® & Luxury Properties Specialist -Chairman's Circle Office Top Agent 96-06 -Chairmen's Circle Gold Producer 96-06 -NAR /WAR/ SKAR Realtor"' Member -Member NWMLS (Nation's Largest MLS) -Member CBA (Commercial Broker's Assoc) JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ,;;'tj;) :.~~!)} ---·-------->-{( .. ;,-/ ________ _ KELLER WILJ,IAMS~I R E L T V ' I'm writing this letter on the behalf of the residents of Heatherdowns regarding the proposed placement of a T-Mobile cell phone tower on the comer of SE 3rd Place & Anacortes A venue. I myself for 17 years owned & lived 5 houses to the west of the proposed cell tower site. I understand my neighbors concerns about a 60 foot monolith being constructed in their small single family one story home residence neighborhood. Especially with the potential of the tower reaching 100 feet is concerning. I am a licensed realtor in the State of Washington and an owner of my Keller Williams Puyallup office. lt is my opinion that the marketable value of the properties located within this area would be affected dramatically. Even though the proposal states that there is no conclusive evidence of environmental impacts of the project that has nothing to do with marketability of a property with a structure of this magnitude standing out like a sore thumb. The one uncontrollable factor in real estate sales is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!!! Constructing a cell phone tower is affecting the location of this quiet neighborhood whether significant environmental impacts or not. Sellers will see an impact on the marketable and sellablc value of their homes. Buyers will see the tower and say, "What is that?" Buyers set the market value of homes. If a buyer has a choice of identical homes, both priced in the $300.()00 range, one with a cell phone tower in close proximity and one without, buyers will choose the home without the tower. Unless the home with the cell phone tower was priced dramatically less. I have seen this time and time again. I feel there are plenty of other suitable locations to build a cell phone tower rather than a small residential neighborhood. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at my numbers listed below. Best regards, Bonnie Watson Keller Williams Realty 615 East Pioneer, Suite #203 Puyallup, WA 983 72 Office #253-848-5304 Cell #253-906-7284 /l1tftn . ,J!1[:11.,11.,L;1?1, iv2~. diL11 · 1.it'. l2~t'!'j · - V CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE J~ a~ee_ ·J)J -~ e0 ,/-11 (!Jul fL4'L UiJL. x. ltnlon ' '-tu"-. "/ J t> dj Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6th FL Doug Mears 4308 SE 3rd PL Renton, WA 98059 ( 425) 235-7964 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Re: INSTALLATION OF I-MOBILE TOWER July, 20, 2007 Dear Ms. Ding: CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE It is with great concern that I learned of T-Mobile's plan to install a new tower at the intersection of SE 3rd PL and Anacortes streets in the Heather Downs neighborhood of the Highlands. When my wife (3 months pregnant at the time) and I were looking to purchase a home in the fall of 1994, we were looking for a neighborhood free from overhead power lines or other sources of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). A munber of studies had just been concluded around that time which confirmed a very strong correlation between high levels of this radiation and various types of physical ailments, including brain tumors and other types of cancers. While industry argued the study results (naturally), the correlative evidence was, and still is, very compelling. It was compelling enough, in fact, that we wouldn't consider purchasing a home in such close proximity to high-powered lines or towers of any type. Even if it could be proven that the radiation produced by these towers is not harmful (which certainly has not happened yet), the controversy surrounding these towers is commonly known, making homes in close proximity to these towers nearly impossible to sell, or at the very least, impossible to sell at a price close to homes situated away from such towers and high-voltage power sources. Therefore, the damage which will be caused by this tower, ifT-Mobile is allowed to build it, will be economic at the very least; if the various studies about the effects of EMR are correct, the damage done to those living around the tower will be physical as well as economic. In either case, it is a frightening prospect. Of course, I-Mobile can argue that the protests over their proposed new tower are just another example of the "not in my back yard syndrome," and that these towers have to be built somewhere. Yes, they DO have to be built somewhere, ifwe want to keep this type of technology, but why do they have to be placed in the middle of residential neighborhood, with streets which are always full of playing children? The people who purchased homes in this neighborhood could NEVER have imagined such a thing would be constructed in such a bizarre location. There are still plenty of wooded areas nearby which could hold such a tower without the risks associated with building the tower (literally) in our front yards. One does not have to be far away from these towers to dramatically reduce the levels of EMR exposure. It is impossible to avoid the highest levels of exposure, however, for the many houses crowded around the proposed tower location. I urge you to reconsider the location of this T-Mobile tower. I have spoken to my neighbors at length about this issue, and I assure you that we are unified in our opposition to it. We have all promised to band together in whatever legal action is needed to stop its construction. We all strongly believe that there is more at stake here than property values. We believe that the health of our families may very well be at stake, and as you know, there is nothing that people will fight harder to protect than their children. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this very important matter. Sincerely, ~f{W Ui-!;}cJ..--- Doug Mears (dougemears@msn.com) cc: Renton City Council Mr. Dennis Law / /i .; Ji ' ; ) / .... l. ! ./ V .I CITY OF RENTON JU,L 2 3 2007 ' \.. · / RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ,_,/ / I / ~ July 19. 2007 Dear Renton City Council, CITY OF REIi/TON JUL .2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We are writing this letter to express our grave concerns regarding the installation of a cell phone tower at 440 I SE 3rd Place. Our foremost concerns are health issues. Regardless of what is directed by federal law, radiation should be a consideration when installation of such a tower affects the health of the general public. The desire for clarity of phone calls should not outweigh the increased health risks to area residents. These towers are unsightly, especially in someone's backyard. There are many areas of the United States where cell towers are made to look like part of the landscape, sometimes in the form of trees. If the tower were "disguised" and located in an area of trees, possibly at the south end of Union Avenue or within the current trees of Heritage Park, the impact on the neighborhood would be greatly reduced. It has been stated that the initial tower would be 60 feet high, with the potential for extensions to reach up to I 00 feet. It is absurd to place a structure of this size in the backyard of a residential home I The City should regulate the maximum height of these towers to reduce the possibility of unlimited extensions. We would encourage the City to explore alternative solutions in regards to the location and appearance of the tower before deciding the outcome of this request. Placing the tower as currently proposed would directly affect the health and property values of area residents. As Renton continues to improve its regional image, it would be a mistake to allow structures of this type to hinder the positive image we are working so hard to achieve. We strongly recommend that you deny the request for placement ofa cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3rd Place. Sincerely, arvru_ ~ Anne Miller ~J!lfa Ken Miller 4415 SE 4ili St Renton, WA 98059 425-271-7969 kmiller@connectexpress.com DEAR SIRS CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 4425 SE 3 PLACE RENTON, WA IN REGARDS TO THE CELL PHONE TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 4401 SE 3PL. YOUR DECISION TO INST ALL SUCH A TOWER IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHTBOURHOOD CLUSTERED WITH HOMES NEAR SUCH A POLE IS STUPIDITY IN ITSELF. YOU HA VE ADJACENT PROPERTY ~'ID IT INCLUDES TREES AND IS NEAR THE CANYON. THAT LOCATION IS FAR BETTER SUITED AS IT WILL BE PARTIALLY HIDDEN FROM DIRECT VIEW AND NOT ON THE STREET NEXT TO A NEIGHBOUR'S BEDROOM. THE TOWER WILL BE UGLY AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND WILL BRING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES AS DEMOSTRATED BY OVERHEAD POWER LINES IN OTHER NEIGHBOURHOO YOU SAY YOU CANNOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RADIATION FROM SUCH A TOWER. HOW STUPID THAT STATEMENT IS WHEN THERE IS OTHER PROPERTY AVAILABLE THAT HAS LESS IMPACT OF EVERYDAY LIFE IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD. FOR ONCE USE A BIT OF COl\.1MON SENSE. YOURS GAIL AND ANTHONY KNELL (PROPERTY OWNERS) / ·, 7/20/07 Ms. Jill Ding, CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 8 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter is to inform you of our strong concerns regarding the proposed cell phone tower placement in our neighborhood. W c fear first for our health and well being as nothing good can come from having radiation from the proposed tower engulf our block. As we live only two doors down from the site we feel that our concerns are well founded. The fact that federal law does not allow you to consider the effects of radiation upon our health is most disturbing, but not surprising considering the many poor choices our federal lawmakers have made. With this in mind, we as citizens of Renton must be able to count on our elected leaders to protect us from situations that put us in harms way, whether the federal government cares about us or not. Also, we believe that allowing this unsightly tower within the confines of an established working class neighborhood can only reduce our property values, and in some cases render a home incapable of being sold. A conversation with a friend of ours who is a realtor confirmed our fears of diminished values. Finally, let us be honest with one another. Having a tower such as this in our neighborhood will be an ugly, constant reminder that financial considerations often take precedent over quality of life and consideration for those who do not have the power to stop such a travesty. Ms. Ding, you DO have the power to put a stop to this horrible plan, and with power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Please do not allow our neighborhood, our neighbors, and our families to be subjected to this "experiment". We thank you for your time and consideration. ~ ( lliJ\ ~·~~ o/ry and Lon Foster 4413 S.E. 3rd Pl. Renton, Wa. 98059 Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6"' Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98507 Dear Ms. Ding, Subject: Proposed cell phone tower site on SF 3rd Place, Renton, WA July 18, 2007 CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We live on SE 3rd Place approximately half a block from the proposed site for a T-Mobile cell phone tower. We are writing to express our dissatisfaction with the decision to place a large cell phone tower in such a residential location. In fact, one home owned by Mr. Gitchel, will sit directly under the cell phone lower. Our neighborhood is deeply concerned about this decision and asks you as a representative of our community to help us fight this installation. We can list the reasons simply that we DO NOT want this tower placed on our neighborhood street. First, regardless of what people say, our property value will decrease. No one wants to live under a cell phone tower. Secondly, real or not, there are perceived health impacts of living so close to a cell phone tower. We do not want our child impacted by that and realize that someone thinking of purchasing our home would consider that fact as well. Please consider other sites for this cell phone tower and do not impact our neighborhood in this negative way. Sites that immediately come to mind include Heritage Park at the west end of the park. Cell phone towers can be disguised as trees and in fact might provide some wildlife benefit (nesting and roosting for birds) in an area like Heritage Park where trees are in such close proximity. 'This site would have a much lower impact to neighbors in our community. In addition, you might consider looking at a site at the south end of Union Avenue. Again, the cell phone could be disguised as a tree. We provide a few links to disguising cell phone towers as trees and ask that you press T- Mobile to choose a less residential site and hide the unsightly cell phone tower from view. The best situation would be to place the tower at one of the sites listed above and disguise it among the native Douglas Fir trees. http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fakctrceJ11m http://www.flickr.com/photos/xeni/528725576/ Sincerely, , I / i' ~· 'tfl/t'~ Aoel,:d Heidy Barnett 4212 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (425)-687-8088 K_~.k\.~~ DI ' '1' [ L.Uc_) / CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED _/ ~ 51 n • r c/ , C n~ ,.} ~ CITvp,rnK's oFF,c'i'.-. o c. tr Tr o "'1 /~.ct-: \~~c) "-"'<!.L 1r="~ A---6"~ .....---------=----===- July 21, 2007 Renton City Council, Denis Law, Jill K. Ding : 4224 SE 3rd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 425-2~ENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVEB CITY CLERK'S FFICE We are addressing the proposed installation on the roads edge of a monstrous 60 foot tower. This abomination is likely to grow much taller over time with the leasing to other companies. There is no logical reason to allow this eyesore to be built in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Plus there is no doubt that it will extremely affect all of our property values in a negative way. If the value of our homes are affected by allowing this to be built at this location we will be forced to take steps against the city to recoup our losses. There are multitudes of places in this area that a tower could be placed that wouldn't be in the middle of a residential family neighborhood. It could be placed at the very end ofUnion where I believe there is only two houses , it could be placed in Suunydale along the back where there is open sight lines , or along the west property line of the Leisure Estates complex and probably the best or second best spot(best at end of Union) would be in the new park on Union. It is my understanding these eyesores can be dressed up to look like many things including trees to help mitigate there obtrusiveness. At any of the sites listed the tower could be placed on the edge of a housing area or in the case of the park anywhere, would bother know one. Not in the middle of a neighborhood on the edge of the road! Please do your jobs as elected officials and stand with the citizens of your city you are supposed to represent and not with big business. This cannot be allowed to happen. Ifit goes forward the people of this area are prepared to ban together to contact the Attorney General and to hire an Attorney to fight this and our city. &~~ ~d ~s and'tindy Shimmel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 19, 2007 To Whom It May Concern, CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 8 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I am writing to express my extreme concern that our neighborhood will become the site for a new cell phone tower. Of course we are aware of the published studies trying to prove that these towers are not harmful to our health, however we are unconvinced by these attempts by the cellular industry to downplay the dangerous effects oflow-level radio-frequency emissions. Federal law (designed to promote the development of cell phone service in the area) prevents us from petitioning these towers based on health concerns because there is no conclusive evidence to prove that towers are responsible for the cancer, tumors, headaches, and nausea suffered by the residents living around them, so I would be glad to address several other reasons why the proposal for this tower should be rejected immediately. In addition to the negative impact this tower could cause to the health of our community, it also jeopardizes the value of our property which is absolutely unacceptable. We have owned property on 3rd Place in Renton for over two decades and so have my neighbors. We have too much invested in this street, and community, in the form of property value, neighborhood relationships, and family memories to allow a cell phone tower to deface it. It is a known fact that power lines, busy streets, and cell phone towers all reduce property values and make homes less desirable to prospective buyers. The appeal of our beautiful and serene neighborhood is enhanced by the distance from the busy freeway and crowded downtown metro areas. It is a quiet and friendly community that does not need to be disrupted by the inevitable grating sounds of construction required to erect this prospective tower. Besides the construction process, the tower once complete will be an eye-sore jutting out and disrupting the unblemished expansive sky line between our charming one story houses. This tower would be an unwelcome visual impediment. It is understandable that the demand for cellular phone use and better service is desirable to cellular phone customers, however that does not justify moving these towers into the heart of our residential community. There are numerous other less objectionable sites in close proximity that should be considered, for instance the south end of Union Ave in the trees or at Heritage Park. Placing the tower in a wooded area and designing it to resemble the fir trees would be a more acceptable proposal. Thank you for your consideration and your prompt attention to the resolution of this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, James & Kimberly Stark 4301 SE 3n1 Place Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-4968 JIMKIMST ARK@aol.com CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Jill Ding Renton City Hall 6'h Floor 1055 Grady Way Renton EA 98057 RE: Land Use#: LUA07-065, CU-A, f,:CF Project Name: T-Mobile Monopole in SE yJ Place R-0-W CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We are writing this letter to express our concerns regarding the above proposed cell phone tower. '11,ere have been no studies regarding the radiation concerns for cell phone towers. Therefore, we arc greatly concerned about the health issues that could result from a cell phone tower being installed in our neighborhood, especially since our home is right next door to the proposed site. Besides adults working in their yards, there arc many children in the nctgh borhood tlrnt play on the street next to the proposed site, including our own grandchildren. It is also our understanding tlrnt are property values will decrease or that our property would become un-sellable due to these health concerns. We bavc been told that a real estate agent would not even show our home due to these jssues. In addition, a cell phone tower in the middle of our neighborhood would be 1111sightly. Who would want to look out their window and see an ugly tower~ We suggest that the tower be built within the green helt three blocks south of the proposed site or within the woods behind I lcritagc Park on Union Ave. W c also suggest that the tower be designed lo look like a fir tree so that it will blend into the surroundings. Thank you for your consideration in this rnattcr. Vickey L. Berry 4405 Se 3"' Pl Renton, WA 98059 cc: Renton City Co1111cil Dennis Law July 22, 2007 Mr. Chuck Gitchel 440 I Southeast Third Place Renton, Washington 98059 Re: Proposed T-Mobilc Cell Tower Site Mr. Gitchel, CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVE8 CITY CLERK'S FFICE As a member of this community, I do not support the construction of the proposed T-Mobile Cell Tower located at 4401 Southeast Third Place. There are two \2) existing cell phone towers located less than one mile fi-om the proposed T-Mobile site, (by Union and Fourth), T-Mobile should not be allowed to desecrate our neighborhood with another unsightly cell phone tower, when T-Mobilc could use existing cell towers already in place. lfthe use of existing cell towers are not an option, I would expect the Renton City Council and T-Mobile would respect this community's wishes to move the proposed site to a different location, which would be more discrete, such as at the south end of Union Avenue, by the existing tree line. Why place a cell tower exactly in the middle ofa residential community'' It makes no sense at all. If the Renton City Council does not listen to the community members, and still allows the proposed T- Mobile site construction, I would expect to see an immediate and substantial DECREASE in my property taxes, as the land value of our entire community \vould be permanently and irreparably harmed. Has anyone from the City Council even seen thi: proposed site from ground level? The proposed site is LITTERALL Yin the exact middle of our residential community. It's funny how the proposed T-Mobile site is not located anywhere near any of our elected City Council Officials' houses, isn't it? Of course, the City of Renton and City Council Members would not want to loose valuable revenue fi-om existing tax paying citizens. If the proposed T-Mobile site construction continues as planned, land values will drop, and elected city officials will not he elected again, as they obviously do not listen to the communities whom have elected them. ~~r~ Renton, Washington, 98059 ;,:mith IOOi: hot mail com H -425-271-2947 C ~ 509-4 70-0600 Jill K. Ding Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 jding@ci.renton.wa.us Re: proposed cell phone tower on public right-of-way at 4401 SE 3"' Place. Dear Ms. Ding, CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I would like to enter my strong objection to the proposed building of a 60 foot tall cell phone tower and associated vault on the public right of way at this address. This tower and associated vault will result in lowered property values, obstructed views, and create potential safety and health hazards for the children in the neighborhood. Further, I do not believe the neighborhood was adequately notified, nor were more suitable alternative sites considered. The site selected is conspicuously placed at the intersection of two residential streets. It would literally tower over the neighborhood, obstructing views and lowering the quality of life for the residents. This neighborhood is almost entirely owner occupied houses. Placing the tower at the very center of the neighborhood only assures that a maximum number of home owners will be negatively impacted. The result will be lowered property values in a neighborhood of almost exclusively owner-occupied homes. These homes will quickly turn into low income rentals. Placing this tower so near homes may cause serious health problems to those who live around it. Cell towers operate on radio waves, with the antennae collecting, strengthening, and redirecting the radio waves from one tower to another. Studies have shown that exposure to high levels of these radio waves cause serious health issues. Those ofus living near the tower will have no way of knowing how whether or not we are being exposed to an unsafe level of these radio waves. Our children will be living, playing, sleeping almost directly under this tower. While some studies have shown cell phone towers are safe, others have not. Even if it could be shown that this tower is safe in terms of radio wave levels, we have other very legitimate concerns. There is no way to prevent our children from playing on or around them. The notice states the vault will occupy a I 04 square foot area, on a right of way that is only four feet wide. There will certainly be no way to fence it off. Children playing around it could easily be injured by the equipment itself. There are many more suitable locations nearby for such a tower. There is public right-of- way in several locations along 4th Avenue NE between Union Street and Duval Street that could be used, as well as commercial land in that area that could be lease by the company for this purpose. There is City of Renton owned land and city right-of-way immediately south of the cemetery and east of Edmonds Ave. This would be perhaps the most suitable, as it is far away from any residential area. The fur southeast or northwest comers of the new park could be used (at these locations the tower and vault could be properly fenced and screened from public view). There is public right-of-way available along Duval St. south of 4th Ave NE. And there is space available at the fur south end of Union Ave SE in the Seattle City Light compound. None of these locations would have the impact of the site chosen. Finally, I do not believe the neighborhood was properly notified of this proposal. Signs were posted on utility poles in only a portion of the area that would be impacted. The design of the diagram was confusing, showing only the entire lot on which the tower and vault would be placed. It did not give a description of the vault, did not indicate if either the vault or tower would be fenced to prevent children from being hurt around it, and did not state if it would be shielded from public view. Notification by mail only came several days later and was not more specific than the original posted notices. At no time did T-Mobile or any of its agents or contractors contact me regarding this project. Please place these concerns into the official record. I am available for questions, and ask to be informed of any future public hearings, appeals, or other opportunities to give input on this important matter. Sincerely, P-1vr- JohnMegow 4408 SE 3n1 Place Renton, WA 98059 (425) 227-4379 megowj@yahoo.com 1 From: To: Date: Subject: '"John Megow'<megowj@yahoo.com>" <megowj@yahoo.com> <council@ci.renton.wa.us> 7/12/2007 7:46:27 AM Councilmembers I have sent the following email to J. Ding regarding the proposed ATT cell tower at SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Ave SE. This 60 foot high cell phone tower would be right on the corner of a residential street and substantially lower property values. I ask that the Mayor's office and the city council take an active role in finding a suitable alternative location. 'I would like to voice my strong opposition to this project. This is the middle of a residential neighborhood, and would substantially harm the quality of the neighborhood. The mayor and the city council have spoken often about reducing blight and increasing the quality of living in in the Renton Highlands. This would be a huge step in the wrong direction. Please inform me of the proper method of contesting this proposal, and place me on the list of persons to be contacted regarding any public hearings regarding this tower. I do believe there are many more suitable sites in the vicinity.' Thank you John Megow 4408 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (425) 227-4379 This email request originated from the following link: http:/ /rento nwa .gov/govern men tldefault.as px? id= 3212 CC: <megowj@yahoo.com> July 22, 2007 To whom it may concern, I am a property owner in the Heather Downs subdivision located in the Renton Highlands. My address is 406 Anacortes Avenue SE. It is my understanding that there is a proposal to build a cell phone tower within blocks of my home. I would not appreciate this as the value of my property would significantly decrease. Please look for an alternative location. Thank you. John Ehle 406 Anacortes Ave Se Renton, WA 98059 ( 425) 228-0331 Home (206) 290-7147 Cell Ms. Jill Ding Renton Planning Department Renton City Hall 6'h floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ms. Ding, 4209 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 July 19, 2007 CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I am writing to express my concern over the proposed installation of a cell phone tower less than one block from my home in the Heatherdowns area of the Renton Highlands. The reference for this proposed cell tower which would be located at 4401 SE 3'd Place is R-0-W/ #LUA-065 CU-A ECF. Frankly, I do not understand why a cell tower needs to be located in the middle of a residential area when there are several locations very close by that would not be as intrusive to the residential area. And as a matter of City building code, new residential neighborhoods are required to have all utilities underground. It is inconsistent with this policy to allow a cell tower to be located a residential neighborhood. Obvious alternative locations (shown on attached map) include sighting it within the water pump station complex at the south end of Union Avenue, or among the trees in the newly developed Heritage Park on Union, or in the construction area to the west. Additionally, there are a myriad of potential locations in the publicly owned wooded area between the Heatherdowns development and the Maple Wood golf course to the south. My biggest objection to this proposal is the potential impact on property values in this area. A cell tower at the proposed location would certainly limit the prospective buyers. Just the appearance of the tower in the neighborhood is enough to scare away potential buyers with concerns over health issues, in addition to being an eyesore. I ask the City to reconsider the proposal to locate a cell tower in my neighborhood and reject it. Sincerely, cc: CG (1) cti C .... (1) +-' <( .:.t:. .... co a.. C 0 ·.;:: (.) :::, .... ..... (/) C 0 0 _$ C CO 0 C ·-"'-..... (l.) co ..... (.) -0 <( - -0 C (1) 0 ~~ a. co 0 (.) .... 0 a.. - C _o +-' C CO _o u +-' 0 co - +-' (1) (/) +-' a. co EE :::, 2 a..<( July 22, 2007 4400 SE 3rd PL Renton, WA 98059 Subject: Proposed cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3rd PL To: The Renton Planning Department; Attn Jill Ding Cc: The Renton City Council CITY OF REMTOl'l JUL 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I am writing to express my extreme disagreement with the proposed placement of a cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3rd PL. I have several reasons for my grave concern over this site and would like to ask that you reject this location for the cell tower and work with the builders on a better site. First, this site is right in the middle of a residential neighborhood and couldn't be more out of place. At the 4401 SE 3rd PL, there is no way you can disguise this tower and avoid it from being an eyesore. I've seen some creative ways of disguising these towers but this 60-foot monstrosity would be among a grouping oframbler homes and on a street comer. There is no way to hide a 60-foot tower at this location. Second, on a personal consideration. this 60-foot tower directly in front of our home would block the view from our front window and porch at 4400 SE 3rd PL. We enjoy our view out over the neighborhood and would he very much saddened to have a 60-foot (or more) tower in that view. We already contend with utility poles but there is no comparison between a 20-30 foot tall telephone pole versus a 60-foot tower. This is a personal loss that we'd have to deal with 365 days a year. We are also aware that this might negatively impact radio and satellite TV reception. Third, we are convinced that this 60-foot tower directly in front of our home would have a grave impact on our home values. This is due to the fact that our view would be hindered greatly. In addition to the loss of our view, we'd still have to deal with the likely fear of future home buyers might have about health concerns a cell phone tower 25 feet from their perspective home. l know the jury is not out on the health concerns but the studies don't have to be conclusive to scare off prospective buyers. So we would most assuredly have a negative impact on our homes resale value. If you question this; then ask your realtor, like I have, on how your home value would be affected if you allowed a cell phone company build a 60 foot tower 25 feet directly in front of your home? So please reject this location of the 60-foot cell phone tower at 4301 SE 3rd PL as it is just out of place at this location. Instead, there have to be some locations that would be more suitable along Union. I don't want to pass this problem onto other landowners but there are some tall trees that this tower can be built amongst and be disguised as a tree where it p.1 doesn't have to be so obtrusive. There is even a utility yard at 450 Union Ave SE that a tower could be built on and the tower could be disguised as a pine tree to fit in with the other trees. This site would be advantageous in that you don't have to intrude on a landowner. I also have read that shorter towers could be built and serve the same function and could be an alternative for a residential neighborhood like ours. Perhaps in this way, utilizing the existing utility poles along Union could be considered. Thank you for considering our comments and hope that you work with the cell phone company to find a better location for their tower. We all appreciate our cell phone coverage but it's clear that there has to be a better location for this cell phone tower and ask that you work for a better solution. Sincerely, ;~~ ~:;:a Debby Ekness PCO RNT 41-2475 E:r.C /-.ift« t'IUIY' rlJ))+ur ,.9ohn l.-8co1t' REAL. E'STATE Joa, L.Sco1' KM> -llenrn,llrf,ce fh,,,1t1<,i,11d,ri,,,d,w,own,C.ancop,,o,,.,1 473\NE 4tb St. Renton, 'if/A 98059 dimt: (206) 718-SELL (7355) July 23, 2007 Michael and Debbie Eckness 4400 SE 3'd Pl Renton, WA 98058 Dear Michael and Debbie, This letter is in regards to your recent inquiry regarding your home in Renton. The question was raised to me about property values with regards to cell towers in the near vicinity. There is an old saying "Perception is Reality". I live with this quote on a daily basis. Buyers come to me with ideas that are their reality. Whether it is accurate or not, is not the issue. It is their reality. One large perception is that power lines and possibly cell lowers can cause cancer. Whether this is true or i,ot. ... I do not know or represent. One thing I do know, homes near power lines or cell towers sell for less and it takes much longer for them to sell. So the answer to your question, "Will a cell tower lower my property value or make my property harder to sell?" The answer is a definite ... YES! If the cell tower is in the vicinity but not easily seen by your home and does not cause interference with other equipment, there is not an issue. If the cell tower is easily visible from your home and/or causes interference. this must be considered in pricing your home when the home goes on the market. It is important to remember that many people think that the REALTOR sets the price of the home. This is incorrect. It is important to understand that buyers determine the value of the market. !fit is a seller's market, it will be easier to sell but will always still sell for less. If it is a slower market, pricing will be very important. I hope this is helpful information and that it answers the questions that you have. I hope you have a wonderful summer and enjoy lots of great time with your family. Warmest regards, ·s-·_· __ --" ,'.• _July 23, 2007 AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Gitchel -T- Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd Pl, CU-07-065 Citizen Comment: Ekness -T- Mobile Monopole Placement, SE 3rd Pl, CU-07-065 Citizen Comment: Peschek - Maplewood Golf Course, RiverRock Restaurant Noise Renton City Council Minutes Page 256 Ave. N. for most of the day. As a result, Park Ave. N. will remain closed through July 25, while certain required work by the contractor and Renton is completed. lit The City has received an application for a T-Mobile monopole at SE 3rd Pl. through the administrative conditional use permit process for which written comments are due to the Development Services Division by 5 p.m. on July 24. Charles Gitchel. 440 l SE 3rd Pl., Renton, 98059, indicated that a 60-foot cell phone tower is proposed to be located 45 feet from his home. Mr. Gitchel expressed his concerns regarding the real and perceived dangers of frequency radiation, and the negative effect the tower placement will have on property values. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BYLAW, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER FIVE MORE MINUTES FOR HIS COMMENTS. CARRIED. Stating that the City's cell tower regulations need to be modified, Mr. Gitchel ' stressed that towers should not be placed in neighborhoods, and he suggested alternate locations for the tower. At the request of Cnuncilmember Corman, Mayor Keolker reviewed the administrative conditional use permit process for this project. The application was submitted by I-Mobile on June 29 and written public comments are due by 5 p.m. on July 24. The environmental determination and administrative decision is followed by a 14-day appeal period, and if appealed, the matter will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's decision is followed by another 14-day appeal period, and if appealed, the matter will be heard by the City Council. City Attorney Warren pointed out that the audience comment portion of the meeting is an open public forum and Council can listen to the comments related to this project until such time that an appeal to Council is filed, if one is filed. Mr. Warren further pointed out that the Federal Communications Commission and Congress passed regulations that prohibit cities from considering frequency and radiation of cell phone towers as a condition for denying towers. Councilmembcr Claw,on noted his unhappiness with the federal regulations. He stated that 1f Council were to change the City's regulations, the changes would not be effective as to this application since it is already in process. In response to Council member Corman's inquiry, City Attorney Warren said such things as property valuation and aesthetics are appropriate topics that could be considered. Michael Ekncss. 4400 S ~ 3rd Pl., Renton, 98059, expressed his opposition to the placement of a cell phone tower near his home for aesthetic reasons. He indicated that the tower will look out of place and will negatively affect property values whether or not radiation is real or perceived. Mr. Ekness pointed out other areas where the tower would be better placed, and he asked the City to work with cell phone companies to find better places for the towers. Dennis Peschek. 13451 SE 141st St., Renton, 98059, said he spoke to Council last year and has repeatedly contacted the Police Department regarding the amplified music that emanates from the River Rock restaurant at Maplewood Golf Course on Friday and Saturday nights during the summer. Mr. Peschek reported that he expressed his concerns regarding the noise to the King County ' July 19, 2007 RE: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place R-O-W/LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Jill Ding -Senior Planner \\JI.. Renton City Hall Development Services Division 1055 S Grady WY Renton, WA 98057 Dear Madam: It has come to our attention that the City of Renton would like to allow a cellular phone company to install a monopole in our neighborhood for a cellular antenna. This is extremely concerning for us for the following reasons: • There are common health concerns over the safe proximity of cell towers and power lines that are often conflicting. Therefore, we do not feel that it is safe to be exposed to prolonged electromagnetic fields and radiation that these structures can emit. • Even if studies and opinions state that these structures are safe, there is still a common conception that they are not. and that will adversely affect our property value. Few potential home buyers want to buy a home that is nearby a cell phone tower or power pole. It would be a shame to see the appreciation we have seen in our home values in the last few years evaporate. • The unsightliness of such a structure would also be a potential deterrent for home buyers. Even if the monopole may not be tall initially, other cellular providers could lease space on the pole, creating a potentially very tall eye sore in the neighborhood. Consider the property values of homes adjacent to commercial areas where cell towers or power lines are located. The values of those homes are often lower than comparable homes. We ask that the City reconsider allowing the installation of this cellular tower and antenna. I, Jeremy Peery, have lived in Renton most ofmy life and the Heather Downs neighborhood is one ofRenton's most beautiful, peaceful, and desirable to live in neighborhoods. Why else would the city have just installed such a beautiful park there (Heritage Park). There is no place for these structures in the middle of our neighborhoods. They should be installed where they will have minimal impact on the character of neighborhoods. We also see no benefit to the community to install them and will not vote for or support any city council or staff member that supports cellular towers in our neighborhoods. Please put yourself in our place and reconsider. Sincerely, Jeremy and Jill Peery 4432 SE 4TH ST REKTON, WA 98059 425-793-0882 + (,J ,·.:, ,'' :,';' j'•,I ... ::::: ,~· \ ( I I •• Received from Charles D. Gitchel, this date, July 23, 2007, letters from the following: Barnett, Joel & Heidy Berry, Roger & Vickey Blue, Pauline Clangh, Terry Crock, Joyce Dalgleish, James Scott Ehle, John Foster, Cory & Lori Knell, Gail & Anthony Mears, Doug Megow, John Miller, Ken & Anne Northcraft, Stephen Gitchel, Charles & Frances Rutledge, Ruth & Bruce Shimmel, Dennis & Cindy Smith, Joel Stark, James & Kimberly Velquist, Tapke Ek.At!....s s,,, fY'I I c.Jrictl,/ i ::,,_ bby CITYOFRENTO~ RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2GC7 BUILDING DIVISION . ' .J . ' ·, --,_, ~ ''-: ~J Wi Ju.1y Z ~J ?.Ocr7 beo,r Cit::J Of Renton, M-:J "°'me \ s H ct l\f\Jc), E; knE"ff "ho 1 Clm q '.:J e ~(' _( 0 \i. r ho.v-e i beet\ °'-Ci ti Z ~r. Of ~efll,n .for 7 'je"-,rs. J "Y" v r;, 11'8 to P n:iiert t ~ <: P (Op a;~~ Ct,, -P'IH,e i-~ W er 0..t ~~61 S' .\:: i):_d, Pl. T ~e Go f'b\,\ tow"' c Ill\ h •v" ~ . I~ CA ,I J ; t i Gln f to k i ti9 J J-td I \iG If c~t . hig~. my l c.J r~G'r" i'{ 7 Of~ e t o. \\i CW fr c m th\) \ 0 C. 0,. t [(JA . . . . #~ I o.m \Jo r I ieJ t ho.-t 11-i e <er 1 h\Nq; ( Ov\ I(\ tc, 11 0 /\ \fY\ :) h oct5 e o._ \l\o ( r ~'IS~ f(le , +: wo 01 1J ~ ve to ~ ee \\ e vn--1) ttlhle 1 \ CX) r::-o Ltt yY"\ :3 'vv t Y\ ~ o w, L ·t ""Cl V\l j b~ "I 'j \ ::i e v e-n If ' \ +1; e, \"(~ ta ~ i 1<.J \.(e , t ci r q ''tre,Q:>, It--5h'11J .90 in GIT\ <lrcq \I W ~er t\,e r °'-( e Jl.o re Pie I i V \119 w; l\\t-1, ;h °' ~C\fe fu~ faot or \Y\O\e &'5\-~r, Ce . .t <'>o I\~'\ . --~ . . . . ~3 W\l. l\t h1 ii 1() vie r t 6 CIC c i ~ e ( '''i°-'' '1 ~ ! \ 0 f\ ()\ '{\ ~ O he. ·t C\ ¥"' Ve (9 -'\ \i-J a r r , e 6 C\ bo + t ~ ,' ~ I 11\ ~ l\ I'-':J ~ '--1 {Gr re CA() [ "s +-o ;r I ~ ) \ I\( ef' e I~; tfon /'1 a. A f kn t>,1- July 22, 2007 4400 SE 3rd PL Renton, WA 98059 Subject: Proposed cell phone tower at 440 I SE 3'd PL To: The Renton Planning Department; Attn Jill Ding Cc: The Renton City Council CITYOFRErffON qECE!VEO ,'.232007 :lUILDING DIVISION I am writing to express my extreme disagreement with the proposed placement of a cell phone tower at 440 I SE 3rd PL. I have several reasons for my grave concern over this site and would like to ask that you reject this location for the cell tower and work with the builders on a better site. First, this site is right in the middle of a residential neighborhood and couldn't be more out of place. At the 440 I SE 3rd Pl .. there is no way you can disguise this tower and avoid it from being an eyesore. I've seen some creative ways of disguising these towers but this 60-foot monstrosity would be among a grouping of rambler homes and on a street corner. There is no way to hide a 60-foot tower at this location. Second, on a personal consideration, this 60-foot tower directly in front of our home would block the view from our front window and porch at 4400 SE 3rd PL. We enjoy our view out over the neighborhood and would be very much saddened to have a 60-foot (or more) tower in that view. We already contend with utility poles but there is no comparison between a 20-30 foot tall telephone pole versus a 60-foot tower. This is a personal loss that we'd have to deal with 365 days a year. We are also aware that this might negatively impact radio and satellite TV reception. Third, we are convinced that this 60-foot tower directly in front of our home would have a grave impact on our home values. This is due to the fact that our view would be hindered greatly. In addition to the loss of our view, we'd still have to deal with the likely fear of future home buyers might have about health concerns a cell phone tower 25 feet from their perspective home. I know the jury is not out on the health concerns but the studies don't have to be conclusive to scare off prospective buyers. So we would most assuredly have a negative impact on our homes resale value. If you question this; then ask your realtor, like I have, on how your home value would be affected if you allowed a cell phone company build a 60 foot tower 25 feet directly in front of your home? So please reject this location of the 60-foot cell phone tower at 4301 SE 3rd PL as it is just out of place at this location. Instead. there have to be some locations that would be more suitable along Union. I don't want to pass this problem onto other landowners but there are some tall trees that this tower can be built amongst and be disguised as a tree where it doesn't have to be so obtrusive. There is even a utility yard at 450 Union Ave SE that a tower could be built on and the tower could be disguised as a pine tree to fit in with the other trees. This site would be advantageous in that you don't have to intrude on a landowner. I also have read that shorter towers could be built and serve the same function and could be an alternative for a residential neighborhood like ours. Perhaps in this way, utilizing the existing utility poles along Union could be considered. Thank you for considering our comments and hope that you work with the cell phone company to find a better location for their tower. We all appreciate our cell phone coverage but it's clear that there has to be a better location for this cell phone tower and ask that you work for a better solution. Sincerely, ~07- ty_ JL U1i9 L1 {-44"-tAf_; Michael and Dehby Ekness PCO RNT 41-2475 [:;nc; L.Rtr('A' hc,M ( t6.51:-\-<>f .:-t·ohn l.~otf REAL ESTATE ,'c'"' s,,,11,w; ,,,,,,,ur,,, ""•'"''·''"'"'' .. ""'",i,,,,,"'","°"""''·""' 4735 NE 4[h St. Renton, WA 98059 dfrect, (206) 718-SELL (73551 July 23, 2007 Michael and Debbie Eckness 4400 SE 3'd Pl Renton. WA 98058 Dear Michael and Debbie, This letter is in regards to your recent inquiry regarding your home in Renton. The question was raised to me about property values with regards to cell towers in the near vicinity. There is an old saying "Perception is Reality". I live with this quote on a daily basis. Buyers come to me with ideas that are their reality. Whether it is accurate or not, is not the issue. It is their reality. One large perception is that power lines and possibly cell towers can cause cancer. Whether this is true or not.. .. I do not know or represent. One thing I do know, homes near power lines or cell towers sell for less and it takes much longer for them to sell. So the answer to your question, "Will a cell tower lower my property value or make my property harder to sell?" The answer is a definite ... YES! If the cell tower is in the vicinity but not easily seen by your home and does not cause interference with other equipment, there is not an issue. lfthe cell tower is easily visible from your home and/or causes interlcrence, this must be considered in pricing your home when the home goes on the market. It is important to remember that many people think that the REAL TOR sets the price or the home. This is incorrect. It is important to understand that buyers determine the value of the market. !fit is a seller's market, it will be easier to sell but will always still sell for less. If it is a slower market, pricing will be very important. I hope this is helpful information and that it answers the questions that you have. I hope you have a wonderful summer and enjoy lots of great time with your family. Wannest regards. Lauri Amandus CRS , Certified Resident" l Spe ,,;;, Turning Dreams into Home July 22, 2007 To whom it may concern, c\T\'OFRENTON RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION I am a property owner in the Heather Downs subdivision located in the Renton Highlands. My address is 406 Anacortes Avenue SE. It is my understanding that there is a proposal to build a cell phone tower within blocks of my home. I would not appreciate this as the value of my property would significantly decrease. Please look for an alternative location. Thank you. John Ehle 406 Anacortes Ave Se Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-0331 Home (206) 290-7147 Cell . . Jill K. Ding Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 jding@ci.renton.wa.us CIT'IOFRENTQt, RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION Re: proposed cell phone tower on public right·of.way at 4401 SE 3rd Place. Dear Ms. Ding, I would like to enter my strong objection to the proposed building of a 60 foot tall cell phone tower and associated vault on the public right of way at this address. This tower and associated vauh will result in lowered property values, obstructed views, and create potential safety and health haz.ards for the children in the neighborhood. Further, I do not believe the neighborhood was adequately notified, nor were more suitable alternative sites considered. The site selected is conspicuously placed at the intersection of two residential streets. It would literally tower over the neighborhood, obstructing views and lowering the quality of life for the residents. This neighborhood is almost entirely owner occupied houses. Placing the tower at the very center of the neighborhood only assures that a maximum number of home owners will be negatively impacted. The result will be lowered property values in a neighborhood of almost exclusively owner•occupied homes. These homes will quickly turn into low income rentals. Placing this tower so near homes may cause serious health problems to those who live around it. Cell towers operate on radio waves, with the antennae collecting, strengthening, and redirecting the radio waves from one tower to another. Studies have shown that exposure to high levels of these radio waves cause serious health issues. Those ofus living near the tower will have no way of knowing how whether or not we are being exposed to an unsafe level of these radio waves. Our children will be living, playing, sleeping almost directly under this tower. While some studies have shown cell phone towers are safe, others have not. Even if it could be shown that this tower is safe in terms ofradio wave levels, we have other very legitimate concerns. There is no way to prevent our children from playing on or around them. The notice states the vault will occupy a 104 square foot area, on a right of way that is only four feet wide. There will certainly be no way to fence it off. Children playing around it could easily be injured by the equipment itself. There are many more suitable locations nearby for such a tower. There is public right-of- way in several locations along 4th Avenue NE between Union Street and Duval Street that could be used, as well as commercial land in that area that could be lease by the company for this purpose. There is City of Renton owned land and city right-of-way immediately south of the cemetery and east of Edmonds Ave. This would be perhaps the most suitable, as it is far away from any residential area. The far southeast or northwest comers of the new park could be used (at these locations the tower and vault could be properly fenced and screened from public view). There is public right-of-way available along Duval St. south of 4111 Ave NE. And there is space available at the far south end of Union Ave SE in the Seattle City Light compound. None of these locations would have the impact of the site chosen Finally, I do not believe the neighborhood was properly notified of this proposal. Signs were posted on utility poles in only a portion of the area that would be impacted. The design of the diagram was confusing, showing only the entire lot on which the tower and vault would be placed. It did not give a description of the vault, did not indicate if either the vault or tower would be fenced to prevent children from being hurt around it, and did not state if it would be shielded from public view. Notification by mail only came several days later and was not more specific than the original posted notices. At no time did T-Mobile or any of its agents or contractors contact me regarding this project. Please place these concerns into the official record. I am available for questions, and ask to be informed of any future public hearings, appeals, or other opportunities to give input on this important matter. Sincerely, JohnMegow 4408 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (425) 227-4379 megowj@yahoo.com July 22, 2007 Mr. Chuck Gitchel 440 I Southeast Third Place Renton, Washington 98059 Re: Proposed T-Mobile Cell Tower Site Mr. Gitchel, GITYOfRENTON RECEIVED "232007 JUILDINGDIVISION CITYOFRENTOI'. RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION As a member of this community, 1 do not support the construction of the proposed T-Mobile Cell Tower located at 4401 Southeast Third Place. There arc two (2) existing cell phone towers located less than one mile from the proposed T-Mobile site, (by Union and Fourth), T-Mobile should not be allowed to desecrate our neighborhood with another unsightly cell phone tower, when T-Mobile could use existing cell towers already in place. lfthe use of existing cell towers are not an option, I would expect the Renton City Council and T-Mobile would respect this community's wishes to move the proposed site to a different location, which would be more discrete, such as at the south end of Union A venue, by the existing tree line. Why place a cell tower exactly in the middle ofa residential community? It makes no sense at all. lfthe Renton City Council does not listen to the community members, and still allows the proposed T- Mobile site construction, I would expect to see an immediate and substantial DECREASE in my property taxes, as the land value of our entire community would be permanently and irreparably harmed. Has anyone from the City Council even seen the proposed site from ground level? The proposed site is LITTERALL Y in the exact middle of our residential community. It's funny how the proposed T-Mobile site is not located anywhere near any of our elected City Council Officials' houses, isn't it? Of course, the City of Renton and City Council Members would not want to loose valuable revenue from existing tax paying citizens. If the proposed T-Mobile site construction continues as planned, land values will drop, and elected city officials will not be elected again, as they obviously do not listen to the communities whom have elected them. Sincerely, / ----------·_>) ~-(' c-;:.-: ... :: -·-. _ I 7 ~~1Z~~~:"f~ 349 Anacortes Avenue Southeast Renton, Washington, 98059 H -425-271-2947 C -509-470-0600 Jill Ding Renton City Hall 6"' Floor 1055 Grady Way Renton EA 98057 RE: Land Use#: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Project Name: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3"1 Place R-0-W CITYOFRENTON RECEIVED Y.'~ 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION We arc writing this letter to express our concerns regarding the above proposed cell phone tower. There have been no studies regarding the radiation concerns for cell phone towers. "Therefore, we are greatly concerned about the health issues that could result from a cell phone tower being installed in our neighborhood, especially since our home is right next door to the proposed site. Besides adults working in their yards, there are many children in the neighborhood that play on the street next to the proposed site, including our own grandchildren. It is also our understanding that are property values will decrease or that our property would become un-sellable due to these health concerns. We have been told that a real estate agent would not even show our home due to these issues. In addition, a cell phone tower in the middle of our neighborhood would be unsightly. Who would want to look out their window and see an ugly tower) We suggest that the tower be built within the green belt three blocks south of the proposed site or within the woods behind Heritage Park on Union Ave. We also suggest that the tower be designed to look like a fir tree so that it will blend into the surroundings. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Vickey L. Berry 4405 Se 3"' Pl Renton, WA 98059 cc: Renton City Council Dennis Law CITYOFRENTON RECEIVED • 1 _"_ 2 3 2007 :3UILDING DIVISION July 21, 2007 Renton City Council, Denis Law, Jill K. Ding : 4224 SE 3rd Pl. Renton, WA. 98059 425-271-9573 We are addressing the proposed installation on the roads edge of a monstrous 60 foot tower. This abomination is likely to grow much taller over time with the leasing to other companies. There is no logical reason to allow this eyesore to be built in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Plus there is no doubt that it will extremely affect all of our property values in a negative way. If the value of our homes are affected by allowing this to be built at this location we will be forced to take steps against the city to recoup our losses. There are multitudes of places in this area that a tower could be placed that wouldn't be in the middle of a residential family neighborhood. It could be placed at the very end of Union where I believe there is only two houses, it could be placed in Suunydale along the back where there is open sight lines , or along the west property line of the Leisure Estates complex and probably the best or second best spot(best at end ofUnion) would be in the new park on Union. It is my understanding these eyesores can be dressed up to look like many things including trees to help mitigate there obtrusiveness. At any of the sites listed the tower could be placed on the edge ofa housing area or in the case of the park anywhere, would bother know one. Not in the middle of a neighborhood on the edge of the road! Please do your jobs as elected officials and stand with the citizens of your city you are supposed to represent and not with big business. This cannot be allowed to happen. !fit goes forward the people of this area are prepared to ban together to contact the Attorney General and to hire an Attorney to fight this and our city. Sincerely, , cvT / J a~ ~~---Y-'_· ___.c::::.:::::::=---' ~7 ~~?--7,__,__ c.c: Dennis ancteindy Shimmel CITYOrAENTO, RECEIVED .J'~~ 2 3 2007 t3U1LDINGDIV1SION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CfTYOFRENTON AECEIVED July 19, 2007 i'.232007 JUILDINGOIVISION To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my extreme concern that our neighborhood will become the site for a new cell phone tower. Of course we are aware of the published studies trying to prove that these towers are not harmful to our health, however we are unconvinced by these attempts by the cellular industry to downplay the dangerous effects oflow-level radio-frequency emissions. Federal law (designed to promote the development of cell phone service in the area) prevents us from petitioning these towers based on health concerns because there is no conclusive evidence to prove that towers are responsible for the cancer, tumors, headaches, and nausea suffered by the residents living around them, so I would be glad to address several other reasons why the proposal for this tower should be rejected immediately. In addition to the negative impact this tower could cause to the health of our community, it also jeopardizes the value of our property which is absolutely unacceptable. We have owned property on 3rd Place in Renton for over two decades and so have my neighbors. We have too much invested in this street, and community, in the form of property value, neighborhood relationships, and family memories to allow a cell phone tower to deface it. It is a known fact that power lines, busy streets, and cell phone towers all reduce property values and make homes less desirable to prospective buyers. The appeal of our beautiful and serene neighborhood is enhanced by the distance from the busy freeway and crowded downtown metro areas. It is a quiet and friendly community that does not need to be disrupted by the inevitable grating sounds of construction required to erect this prospective tower. Besides the construction process, the tower once complete will be an eye-sore jutting out and disrupting the unblemished expansive sky line between our charming one story houses. This tower would be an unwelcome visual impediment. It is understandable that the demand for cellular phone use and better service is desirable to cellular phone customers, however that does not justify moving these towers into the heart of our residential community. There are numerous other less objectionable sites in close proximity that should be considered, for instance the south end of Union Ave in the trees or at Heritage Park. Placing the tower in a wooded area and designing it to resemble the fir trees would be a more acceptable proposal. Thank you for your consideration and your prompt attention to the resolution of this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, James & Kimberly Stark 4301 SE 3n1 Place Renton, WA 98~9 (425) 228-4968 JIMKIMST ARK@aol.com Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6"1 Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98507 Dear Ms. Ding, Subject Proposed cell phone tower site on SE 3rd Place, Renton, WA July 18, 2007 CITYOFRENTON ~ECEIVED :J '!. 2 3 2007 ,3UILD1NGDIVIS10N We live on SE 3rd Place approximately half a block from the proposed site for a T-Mobile cell phone tower. We are writing to express our dissatisfaction with the decision to place a large cell phone tower in such a residential location. In fact, one home owned by Mr. Gitchel, will sit directly under the cell phone tower. Our neighborhood is deeply concerned about this decision and asks you as a representative of our community to help us fight this installation. We can list the reasons simply that we DO NOT want this tower placed on our neighborhood street. First, regardless of what people say, our property value will decrease. No one wants to live under a cell phone tower. Secondly, real or not, there are perceived health impacts of living so dose to a cell phone tower. We do not want our child impacted by that and realize that someone thinking of purchasing our home would consider that fact as well. Please consider other sites for this cell phone tower and do not impact our neighborhood in this negative way. Sites that immediately come to mind include Heritage Park at the west end of the park. Cell phone towers can be disguised as trees and in fact might provide some wildlife benefit (nesting and roosting for birds) in an area like Heritage Park where trees are in such close proximity. This site would have a much lower impact to neighbors in our community. In addition, you might consider looking at a site at the south end of Union Avenue. Again, the cell phone could be disguised as a tree. We provide a few links to disguising cell phone towers as trees and ask that you press T- Mobile to choose a less residential site and hide the unsightly cell phone tower from view. The best situation would be to place the tower at one of the sites listed above and disguise it among the native Douglas Fir trees. httn:.//wavncsword. oalomar.edu/fak,:1 ,·: .. ·. h, ,.,, httn://www.flickr.com/ohotos/xcnL, ·~" ·~, 7:,1 Sincerely, . / . U/~.~4 ~ ~ Ctt~\.tv=t / Joel and Heidy Barnett 4212 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 (425)-687-8088 CffYOFA!:NlON RECEIVED 7/20/07 ;u:_ 2 3 2007 8UILD1NGD1VISION Ms. Jill Ding, This letter is to inform you of our strong concerns regarding the proposed cell phone tower placement in our neighborhood. We fear first for our health and well being as nothing good can come from having radiation from the proposed tower engulf our block. As we live only two doors down from the site we feel that our concerns are well founded. The fact that federal law does not allow you to consider the effects of radiation upon our health is most disturbing, but not surprising considering the many poor choices our federal lawmakers have made. With this in mind, we as citizens of Renton must be able to count on our elected leaders to protect us from situations that put us in harms way, whether the federal government cares about us or not. Also, we believe that allowing this unsightly tower within the confines of an established working class neighborhood can only reduce our property values, and in some cases render a home incapable of being sold. A conversation with a friend of ours who is a real tor confirmed our fears of diminished values. Finally, let us be honest with one another. Having a tower such as this in our neighborhood will be an ugly, constant reminder that financial considerations often take precedent over quality of life and consideration for those who do not have the power to stop such a travesty. Ms. Ding, you DO have the power to put a stop to this horrible plan, and with power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Please do not allow our neighborhood, our neighbors, and our families to be subjected to this "experiment". We thank you for your time and consideration. / '6)1_\ _(f t_y ory and L i F osier - 4413 S.E. 3rd Pl. Renton, Wa. 98059 I I . v' ,I fiENTON ,~.,:,:t:IVED ' 232007 iS;INGDIVISION DEAR SIRS: 4425 SE 3 PLACE RENTON, WA IN REGARDS TO THE CELL PHONE TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 4401 SE 3PL. YOUR DECISION TO INSTALL SUCH A TOWER IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHTBOURHOOD CLUSTERED WITH HOMES :NEAR SUCH A POLE IS STUPIDITY IN ITSELF. YOU HAVE ADJACENT PROPERTY A;"\ID IT INCLUDES TREES AND IS NEAR THE CANYON. THAT LOCATION IS FAR BETTER SUITED AS IT WILL BE PARTIALLY HIDDEN FROM DIRECT VIEW. AND NOT ON THE STREET NEXT TO A NEIGHBOUR'S BEDROOM. THE TOWER WILL BE UGLY AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND WILL BRING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES AS DFMOSTRA TED BY OVERHEAD POWER LINES IN OTHER NEIGI-IBOURHOOI YOU SAY YOU CANNOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RADIATION FROM SUCH A TOWER HOW STUPID THAT STATEMENT IS WHEN THERE IS OTHER PROPERTY AVAILABLE THAT HAS LESS IMPACT OF EVERYDAY LIFE ll\ A l\t!GI-IBOURHOOD. FOR ONCE USE A BIT OF COMMON SENSE. YOURS GAIL AND ANTHO)A; KNELL (PROPERTY OWNERS) / izz10-y ] I !/ /_£,('- CIT\'QfRENTON RECEIVED July 19. 2007 JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION Dear R~ntell City Ceooeil, T, JI D 1,.,7 We are writing this letter to express our grave concerns regarding the installation of a cell phone tower at 440 I SE 3ro Place. Our foremost concerns are health issues. Regardless of what is directed by federal law, radiation should be a consideration when installation of such a tower affects the health of the general public. The desire for clarity of phone calls should not outweigh the increased health risks to area residents. These towers are unsightly, especially in someone's backyard. There are many areas of the United States where cell towers are made to look like part of the landscape, sometimes in the form of trees. If the tower were "disguised" and located in an area of trees, possibly at the south end of Union A venue or within the current trees of Heritage Park, the impact on the neighborhood would be greatly reduced. It has been stated that the initial tower would be 60 feet high, with the potential for extensions to reach up to 100 feet. It is absurd to place a structure ofthis size in the backyard of a residential home! The City should regulate the maximum height of these towers to reduce the possibility of unlimited extensions. We would encourage the City to explore alternative solutions in regards to the location and appearance of the tower before deciding the outcome of this request. Placing the tower as currently proposed would directly affect the health and property values of area residents. As Renton continues to improve its regional image, it would be a mistake to allow structures of this type to hinder the positive image we are working so hard to achieve. We strongll recommend that you deny the request for placement of a cell phone tower at 4401 SE 3' Place. Sincerely, L/l YUru__ '--J!J~{°t_lc,, · ;:;.JJitJ_ Ken Miller 4415 SE 4th St. Renton, WA 98059 425-271-7969 kmiller@connectexpress.com I:. i l,,('i .· CllYQ, RENTO~ RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION ----~-. -· 1 ;YV~ --~-YY'-"._, ,,u\-[ 1 , c '! /~ ~v~~J,J C6YL~~ L~ / ' \\\.£_ L}"jv._ci--oj ~.-\, ,,, . __\.?,y,_,<._,"l_. "1_ C,Y\ ~ '>' L Jt--, -~ (6 L, .\ le c 4",,_:) c3 ·+-~'--;_c:, . /~U2CLc{-(,_ f-'1-o--&L~-~1/L~ C "'-'-' ;;,.C -/Yl'\.C"--y1 L o-..yC-C ,: , •L ~ ._L __ \_ .-r _. (;,'L~;-v{-ct Y>-L.~ . .-()J_~v~)~·r'L .__c, J.-se. ;) c--li ct-k ,1 (LC rl Cx_ci'. f,u'_..,._,(4-C-s {b~S 'f-"LN_,yL~ .,__ cl_ r-:,' ::, ' . l <"<--C..! __ 1'·-----;f\ '-{)i_ (_~_c'-..,' A /\ n , ,,, A \ \' • ..>--'L ' L-'-.. <..k_C, 'V :,..\._ C ·• C <' 'L ~'-'-''-(_ -\ \..e,~ c_ Q __ (\_ ,- l'-'--o-1:> "lo c: __Q_ 7'Y ~ c '---Av -tic..Q_,u'_ J-( • l .._.-'<., L ~ _\_ JL:_Q "t ·~ ~ 0) c.,,.1Ko..,,,~ ~,\\ \'J,~<~{,10k~~) >t )'I\ ,. P . La. c,_\ )Jl ,~~ ~t {fJ? /1mr.ve0~,,_,0 1 JUL 2 3 2007 E3U1LD1NG DIVISION . ' • Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6th FL Doug Mears 4308 SE 3rd PL Renton, WA 98059 (425) 235-7964 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Re: INSTALLATION OF I-MOBILE TOWER July, 20, 2007 Dear Ms. Ding: GlfYOFRENTON RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION It is with great concern that I learned of T-Mobile's plan to install a new tower at the intersection of SE 3rd PL and Anacortes streets in the Heather Downs neighborhood of the Highlands. When my wife (3 months pregnant at the time) and I were looking to purchase a home in the fall of 1994, we were looking for a neighborhood free from overhead power lines or other sources of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). A number of studies had just been concluded around that time which confirmed a very strong correlation between high levels of this radiation and various types of physical ailments, including brain tumors and other types of cancers. While industry argued the study results (naturally), the correlative evidence was, and still is, very compelling. It was compelling enough, in fact, that we wouldn't consider purchasing a home in such close proximity to high-powered lines or towers of any type. Even if it could be proven that the radiation produced by these towers is not harmful ( which certainly has not happened yet), the controversy surrounding these towers is commonly known, making homes in close proximity to these towers nearly impossible to sell, or at the very least, impossible to sell at a price close to homes situated away from such towers and high-voltage power sources. Therefore, the damage which will be caused by this tower, ifT-Mobile is allowed to build it, will be economic at the very least; if the various studies about the effects of EMR are correct, the damage done to those living around the tower will be physical as well as economic. In either case, it is a frightening prospect. Of course, I-Mobile can argue that the protests over their proposed new tower are just another example of the "not in my back yard syndrome," and that these towers have to be built somewhere. Yes, they DO have to be built somewhere, if we want to keep this type of technology, but why do they have to be placed in the middle of residential neighborhood, with streets which are always full of playing children? The people who purchased homes in this neighborhood could NEVER have imagined such a thing would be constructed in such a bizarre location. There are still plenty of wooded areas nearby . ' • which could hold such a tower without the risks associated with building the tower (literally) in our front yards. One does not have to be far away from these towers to dramatically reduce the levels of EMR exposure. It is impossible to avoid the highest levels of exposure, however, for the many houses crowded around the proposed tower location. I urge you to reconsider the location of this T-Mobile tower. I have spoken to my neighbors at length about this issue, and I assure you that we are unified in our opposition to it. We have all promised to band together in whatever legal action is needed to stop its construction. We all strongly believe that there is more at stake here than property values. We believe that the health of our families may very well be at stake, and as you know, there is nothing that people will fight harder to protect than their children. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this very important matter. Sincerely, Doug Mears (dougemears(wrnsn.corn) cc: Renton City Council Mr. Dennis Law , , " RENTON · --· ~,veo dt,\.../! jLJl. 2 3 2007 GU!J.i)1NGD1VIS10N ·7)1 /107 0uhjecf: fro /-\J sej & f/ pho-11e_ 'lo0e~ ) AHe;1: :r i J \ 1),' Y1_:j, /Vi y h f,f :~ f_:-,.1__ , \ ~ {I.Nw>\ T c>v.J N Cl__ ka-»1 e. t1{ ~ 4 3 03 S; F. .::Jk'i:> 5 r/ r2e A)Tor\J 0 8'-o s-9 . tA,t='_ f'ct,'.secY_ t)i,t V (!M,; /d_ Ye V\ he re. ~ /ii_ C7U /€... l i' t+ I e_ \J\ € 1'.J h \:ic I/' r~ O-tJ hL We... Y\ o ... :v' e_ lo e. e.v\_ he Ye__ ~P--Jft.f year?s. Vs.Je.. rec e ,-1+) '·i *t?vti,i& o a c .6 '-"l v1.t ff.i.ct -f- ·rhe. frc;p'?se£ s,·t.::= s-~ CA_ eel/ ph011e.. . -hnu t (L. I S ) e s:::;, ···f-h.c<./1"\ d0"?:' ' +r,:;,--w'\ 0.-L-r- \~ck_ x~r£. / (1 • S f 3 tL l~e s/de11 h'ct}, 0c r~CL. , ~ V"° n €: I 'r; t, J_,01 V hOc:Jd2 / s .C't_ s;~ I J y r)e,cyftbo~-~07",R, ,l·\__je__ hOvVe_ ,vv1,0\,,-Yl<j I cJ.t 1 ) J V-e..,J a..« c{ _s e...rJ I~........... L1 TJ 2-e/1 S I J'\ Cl ~t v--Ovlrc:.OL ; ' . . . r , W c:.-o ~ ._\ e "-J-+-o +~e.-p/0r.ce ine,,i--- b-r -f'h, 5 +o-we ,2.: -J.-f '.s )es s -f-h_~ So,, +r o--vv\. L'v ..-. rie /j h J50Jes bed rcrt>fYJ, (Yl.; n !,( s bt~~ _ (,{Ja s /ri f-1,, e. m: J / t«r:3· l·f e., ..,1,11) e f!-.:5 f ci.:-0 .• ,&, f fi e c:Xot/VL j e v of . Y\v) I rJ l'.) CL--, C.e ) r +.~t 1:, 'e /-'. ' 1-h-RF (~_J ~ $ e_ i O {;x:..b fJe., 10 e_ '<-cc...c<, cc+< on . .f RnY\ The-- . I ·f-ret,,r1 s trJ, ff-e /-2. ··-tt--rJ ·f e tJi)o__,, C!a-t1 :) //'eAf/7 1 fl c_ re,:.,, 5 e_ ·tt e r-, ·s K o t--C1.J:::u1 c e. i€ bret:n -+vt.\'Ylo;e.:::,, t'.'.(.v\& ot~er ffleol,'U:.) 1 ' / . '1 \ C) .L_ I ( , .-l.., I pr O b e VV) S 1 / fl. l'-1 1A.J.-'\ , tlJ '-_-5 / t:' 1:L r ; 2-0\... I Io f'\ , -? 1he_ 0vvi+e n ntc ClvVI Lt ++eJ-people_ mavi '1 \o \oc..ks ~~ I Th. e._ +owe r C..00/~ t:IJJ IA/J be;~) JOO/ h/Jh, /he med'ca) problems are_ . b& eJ1Cujh, The-a_.(-9:ecf-tf iA.J/)/ · vi,av' t'-ht t:ri1 r ,/Jrt'pet2--f-'j \Io..._ { kt:: s I s an tJ ther -th , 11 ' ·we_ +ti,' 11 )( (Jc 'beH er Sfio t ~ 14.. '/~ -bweY2 wt;-µ Id be-~ 'f-fke.. 2)~ ti e r1 « C +· /I{ M / ~ 4£k' , 1, M ·-f-h e )-ree 5', ma ~e_ ; f-J t /) I< J / /~ e ?L free., the 1 Jo Tho..~ r'Y/ C!...oc I, ~JQ.fl,11A, vJ e i1 t2.9 e y t7VJ -h r, e c P11.5, cP e /€__ -I-he s;f-e s;;IL jtrnt< ~e~, \.Uhl J/ yrn l1Ja'11+ / f /l'f 'jt>-iA r f)ejl; i~ - hf7VtR? [J]o'{,f~ ftn1 wart+-1 otA.r c___lt; }Jrer: . cvvicf :;r~n~ cl;)Jr~n e,,x?.P..Sd +z;, ro...cQ, ct+ ,'c rJ c v)e.-cR b--+1 1 +-+h t' '1 /(_ st) I ~ti~~~¥~>-~;;.> Gµt id & r"' c e 'z (~'v\ik lc\,l\ \ ect!jc (3 0 .:_:s -S O E. ~j f4, 5 - /!e tv'Ttc ,J /j p--.1 s-7 :1TYOFRENTON l=IECElVED 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION ' "! ; ii,, -. /,~,.:_,,-" l L: , 1_'{. /le.), ./ / ~! : -, /., . _} 1 Llc..(, /i I!' ' ' ' '<' I tl --; I, ' ~~/"-·-,,, ... _.,.__,_ '-c;L.L.-- 1 i , .,> -./---, , .. , , I) ~1 ,1,L-L i{ /, {('-:, :JI" (c'i' L . ' C-1...\ .. I '/:ltj lii-Lc ,j c +le I :c/ Ii { l1 VI 1'....- r (j; C, '·'' {D {!d l~lt7 ,i') ' f-1, · 'F' "77 i , ,I', 1 --n ' i 'L. I ~ A.--f -'-· , .-(, I L,L I).:{, <-( U,_ ~-: , -/ r , •/ .-.:;, ! tO/Hf:\'10"1 RECEIVED _,,0,u~_/'i' tc-0. ({ . ·i:":!-L, Cci JUL 2 3 2007 BU!l.DINGDIVIS!ON I /~i_·, -,,,-, .,--:r1///~ T -.J-. , -· ...... . -. .'"-<-' Cl ~\_(7:_ C tc..G{ ! ,/ ·f.1_,i,. J.C '{ --, ~~7// L. (_., , ____ (_,{_' {.. I (!.{? - ·-'. :it -.,'\E 1J1.--:i7 July 23, 2007 Jill K Ding, c1nornnnof,1 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION Regarding the proposed site ofa T-Mobile Monopole, to be located at the corner of SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Ave SE. I am a neighbor of the Gitchels, even though I live a block away at 407 Anacortes Ave SE. From my house you can see the corner of the proposed T-Mobile Monopole. I am appalled that you would even consider having a company come in and put in an unsightly pole, sticking out like a sore thumb, for all to see, even from my house, the view would be unsightly. A lot of us have lived in Heather Downs. raised our families, and now have grandchildren, or will have grandchildren, visiting and possibly playing in the streets nearby. Who knows what the health affects may be from having such a pole so close by. We are a Family Neighborhood, not an Industrial Park. I'm sure there are other areas in the Highlands where such a pole would be better suited. What's wrong with putting it at the end of Union Avenue, in the tree line, make it look like a tree or something and not have it stick out in plain sight. What's wrong with up at the new Heritage Park, up on Union Avenue9 I'm sure there's room in the back, among the trees where it wouldn't be such an unsightly eye sore. I wouldn't purchase a house ifl had to look at that T-Mobile Monopole everytime I went out or looked out my front door. I don't think any perspective home buyer would even consider buying in this neighborhood. with that ugly pole sticking out, staring you in the face. I, as a homeowner, and resident of this neighborhood, ask that you reconsider relocating the site of any purposed T-Mobile Monopole. ;;:::00~$ft~ _::r;.;m,,,.s fc.#;r V/1/.)',/.,,_'/,; / 407 Anacortes Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 CC: Renton City Council, Denis Law July 18, 2007 Jill K Ding, CITYOFfiENTON RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2007 BUILDING DIVISION We are responding to the I-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'd Place R-0-W This tower will not be placed near our home without the City of Renton or I-Mobile purchasing our home at today's value I We Charles & Frances Gitchel live at 4401 SE 3'd Place. The proposed location of this Antenna is in the comer of our front yard. Our house is not big and fancy, but it is our home. We live in a neighborhood where there aren't any sidewalks. Men, women and children walk and play in the street. The proposed location of this Antenna is where a city sidewalk should be. My wife purchased this home in 1966 and raised her children here. I grew up in Renton and went to Renton High School. During the Vietnam War 1 enlisted in the Air Force (Active Duty) and was trained in electronics as a Radar Repairman and later in the Air National Guard Reserves as a Radio-Telephone Communications Technician. l was taught extensively the dangers of frequency radiation. I talked to Stephen Ames, CRS, our Real Estate Broker, about the affects of this proposed cell tower on our property value. His letter is attached. Listed is his long list ofReal Estate Credentials, including him being an expert witness in court. In his letter, when he refers to the radiation issue, he states" A buyer who perceives the risk, whether real or imagined, will usually avoid it, which means no sale for you if you are trying to sell, regardless of the price, because life is not worth money to most people -there's no exchange rate." It is very evident that the Renton City Hall needs to be educated on the health and financial consequences of these towers. I was taught that frequency radiation greatly increases the risk of medical problems like cancer, brain tumors, birth defects, sterilization ... the list goes on. The question has and still is "How much is too much?" In the past, some military men stood near antennas because it made them warm. Further research led to the invention of the microwave oven. Microwave ovens are built with a metal casing and screening in the oven door to help block the radiation from harming you. -Microwave is at a different frequency than are cell phones, radio and television, but they all use frequency radiation. The dangers exist in all cases. I will use a microwave oven as an example because it is something people can relate to. -The amount of danger from frequency radiation is directly related to the power output of the antenna. Example: If you place a glass of water in a high-powered microwave oven, it will boil in about 2 minutes. But if you place that same glass of water in a cheap low powered microwave oven, it will take 3 or more minutes to boil. -The amount of danger from frequency radiation is also determined by how far you are from the antenna. The closer you are, the more power you receive. A good example is the signal bars on your cell phone. -In the water example the water boiled sooner if the oven had more power, but the water still boils at a lower power level. This shows that the danger from frequency radiation is also determined by the length of time you're being radiated at any given power level. As an example: You can put a cold glass of water in a high powered microwave for 5 or more seconds, the water will still be cold. Tt wasn't radiated long enough to have any noticeable affect Cell Phone towers are transmitting to hundreds or thousands of cell phones continuously. If you are too close to these towers, it is like having you and your children being completely covered with transmitting cell phones, all the time, day & night. It doesn't end until you get away from the antenna. But how close is too close? What effect will it have even at low levels? Who knows? The water still boils! Cell phone companies only care about the bottom line. Are you gullible enough to believe them? Would you take that chance with your children or grandchildren's health? My wife and I will not! No responsible person would gamble with anyone's lives! A neighbor gave us this letter from Bonnie Watson at Keller Williams Realty. Her letter is attached. She states in her letter: "It is my opinion that the marketable value of the properties located within this area would be affected dramatically." Our Broker, Stephen Ames, has a lot of information in his attached letter. He concluded it with: "The tower presents a very real blockage to your ability to sell your home at any price." Do you understand what he's saying? Anyone, with any common sense, would know that placing a 60-foot tower in your front yard, 45 feet from your house, would lower your property value. But he's saying our house would be worthless! This insanity needs to end. City Hall is supposed to protect it citizens. We were let down. Our back is against the wall. The regulations on cell tower locations needs to be modified so that no one else has to go through the many sleepless nights. the mental anguish and having the runs. These towers should all look like fir trees and be placed in wooded areas, greenbelts or water run- off holding ponds. Even City Parks, where the exposure would be for a limited amount of time, would be better than destroying neighborhoods and radiating families 24 hours a day. There are wooded areas 2 blocks south and another 3 blocks east of our home. So why here? The wooded area at the south end of Union Avenue is only 3 blocks away. Heritage Park is just up the street. So why here? If you say the law will not allow you to place it in these areas ... Change the laws! Any trees that are disturbed, require the cell companies to replace them. If you are one of those that say you can't disturb the animals, your priorities are in the wrong order. Your saying it's OK to put us through hell but you can't bother the Rats in the forest? City ofRenton's regulations on cell phone towers has allowed T-Mobile to apply for a permit to place this tower just 45 feet from our home! Would you let them? Would you want an ugly, radiating antenna in your front yard this close to your children? Would you like your home equity stolen from you? Of course not! Does this situation fall into the category of·'To Serve and Protect the Public"? It was suggested to me, that Rats from the cell phone industry, might have influenced City Hall. I ask you, do you represent the citizens of Renton 9 Or do the Rats have priority? Please end this "NIGHTMARE!" Charled/~es L. Gitchel CC: Renton City Council, Denis Law, July 17, 2007 Charles and Frances Gitchel 4401 SE 3rd Pl Renton, WA 98059-5140 Dear Chuck and Fran: Per your request, I am writing you this letter to render my professional opinion concerning the marketing effects of a cell tower on or near your property. Licensed in Real Estate in 1975, and a broker since 1979, I have had many experiences including being an expert witness in court, liquidation of large receivership estates for the courts, as well as owned and operated my own firm, and managed others. During the 32+ years I have been in the field of Real Estate, I have achieved and been awarded CRS designation (Certified Residential Specialist) by the National Association of Realtors since 1999, which is only held by some 25,000 agents across the country. I have been ranked in the top 1 % internationally since 1996 while with Coldwell Banker, and Top GOLD Producer since being bought-out by Prudential, both the very top ranks achievable. My full credentials are listed below. During the last few years, the saturation of interest and activity in the arena of real estate has become higher than ever. The advent of increased access to information through the internet has made the industry a full disclosure enterprise. Full disclosure is in at least two forms: (1) Seller's disclosure of what they know to be defective about their property; (2) Buyer's discovery of defective aspects of a property by way of inspection and other forms of due diligence. The latter of the two means of disclosure poses the most difficulty for you in the sale of your home should there be a tower placed on it: discovery. This process includes the Buyer being able to research all aspects of possible threats to their quality of life should they purchase your place. Controversy on the internet and in libraries concerning EMF and other forms of radiation, radiation fall-out, and rads is as wide-spread as the topics themselves. Whether or not there is a direct threat to people's health, the perception of the risk involved is of significance. As you well know, your perception of things is your connection to reality for you -right? Well, to be honest, this is true for most everyone. A buyer who perceives the risk, whether real or imagined, will usually avoid it, which means no sale for you if you are trying to sell, regardless of the price, because life is not worth money to most people -there's no exchange rate. This is not the whole story, however When it comes to Buyers and Agents, it is the Agent's responsibility to point out known defects or possible defects that would likely be in question even before showing the house to a prospective purchaser. What this means to you is, you won't even get showings as a result of the potential risks to health in the ownership as perceived by the professionals who ''weed-out" properties that would not be to a Buyer's liking, or would pose potential risks to the Buyer and/or that Agent who could be sued later for what he or she should have known, even if the Buyer did not know at the time. My advice to you is to not allow the tower to go on or near your property, to assure you highest and best use and ultimate value from your property. Should you wish to have me further attest to these factors, I will gladly assist you. The tower presents a very real blockage to your ability to sell your home at any price. Very truly yours, Stephen T. Ames, CRS Associate Broker Prudential NW Realty Assoc. LLC 622 S. 320th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 0: 253.765.2327 C 206.498.2637 F: 253.839.7066 CREDENTIALS -Real Estate Sales License 1975 -Associate Broker of Real Estate License 1979 -NAR Certified Residential Specialist ( ) -Certified 1031 Exchange Specialist -Certified Previews® & Luxury Properties Specialist -Chairman's Circle Office Top Agent 96-06 -Chairmen's Circle Gold Producer 96-06 NAR /WAR/ SKAR Realtor® Member -Member NWMLS (Nation's Largest MLS) -Member CBA (Commercial Broker's Assoc) KELLEI 11 \. L T \" I'm writing this letter on the behalf of the residents of Heatherdowns regarding the proposed placement of a T-Mobile cell phone tower on the comer of SE 3rd Place & Anacortes A venue. I myself for 17 years owned & lived 5 houses to the west of the proposed cell tower site. I understand my neighbors concerns about a 60 foot monolith being constructed in their small single family one story home residence neighborhood. Especially with the potential of the tower reaching 100 feet is concerning. I am a licensed realtor in the State of Washington and an owner ofmy Keller Williams Puyallup office. It is my opinion that the marketable value of the properties located within this area would be affected dramatically. Even though the proposal states that there is no conclusive evidence of environmental impacts of the project that has nothing to do with marketability of a property with a structure of this magnitude standing out like a sore thumb. The one uncontrollable factor in real estate sales is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!!! Constructing a cell phone tower is affecting the location of this quiet neighborhood whether significant environmental impacts or not. Sellers will see an impact on the marketable and sellable value of their homes. Buyers will see the tower and say, "What is that?" Buyi;rs set the market value of homes. If a buyer has a choice of identical homes, both priced in the $300,000 range, one with a cell phone tower in close proximity and one without, buyers will choose the home without the tower. Unless the home with the cell phone tower was priced dramatically less. I have seen this time and time again. I feel there are plenty of other suitable locations to build a cell phone tower rather than a small residential neighborhood. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at my numbers listed below. Best regards, Bonnie Watson Keller Williams Realty 615 East Pioneer, Suite #203 Puyallup, WA 98372 Office #253-848-5304 Cell #253-906-7284 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON ME'.\10RANDUM July 23, 2007 Jill Ding Jan Illian x72 l 6 T-MOBILE 4401 -SE 3'• Street LUA07-065 I have reviewed the application for the T-Mohtlc 'vlonopole and associated equipment to be located in the right of way near 4401 -SE 3'<l Street and have the following comments: I. Applicant shall comply with the Master Use Agreement. City of Ren,on Department of Planning I Building I Public \.'\,arks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT PIM f\P.ViW COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA0?-065, CU-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 10, 2007 RECEIVED APPLICANT: T-Mobile USA PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dinq 1111 I 1 ,'.m7 -·- PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Monooole in SE 3'' Pl R-0-W PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 104 sauare feet BUILDING AREA (oross): N/A BUILDING_ LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3'' Place WORK ORDER NO: 77772 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The pro1ect site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina ----· Air Aesthetics Water Lioht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additio information is needed to properly assess this proposal Signature of Date City of Ren,on Department of Planning I Building I Public vl,orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: . COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 APPLICATION NO LUA0?-065. CU-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 10, 2007 APPLICANT: T-Mobile USA PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Mono ale in SE 3'' Pl R-0-W PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 104 s uare feet BUILDING AREA ross : NIA LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3'' Place WORK ORDER NO: 77772 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element afthe Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housma Air Aesthetics Water Lioht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histor1c/Cu!tura/ Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 11,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public v\<orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ;:ire. COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 10, 2007 APPLICANT: T-Mobile USA PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dinq PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3•d Pl R-0-W PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 104 sauare feet BUILDING AREA !nross): N/A LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3'' Place WORK ORDER NO: 77772 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina "--- Air Aesthetics Water LioflUGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Uti/1t1es Animals Transport8!1on Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 4418 SE 3"' Place Renton, WA 98059 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Ding: ' We are writing in reference to the T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'd Place R-0-W project, Land Use Number LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF. We are opposed to this project and request that you tenninate it. Our reasons are as follows: • A 59-foot, I I-inch monopole with its associated equipment vault is in itself ugly • Having a pole in the neighborhood would lower our property values • The pole is counter to the efforts of the City of Renton to improve neighborhoods. The city has passed and enforced codes that are used to prevent blight and related degradations. For example, there are codes that limit the height of weeds, require the removal of garbage, require that homes be maintained, etc. The pole would degrade the comer of SE 3"' Place and Anacortes Avenue SE as well as the surrounding properties. • There are other more suitable locations for a cellular tower. Towers such as this do not belong in a residential neighborhood. They should be placed on government property or at business locations. • As a I-Mobile customer, our service is adequate. A pole would not provide any additional benefits that would improve our service. Once again, please tenninate this project at once. We do not want a cellular tower in our neighborhood. In addition to the address above, we can be reached by phone at 425-228-2805 or by e-mail at vic-jeni@juno.com Thank you, 1)~ £. 12 I~ J I I -----------------~- Victor E. Bloomfield • Bloomfield/Skuk 4418 SE 3"' Place Renton, WA 98059-5139 ~ .SE/\'rTLE~ \/VA ~}H::t ~:. 1 JLJL ./(AJ7 P·fvj ~:'~ l. Jill Ding, Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ,,.,.,.,....-,,.,,.,, ___ ~~.,- .,,# ~~:::_,_;~,~" '.p'C """--....... _~_.., .. ~:k::C:5 ?$:3:z:::(2 11 ,i, ,I, ,I ,II,,, ,I,/ ,i,, ,i, ,II,,,/, I, ,II,,,/,/,/,/.,/ ,I,,, ,I II July 19, 2007 City of Renton Development Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Jill K Ding, Senior Planner File No.: T-Mobile Monopole in SL 3"' Place R-O-W/LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF Dear Ms. Ding: .. _;·,•.1 We are writing to voice our protest of the planned cell phone tower that will be located in our neighborhood. Besides being an eyesore we will sec from inside our home and outside from our patio, we will have to contend with the blinking light(s) that they have to place on cell towers. We also feel this tower will lower our property value that we've spent over 40 years trying to increase! Have you considered placing the tower in the stand of trees at our new Heritage Park? Have you looked at the south end of Union Avenue where there are also trees that would help camouflage the tower? We ask you please not to place this tower on the proposed site of 440 I SE 3rd Place. Sincerely, ~\f.~7 Alvin L. Courtney PO Box 2653 Renton WA 98056-0653 425-226-5114 ) ' ' u:···. . /~-· ~·· . . . /I ~ /7J:...., y . te::. ~/·~ . ' 1~ ' 7" facqlleli ~,I:;. Courtney · Physical Address: 4325 SE Third Street ----~··~'"'"" ·""""""c a;;:;::a s SA@SL 16!2k.iit(1-M •. Courtney, Alvin L. & Jacqueline L. P 0Box 2653 Renton WA 98056-0653 S Esetl:\,lj' L"€'i'' '?."tV"Jt'?i ~Bi ,,., 19 :,.ll,.J!k._2.!-1~.QC,)Pf\1:,i;I, /'., L Attn: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner City of Renton Development Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton , WA 98057 .. July 18th, 2007 Jill Ding Renton City Hall, 6th Floor 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Ding, I am writing to voice my opposition to a cell tower being constructed at the corner of SE 3rd place and Anacortes in Renton. My backyard is approximately 150 feet from the proposed location and I'm certain it will impact my views from my backyard. Who wants an unsightly cell tower as a view from their backyard deck? The proposition states that the cell tower will be 60 feet, but I'm concerned that it could be as high as 100 feet if the cell tower owner should lease it to another cell company. Although unfounded. 1 am also concerned about the health is- sues these towers carry with them. Finally, I am also concerned about the impact on the property values of our neighborhood should such a tower be built. I understand the necessity of cell coverage (1 own a cell phone myself), and the impor- tance to line of sight to a tower, but I think this tower could be placed in an area where it won't have as much impact on views and property valuation. There are several wooded sections in this neighborhood, perhaps it could be placed in one of those areas and camouflaged as well? I understand that Southern California has adopted some unique ways to camouflage their cell towers. Thank you for your consideration and time, Greg Schoendaller 4408 SE 4th ST Renton, WA 98059 ('J ""-.:.;..---1,/\ C) (" j <:"' -:-..-., ·--1 %°.I U\ ~ ---~ _ _, (, u, r :,. . (/\_ I' 7:) ,_, E. --,_, G') ' ~ '> "") ~ , .:;,. --..:;- 1 I I I I ! I ! -D ~ C -C, r Os:\ 1 ;,. I 0) C) t. ,-.;---.. Vi .-. .P '-J s_ -. I '.,,.; C (ii r·· m I G' )> !.,.) ~ c, · .... 1 r-m, ~· 1i • ! ~ o-!,t"t w r·· I-' • Ms. Jill Ding Renton Planning Department Renton City Hall 6'h floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ms. Ding, 4209 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 July 19, 2007 JUL 1 'l 2GU7 o;:r,\1:::\VED ,;,._-,;,/':,,,., I am writing to express my concern over the proposed installation of a cell phone tower less than one block from my home in the Heatherdowns area of the Renton Highlands. The reference for this proposed cell tower which would be located at 4401 SE 3rd Place is R-0-W/ #LUA-065 CU-A ECF. Frankly, I do not understand why a cell tower needs to be located in the middle of a residential area when there are several locations very close by that would not be as intrusive to the residential area. And as a matter of City building code, new residential neighborhoods are required to have all utilities underground. It is inconsistent with this policy to allow a cell tower to be located a residential neighborhood. Obvious alternative locations (shown on attached map) include sighting it within the water pump station complex at the south end of Union Avenue, or among the trees in the newly developed Heritage Park on Union, or in the construction area to the west. Additionally, there are a myriad of potential locations in the publicly owned wooded area between the Heatherdowns development and the Maple Wood golf course to the south. My biggest objection to this proposal is the potential impact on property values in this area. A cell tower at the proposed location would certainly limit the prospective buyers. Just the appearance of the tower in the neighborhood is enough to scare away potential buyers with concerns over health issues, in addition to being an eyesore. I ask the City to reconsider the proposal to locate a cell tower in my neighborhood and reject it. Sincerely, cc: CG Construction Area Alternate location Park Alternate location Pump station Alternate location Proposed location • • /'-1~ iJ.Aue 1.t ()AtJ_S~-c~ldr~ c._LJa __ _ .£JjL~--tl_-c -y:"' ;L'ei_-f--Scz-2.?fif:c-c. 1J __ _ -~ _ _ _ ,Re JJ-. o 41) +.u.J 0 IJ..d C1 ) e $ _ _jF__r__c)_~----T-4-:=L. ________ _ ___ _____ /hl.Jt!o '>-r'!'__d C-e c.-G _J_g f.() ~ v--<:;,_/ ,~~--__;_ ________ _ --------S"-7 k_aLLr~-r..L' (7//c).>< T.11-c L.,c-4,t";~ (!),./' ----_ --_ -;{k5 _~~-e--/ vU __ (J__c/ .#! /0 ;<.-1 9--6'.~av-,/z()'.fk2 __ _ _ __ , ~ U <, 7o __ T.~--//J ,?<. ~_Ct1df-_~A.}_ 5 . ;('kdA-1. ~---~______L,4./J t/i_L/4'-vv' 7k~_µ_t,J ti_ r_wt.·~0 -~A/...s - ----__ i Mi-.,.-_, __________ _ _______ --~-----------~-----__ _ ------+ -uJ t-1 I cJ~ ..i rlf Is. M e./"1_ _& A..)__s_ 1 ~~""-~_c.(! ____ _ C ,~ - ------,-F-5-!£_~-S:-a.{)..[~v, I .f _1/ .. 6eMu.aC____..LT°. _!___S.__'4.11..) - ----; ()i,.~e_t---,<J--e.,;chflOP-/h~ CA/,1 Le ilL;//~IV 'rt) -~! LA U.f..-e.. . M ucil____ C-v A.JCe tut:)__ ? --- .; ·,c ?JCA-1'-R f u. T N 6U 1 h.~1.1_s;Jt± .1J ___ 6__(!_ Y'{f - --~-i-.L&1_9_ tiL Qade v,. :;~-1----.AdtL,(,e ____ o/?~----~/f . --:-P-w-#---#<&1 ,u C,174--a.!P::J._-cl::: __ ):.l_~---------- _-~--~· r fi/Mi ;e~-fi"' ····-. . =-~j.= ... --· ~'t1~k, ... • c .· . . .. . ...... ~~=~ -------{------------;c_L;,~%;' -----.---------t·---·-----------·--·------- l--··-~ . ~~ __ ------~=~---- ---------·----------------------- -----------+---------- ., July 18, 2007 Ms. Jill Ding Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Case LUA07-065 T-Mobile 60 foot Monopole at 3m Place ROW Dear Ms. Ding - :· \\'1.::tx; ·1·,J,\j I would like to see the T-Mobile cell phone tower moved to another location. Allowing a commercial structure in the rniddle of a residential development violates the intent of the City of Renton's Mission Statement regarding livable neighborhoods. s)~o~l\/ Michael O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 425-271-6973 Cc. Mayor Kathy Kaelker Renton City Council .. - July 18, 2007 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way JUL 1 S ?rn7 Renton, WA 98057 ~, >:of ·; .... Re: Case LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF TMobile 60-foot Monopole at SE 3'd Place ROW Dear Ms. Ding, Pursuant to the above-referenced Land Use permit, a proposed 60-foot monopole cellular tower would be placed via underground vault on a right of way on the southeast comer of SE 3rd Place and Anacortes Avenue. It is my understanding that this is the first such conditional permit to place a cellular tower in a residential neighborhood, all previous placements having been on commercial or public land. The City of Renton is known for its neighborhood-focused initiatives with emphasis on quality-of-life enhancements. The opening statement of the City's mission is "Providing a healthy, welcoming atmosphere where citizens choose to live, raise families and take pride in their community". This concept was perfectly reflected in the recent dedication of Heritage Park on Union Avenue SE. Heritage Park is a fantastic addition to the neighborhood and brings pride, as well as recreation, to all who live in the area. The park is at the gateway to the Heather Downs neighborhood, the proposed site of the cellular tower. It seems inconsistent for the City to establish a beautiful park for citizens to enjoy, yet allow the placement of a commercial structure in the midst of their homes. There are a dozen residences where the proposed tower will be in view from windows, yards or decks, even with the mature trees and landscaping in the area. I understand that this proposed location was selected in part because of the elevation of this comer. I would like to submit the following alternative, non-residential locations for consideration: • The southern-most end of Union Avenue is only 3 blocks from the proposed site and is King County property overlooking Maple Valley Highway and the Cedar River Valley. • The south end of Union is also home to a Seattle Water Pump Station. • The Olympic Pipeline right-of-way is less than a mile west of the proposed location. • Heritage Park itself is another possibility. The tower could be placed on one of the comers and it would not detract from the beauty or use of the park. ,.. The height of the tower could be increased to compensate for the loss of elevation at these alternative locations. The impact to people of a height increase in these locations would be negligible. In summary I oppose the placement of a commercial structure, regardless of how aesthetically camouflaged, in a residential neighborhood. I believe this sets an unfavorable precedent that is contrary to Renton' s message and vision. Thank you for your consideration of alternative, non-residential locations for the placement of commercial structures such as this proposed cellular tower. Sincerely, Valerie O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 425-271-6973 Cc: Kathy Koelker, Mayor Renton City Council .. JUL l 8 20G7 Mr. Newton E. Elllfr!ts . ·-, - 4218 SE 3rd Pl Renton, WA 980§9 SF/\l"i,C VI/A,.981 17 .JUI :·,,_,, PM 6 T .,., ILL :)1tl/6,, "). Cf\,OIJL PLtiivv~',-1.. Oc v L-" L. ,_, ii r,-, 15'>'-''" <; !?11-vi e,..,'=_s" 1)1 vis t DN /:,_ 1:7 l, f; ,i., u 1 "' "-j) f'-"O J ,:-'t,,.. ff T-1v1 c 1) , Lt· fl'1 o ,v"' p c· 1.. a-1 ,1.., s ,._= J r,.,!n fJ . o . .....,, / 0 5 ') S , Cry ('-fl. rJ 'f \;V A-lf /J... L::: /1, f-c, rv W tV CJ J' 0 S 7 Ii, i., i,, (ii,,,, i ,i,/., ,i, ,II, .. i, i, ,/l,.,j,i,/,J,,i,J.,.,/11 City of Renwn Department of Planning I Building I Public W0, KS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA0?-065, CU-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 10, 2007 APPLICANT: T-Mobile USA PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Mono ole in SE 3'' Pl R-0-W PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian BUILDING DIVISION SITE AREA: 104 s uare feet BUILDING AREA ross : NIA LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3'' Place WORK ORDER NO: 77772 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!Gfare Plants Recreation Land/Shore/me Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ H1stonc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS f./o NC We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas 1n which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wher. additional information is neede to properly assess this proposal. Date ~· City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Park.S COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA0?-065, CU-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 10, 2007 APPLICANT: T-Mobile USA PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dinq PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'd Pl R-0-W PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 104 sauare feet BUILDING AREA lnross): N/A LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3'' Place WORK ORDER NO: 77772 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the in~tallation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 {R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housma Air Aesthetics Water Lioht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/S!Jorelinc Use Utilities Animals Transpor1ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation A1rpor1 Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS City of R . n Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 24, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA0?-065, CU-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APPLICANT: T-Mobile USA PROJECT MANAGE PROJECT TITLE: T-Mobile Mono ale in SE 3c' Pl R-0-W PLAN REVIEW: Jan II SITE AREA: 104 s uare feet BUILDING AREA ross: NIA LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3c' Place WORK ORDER NO: 77772 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Lioht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Hea///1 Public Services Energy/ Histon'c!Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with par1icufar attention to those areas 1n which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addirional infor ion is needed to properly assess this proposal ative NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE• LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: July 10. 20,J;· LU,\~7-065. CU-A. !:.Ci' T -Mobile Mein< -,;ule ,, ;;e J'' Plac"' R-'0-'N PERMIT APPLICATION DATE Jur t 29. 2007 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Jcly l·J 2COi APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Foy. Wireless Facilities, Inc, Tel: 12061574-63'8; Emi, kevin.foy@wflnet.com Pem11tsJRe11iew Requested· Environmental ($EPA) Review, Conditional Use Permit Other Permits whkh may be required: Building and Right-of-Way Pennits Requested Studies: NIA Location where application may be rovlewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulatrons Used For Project Mitigation: Plannrng/Bullding/Public Works Depar1ment, Development Services ~~~;~on, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. Remo 11, WA Env:ronmental (SEPAi Checkl,st The prcject will be subject to the Crtys Sl:PA ordinance and o:r.cr a,,1,i" ~c;,e codas and ,.,gcla(1ons as appropn,.te Com_ments on the above application must be submitted in rif · · Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 w ~g to J,II Ding, Senior Planner. Development aoout lhrs pro~sal, 0 , w,sn lu oe mode a p;rty cf 'C~ d _ d ' by :00 PM on July 24. 2007. If you have questions Manager A.nyone who sut>m,ls wrrn,.1 co,'1rnents ~·ill-:~lo ":, rece,ve add1l 1ona 1 no;1f1cat,on by marl,. co"tact t~e Project oec1s1on on t,,~ proiecc -~• Jc:ally ber,on1e a pa~y of record and will be .1ot1f1ed of any CONT ACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner; Tai: (425) 430-7219; Eml: jding@ci.renton.wa.us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION 11 you would like lo be maoe a pa1ty of reco'd to rece1 fu h · f ;rirs iorm ancl return to City 01 Renton, Dev~lopment ~!nn~ er/0°5~rm5 aii0Gn on this prcposed project, complete 1ng, ., o rady Way. Renton, WA 96057 t>JJme/File No T-Mob1le Monopole in SE 3rd Place R-O-WILUA0?-065, CU-A, ECF hAME \'IAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO .. CERTIFICATION I, Sen., ~ , hereby ce11ify that ? copies of the above doc ... ~ 111 •1i,4 were posted by me in __2_ conspicuous places or nearby the described prope~':._r:~;z../1,,,,_ DATE: r-fo-(f.f SIGNED: ~,rf~o'tA'f;. ~\ ATTEST: ' CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 10th day of July, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Environmental Checklist, PMT's & NOA documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies -Env. Checklist, NOA, & PMT's Kevin Foy -Accpt Letter T-Mobile USA -Accpt Letter Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only (Signature of Sender): -~ ~-J/ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) See Attached Contact Applicant See Attached Notary (Print): A,n~i<: c L, 'i t:)r, My appointment expires: ;;i-, '\.·-,!__: Project Name: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'0 Pl R-0-W Project Number: LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Reoresentina • AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERG DETERMINATIONS) ' Dept. of Ecology• I WDFW -Stewart Reinbold • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 3190 160th Ave SE 39015-172"' Avenue SE f---O~ly~,m~,p~ia=,~W~A_9_8_5_0~4-=7_7_0_3--,-------t-B_e_l_le_v_ue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region• Duwamish Tribal Off.~ic-e-:.c------+.M-c"-uc'-:k-cle~s'ch-o~o~t "C~u.,,.ltu_r_ac-1 R"'e_s_o_u-rc_e_s~P=r-og-ra-m--c•-1 Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 , US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor• Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section I 900 Oak. esdale Ave. SW l Renton, WA 98055-1219 1 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 _ Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Mr Micheal E. Nicholson Director of Community Development 13020 SE 72''° Place Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liason Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 State Department of Ecology NW Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation~ Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box 48343 Olvmoia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South I Kent, WA 98032-5895 ~ City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 PO Box 34018 J I, Seattle, WA 98124-4018 ·--~------------~--------------~------------------ Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application, • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing 321100088004 AVILA MARCOS A RENTON WA 98059 321100048008 BLOOMFIELD VICTOR E+JENNIFE 4418 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110030004 BROYLES WAYNE E 4427 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321100033000 COURTNEY ALVIN LEROY PO BOX 2653 RENTON WA 98056 321110049004 EHLE JOHN A+SALLY A 406 ANACORTES AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 321100049006 EMIG MICHAEL G 4412 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110047008 GLASSER DANIEL E+ANGIE C 4414 SE 4TH PL RENTON WA 98059 321100087006 JONES RONALD 4900 NE 19TH CT RENTON WA 98059 321100082007 LY VIET UY+ THU-DIEM T LE 4307 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110028008 MILLER KENNETH D 4415 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98055 321100084003 BERRY ROGER E+VICKEY L 4405 SE 3RD el RENTON WA 98056 321100031004 BRESKO ADAM B 4315 SE 3RD ST RENTON WA 98056 321100028000 CHEESEBREW STEVEN S & LAURA 4229 SE 3RD ST RENTON WA 98059 321110057007 DALGLEISH JAMES scon 407 ANACORTES AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 321100052000 EKNESS MICHAEL A 4400 SE 3 RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321100086008 FOSTER CORY T + FOSTER LORI K 4413 3RD PL SE RENTON WA 98059 321100079003 GLOSTER PATRICIA A 4217 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110029006 KELLERMAN ISAAC+SHARON 231 QUINCY AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 321100053008 MEARS DOUGLAS 4308 SOUTHEAST 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321100046101 MILLS EULALIA S 4422 SE 3 RD PL RENTON WA 98056 321100027002 BIEDLER JENESSA & JOHN 4223 SE 3RD ST RENTON WA 98056 321100051002 BRIGHAM SHANNON 4404 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110010006 CHONG BENNY S L+KWAN-0! 4300 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98056 321110055001 DEC!CIO RICHARD L+DENISE D 4313 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321100056001 ELLIFRITS NEWTON E ELLIFRITS JOYLEEN M 4218 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321100083005 GITCHEL CHARLES+FRANCES 4401 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110012002 IE YONG HAN+HAK,SOKHALY 4312 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98056 321100054006 KIMBERLING CHERYL M 4300 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98055 321100050004 MEGOW JOHN T+SENAIDA E 4408 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110027000 NATION HAROLD E+BARBARA J 4409 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 • .. 321110018009 NGUYEN PHILLIP P 4426 $E 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321110017001 OHALLORAN MICHAEL J 4470 SF 4TH ST kl::N I ON WA 98055 321110019007 PEERY JEREMY R+JILL A 4432 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321100029008 RUTLEDGE BRUCE A 4303 SE 3RD ST RENTON WA 98056 321110014008 SEZTO LEWIS N 10875 RAINIER AVES SEATTLE WA 98178 321100085000 jLAv·0M ll:R VA.~ JR 4409 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98055 321100081009 STARK JAMES L & KIMBERLY C 4301 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98055 321100080001 WONG LUCIE ANN T +EUGENE J 1703 FIELD PL NE RENTON WA 98059 321100032002 NIEMIEC RONALD+ BEVERLY 4321 SE 3RD ST RENTON WA 98059 321110026002 OWENS GRAHAM G+STACY R 4403 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321110011004 ROBINSON JAMES L & GWYNN R 4306 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321110015005 SCHOENDALLER GREGORY 4408 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321100025006 SHARP SHARON L+STEVE D 4215 SE 3RD ST RENTON WA 98059 321100026004 SMITH JAMES E+SMITH JUDY M 12053 5TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 321110054004 TAKAMI BRIAN GENE+CHRISTINE 4307 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321110056009 NIPERT PAT A+KRISTI A 401 ANACORTES AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 321100046002 PARMENTER KENNETH R 4426 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98059 321110016003 ROSE MATTHEW M+REBECCA A 4414 SE 4TH ST RENTON WA 98059 321110048006 SCHUTTER TRENT +DENISE 4406 SE 4TH PL RENTON WA 98059 321100055003 SHIMMEL DENNIS A 4224 SE 3RD PL RENTON WA 98055 321110013000 SMITH JOEL G 349 ANACORTES AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 321100030006 TELQUIST JAPKE E 4309 SE 3RD ST RENTON WA 98059 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: July 1 D, 2007 LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place R-0-W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the insta!lation of a 59-foot 11-inch monopole I structure and associated equipment vault within the right-of-way abutting a Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zone. The project site totals 104 square feet in area and would result in 32 cubic yards of excavation. Access to the site would be provided via Anacortes Avenue NE. PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to 4401 SE 3rd Place OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As !he Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 29. 2007 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 10. 2007 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Kevin Foy, Wireless Facilities, Inc.; Tel: (206) 574-6328; Eml: kevin.foy@wfinet.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Conditional Use Permit Other Permits which may be required: Building and Right-of-Way Permits Requested Studies: N/A Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 96057 NIA The subject site 1s designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the City of Renton Cornp1·ehens1ve Land Use Map and Residential -8 (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance and other applicable codes and :-egulat1ons as appropriate ' Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on July 24, 2007. If you have questions about this proposal, or wlsh to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding, Senior Eml: jding@ci.renton.wa.us Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION lf you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3rd Place R-O-W/LUA0?-065, CU-A. ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: "~y O ' ·~ + CITY FRENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator o~" ~ ~ ~ ~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~N'fo,,....------------------------ July 10, 2007 Kevin Foy Wireless Facilities, Inc. 575 Andover Park W #201 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Dear Mr. Foy: T-Mobile Monopole in SE 3'd Place ROW LUA07-065, CU-A, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 6, 2007. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at ( 425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, /~1{;!}~ {/ Jill K. Ding u Senior Planner cc: T-Mobile USA I Applicant -----~-J-0-55~So-u-th_G_ra_d_y_W_ay--_R_e_n_to_n_, W-as-·h-in-gt_o_n_9-80_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled matt'!rial, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE / r)/ / ~ ~~ ;,- City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTmJ LAND USE PERMIT JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: City of Renton ROW PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: "f-MCX::J 1..£ SE04619 3'" & Anacortes M ONO e<J t.,6 1. ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 4401 CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-430-7200 SE 3'" Place Renton, WA 98059 '{2..-D·L.iJ~~zfc1.. PL-cu:e... a.rd. _Art.,.ctY -+c 5. P(,;e, sE APPLICANT (if other than owner) KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER($): .J2!!888838. J,Ji)Nf:'; NAME: Kevin Foy COMPANY (if applicable): T-Mobile USA EXISTING LAND USE(S): R.O.W. . Urs-fvic·. ~ I .f'5!:S i./tJ i ("t) pjk_., ADDRESS: 19807 North Creek PKWY N PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Construct and operate 5'f' ( (11 unmanned wireless communication facility in R.0.W. CITY: Bothell ZIP: 98011 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: R.O.W. has no designation. TELEPHONE NUMBER 206-574-6328 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CONTACT PERSON (if applicable): R.O.W. has no designation. NAME: Kevin Foy EXISTING ZONING: R-8 COMPANY (if applicable): Wireless Facilities, Inc PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): Same as above SITE AREA (in square feet): 104 sq ft ADDRESS: 575 Andover Park W, Ste 201 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 0 sqft CITY: Tukwila ZIP: 98188 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 0 sqft TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 206-574-PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET 6328; Kevin.foy@wfinet.com ACRE (if applicable): Not Applicable NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): Not Applicable NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Not Applicable Q:webipw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 06/26/07 PRO GT INFORMATION (continL ),__ ______ _ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: $53,000 Not Applicable SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not Applicable SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not Applicable D AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL D AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 sqft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not Applicable D GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if D HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): o sqft D SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Not Applicable D WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach le11al description on seoarate sheet with the following information included\ :;...J 15 -~ SITUATE IN THE _f'llll __ QUARTER OF SECTION_,._, TOWNSHIP_ _, RANGE_05_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. ACUP Jct{Y.,. 3. 2.~< sxr 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ I 5ZXJ _- AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) __ Kevin Foy , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _X_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. uses a (Signature of Own ve) Notary P 0 e (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary (Print) ·p)lt 'f:f'{)l/'\',7 Q:wcb/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 2 06/26/07 ' Pl fECT INFORMATION (continued, My appointment expires: '\ (,, / 7,.. I Lo\ C' Q:weh/pw/devserv/fonns/planning/masterapp.doc 3 06/26/07 .. 'Kevi~ Fo From: Sent: To: Jill Ding [JDing@ci.renton.wa.us] Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11 :02 AM Kevin Foy Subject: Waiver Attachments: waiver.pdf waiver.pd! (437 KB) Here is the updated waiver form. Jill K. Ding Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 jding@ci.renton.wa.us Ph, (425) 430-7219 Fx, (425) 430-7300 >>> <JDing@ci.renton.wa.us> 06/20/2007 11:00 AM>>> 1 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RE~'1,~1NING JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Wireless: Applicant Agreement Stalement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2AND3 Lease Agreement, Draft , ANO, Map of Existing Site Conditions ,AND, Map of View Area 2 AND , Photosimulations 2 AND, This requirement may be waivEid by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: __ IL-----'--fYl:.u.:o""'b-'"-, ',.,If _____ _ 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: _C9::...,__/ 7'-lf-'O-,]'------ 4. Development Planning SecHon Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmltlalreqs_9-06.xls 09/06 ,-- ' @B@R~i~~MAAR.~iWiF~t¥~filiiEk1;fa!1:Uiff.ftff}~~>iF!iiZf)ifitJ Construction Mitigation Description ,ANo 4 Environmental Checklist, 1*,·'dr&' "'', ,. ·-~-- Neighborhood Detail Map, This requirement may be waived by; 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section l. Building Section J. Development Planning Section PROJECT NAME: _1=,_-_,(Y1_,___,0"'6"'"-'1· I_,{;. ____ _ DATE: __s.L9-"'--"(1-7.L../c:::Oc.,.(.,,_p ----' Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\wa/verofsubmlttalreqs_9-06.xls 09106 DATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM June 7, 2007 Pre-Application File No. 07 -043 Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner, x 7219 T-Mobile Monopole General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov. Project Proposal: The project site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of SE 3'ct Place and Anacortes Avenue SE and is within the public right-of-way and is adjacent to a Residential -8 dwelling (R-8) unit per acre zone. The proposal is to replace an existing power pole with a new 60-foot tall monopole and a utility equipment cabinet. A 5-foot wide landscape strip is proposed along the north and south sides of the proposed equipment cabinet. Zoning: The subject property is located adjacent to the Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. If the proposed wireless support were reduced in height to below 60 feet, the structure would meet the definition of a "Monopole I". The Monopole I may be permitted within the public right-of-way as an Administrative Conditional use permit. Development Standards: All wireless communications facilities are subject to the development standards specified under RMC section 4-4-140 as well as the R-8 zoning designation as discussed below: /JI// Height -The maximum permitted height for a Monopole I is tess th~ei'?oi aff zones. Macro facilities are the "tallest" attachment allowed on a Monopole I, which~~ an additional 15 feet above the monopole. Micro and mini facilities are also permitted to be located on the monopole. Color -Depending on which type of facility is used micro, mini or macro facilities are required to be the same color as the support structure or existing building to which it is attached. Landscaping/Screening -When equipment shelters or cabinets are located within the public right- of-way they shall be screened and/or landscaped as determined by the reviewing official during the Conditional Use Permit process. Proposed landscaping/screening details shall be provided at the time of formal land use application.-'.) J)J,.,,,-,-,,5 ,"rvi -> ~ 'Jr"-~;, vs. '51-) rvbs., Sensitive Areas: According to the City's critical areas maps, the project site is located within the Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. If more than 100 cubic yards of fill is proposed a Source Statement is required for each source location from which imported fill will be obtained. However, location within the Aquifer Protection Area does not trigger Environmental Review. Environmental Review: The proposed personal wireless service facility would be located within a residential zone, therefore the project is subject to Environmental (SEPA) Review. < Kennydale Monopole Pre-Application Meeting Page 2 of 3 In. I~ . . u 0, ~ 'b Wt., '1i ~ u V d-I ""11 r/7 17' • (,o'l\e,vf'Y-eJY\1\'j 't\ wv ~ L5t7V Permit Requirements( The proposal would require approval of an Administrative Conditio~n-a71 =s-e----l permit and Environmental Review. The review process would be completed in an estimated time frame of 6-8 weeks once a complete application is accepted. The application fee for the Administrative Conditional Use would be $1,000 with Y, off of subsequent applications. The Environmental Review Fee is dependent on project valuation: project value less than $100,000 is a $200 fee (1/2 of $400.00 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500.00 fee (1/2 of $1000.00 full fee). Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, and building permits would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the rev_iew of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Conditional Use Criteria: In order to obtain approval of a conditional use and expansion of the conditional use, the proposal must satisfy specific criteria. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow certain uses in districts from which they are normally prohibited. The evaluation of the proposed use must be deemed consistent with other existing and potential uses within the general area of the site. It is the applicant's responsibility to adequately demonstrate the facts justifying the approval of the conditional use permit based on the use's compatibility with ALL of the following criteria (RMC section 4-9-030G): • • • • • • • • • • • Comprehensive Plan~ 12,G,51~"1. S'1+ .f,..,.,J 1x Community Need G Effect on Adjacent Properties, including lot coverage, yards and height Compatibility Parking Traffic Noise, Glare Landscaping Accessory Uses Conversion Public Improvements The criteria listed above must be clearly and thoroughly substantiated. Staff examines the existing uses located adjacent to the subject site when evaluating the conditional use criteria. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that this site is appropriate for the use proposed. It is important to note that staff is only able to make a recommendation and that the Hearing Examiner makes the final decision for a conditional use permit. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Consistence with Comprehensive Plan: Policy U-100. Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-101. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. Policy U-103. Encourage healthy competition among telecommunication systems for provision of current and future telecommunication services. cc: Jennifer Henning -Zf!Jd~.,-IJ./d~5(c~)- (1-~ -J-9-'? N ;:::i J..:i ~ z .., N E-< "' .... "' "" CA NE 3rd Ct. R-10-(P) R-10 R:-8 •, <r,,:i rn Q) /> <G i:1 0 RMH ~ R-8 RMH E6 · 10 T23N R5E W 1/2 IE '4th St. CA CA '° I -R-10 .....,.,._ 0 R-'El R-8 R-8 ,, · RC(P) CA DQ .----R-10 R-8 ""' :z; '"""'Q) ~-- ci CA R-10 R-8 R-8 · R'--8 NE 2rfftj8S R,-4 -".~--~i;: .J::==-'-R_'-4--1 i ; "' s $~ \4JS\,'2,\, . . - SE 142nd St. '"':1 "" ;:> ! ...:=c:r r ,.C::! . "·,.;:::,:} ( bl ·,~<::>~J' ................ , (P) G6 • 22 T23N R5E W 1/2 ~ ZONING ----R•nton Cil,-IJmJto ~ = TEClllllCAL SERVICES o 200 "'oo F6 1:.4-800 15 T23N R5E W 1/2 5315 wFI trie glolJal leader IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTQN JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED Project Narrative for T-Mobile's Proposed Site: SE04619 3rd & Anacortes /"' ' ., '-" 5,)-,,...,,,., ! ·' .,;. ~-1.,t •;./ :/ I I I !._.(,./t T-Mobile is proposing to install a s<i-11" Monopole I, as defined in RMC 4.11.230, and associated "vaulted" ground equip~ent in the City of Renton ROW with antennas attached on PSE utility pole. The"address is 4401 SE 3rd Place, City of Renton ROW. The proposed Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) will consist of PSE utility pole and ground equipment placed underground. The necessary permits needed for the proposed monopole I and mini-facility located in a R.O.W. are based on sections 4.2.0SOA AD45 stating that a Monopole I in a ROW "May be allowed via an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Right of Way Use Permit." Based on this section, the applicant will be applying for an ACUP from the City of Renton, and a SEPA determination. The applicant will pursue a Right of Way Use Permit with the City of Renton because the site will be located in the City's ROW actively working with the City of Renton ROW department to acquire all necessary permits and licenses required to construct and operate the proposed WCF. The proposed location is in the City of Renton R.O. W., which does not have a zoning designation. The property adjacent to the location in the ROW that the applicant is proposing to develop is an undeveloped ROW zoned R-8. The applicant has chosen the specific location in the R.O.W. because of the level area that would accommodate the proposed WCF while avoiding the steep slopes. There are no wetlands, bodies of water, or other notable special site features in the vicinity of the proposed WCF. The PSE utility pole will be constructed and put up by PSE. T-Mobile and PSE will coordinate the construction phase after the BP is finished and all necessary permits are in hand. The site will be accessed via Anacortes Ave. which leads directly up to the access hatch in the R.O.W. Once construction is complete, the WCF will require about one visit per month, so no improvements or new roads are needed to support the proposed project. Other then brining in power and telephone service lines (via underground conduits) from a transformer and telco pedestal located in close proximity the applicant is not proposing any off-site improvements. No water or sewer service will be needed for this proposed project. ' .. Conditional Use Permit Justification Narrative For T-Mobile's Proposed SE04619 3rd & Anacortes DEVELOPME CITY OF'tf,~f'd~/1/ING JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED T-Mobile, in the following statements, will set forth the reasons why the City of Renton should favor this application by addressing the reasons to support this proposal based on sections ofRMC and criteria used by the reviewing official. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed WCF will be in compliance and meet all design criteria set forth in the section 4-4-140 regarding WCFs. T-Mobile chose the specific location based on several area conditions that would assist in screening the support structure (utilizing PSE utility pole) and the "vaulting" of ground equipment making a least amount of impact on the surrounding characteristics of the neighborhood. The City ofRenton's goals for WCFs are to encourage co-locate antennas and to minimize the total number of towers in the community, encourage multi-tenant (PSE/T- Mobile) structures, encourage the placement/design ofWCFs to minimize adverse impacts to the community, primarily visual, and allow for wireless providers to enhance the ability of their network services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently. T-Mobile's proposed WCF was designed to meet the City's goals. The proposed site, while being in an R-8 zone, is located in a City of Renton ROW owned by City of Renton. T-Mobile will not discourage any other carriers from collocating, but PSE is the owner of the utility pole and any collocation possibilities will need sign off from PSE. Also proper documentation/permits needed from the City of Renton for placement of the radio equipment. T-Mobile's Site Characteristics The compatibility of a WCF's specific characteristics is often hard to gauge, as their signals and services are utilized in all locations, regardless of zones, jurisdictional boundaries, and desired plans. But T-Mobilc agrees that some locations make more sense than others, and has placed this site in a location that they believe will maximize the use of existing geographical features and limiting the local aesthetic impact for local citizen's and commuters. The size, placement, and design features proposed for this site will make it less visible than the existing WCF sites. Unlike most WCF sites, the proposed WCF will have flush mounted antennas, be painted to match the color of the PSE utility pole, and be only 59' -11" tall. All of the ground equipment will be out of sight as it will be placed underground "vaulted", with the hatch door being the only visible part of the proposal (along with antennas on the PSE utility pole). The vault hatch can be screened with landscaping depending on the City ofRenton's preference of grass or shrubs (photo-simulations provided). ... • • • • The proposed WCF will not create an increase in traffic in this residential neighborhood, as the average site requires only one visit per month by a technician who uses a standard pick-up trllck, and visits the site dming nomrnl business hours. The proposed WCF will also not create any glare, as the PSE utility pole will be made of wood and the antennas painted to match the utility pole. Community Need I-Mobile chose the area of the proposed location based on a number of factors that pointed to the need for a WCF in this location, but there are also larger system-wide improvements that take place as well by the addition of site to the network, such as E9 l l. A primary reason this site location was chosen is because of an existing area of very weak coverage in the applicant's network. By improving the coverage across the entire area, and filling in smaller gaps that exist between existing sites, I-Mobile's network will also improve the ability of residents, visitors, and workers in the City of Renton to utilize their wireless devices for personal, business, and emergency calls. For example. CTIA reports that more then 224,000 emergency calls are made from wireless phones each day, and by improving the overall network the applicant is improving the ability for distressed citizens to contact emergency services and the ability of emergency personnel to locate those citizens. The location of the proposal is based on system/network. This particular area coverage was weak resulting in dropped calls due to the increase in demand for the applicant's services. An increasing trend of residential families are using cell phones as a primary number since cell phone numbers are transferable from any carrier and most calling plans include long distance, no roaming, and caller identification. As the need for these services grow from urban areas to outlining residential zoning districts. The application is best suited for this location due to the specific need this site will cover. Effect on Adjacent Properties I-Mobile is very aware that WCFs placed in residential type areas can often cause concern within the community. The proposal is taking advantage of the characteristics of the PSE utility pole. By vaulting the cabinets, the proposal is making the least amount of impact on the neighborhood characteristics. The site selection is proposed due to the need for coverage as the result of growing demand of I-Mobile services from the residents and visitors of the City of Renton. The proposed project will have a total value of around $53,000 which includes construction costs and materials. The applicant is unable to determine "fair market cost", as a WCF is specifically designed for, and work in conjunction with, an existing network for a particular service provider. Additionally, there is currently no existing open market for the sale and purchase of individual sites belonging to licensed service providers, hence the applicant's inability to determine a fair value for this proposed WCF . • ;i.. The proposed project will remove about~ cubic yards of soil and haul to an approved off site soil depositing location. Other then the material removal stated above, the applicant is not proposing to bring in, or remove, any additional material to the site. The proposed project location was specifically chosen to maximize the use of existing trees for screening. No trees will be removed for the proposed project. No land will be dedicated to the City as a result of this project. Due to the small size of the project and the quick duration (about 2 weeks), their will be no job shacks, sales trailers, or model homes associated with this project. A portable toilet will be present at the site during the construction phase. DEVELOPME CITY OF tt:r~%NING JUN 2 9 2001 • rd RECEtv·~o Apphcant Agreement Statement for SE04619 3 & Anacortes ~ I, Michael Cady, Zoning Supervisor for T-Mobile, the applicant, agree to the following: a. The applicant agrees to allow for the potential collocation of additional wireless communication facility providers on the applicant's structUre or within the same site location; and b. That the applicant agrees to remove the facility within six (6) months after that site's use is discontinued or if the facility falls into disrepair, and restore the site to its pre-existing condition. If there are two (2) or more users of a single wireless communication facility (WCF), then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the WCF. Zoning Supe T-Mobile ·,_ c·-, +-~ \ Subscribed and sworn to before me, this--·=,!.__'--'--'"""''----day of ._UV\ e- [Notary Seal:] --- Michael S. Slotemaker NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: vY\ ~r l l., , 20.Qi_ , 2007. - June 29. 2007 Tim Gasser Project Manager, Con1m Lmications: S ifi ng 8: Services Puget Sound Energy P.O. Box 90868 EST-06E Bellevue, WA 98009 RE: Notice to Proceed for Site Name:?"' & Anacortes Site#: SE04619H Dear Tim, T-Mobile West Corporation hereby authorizes PSE to proceed with those activities related to the review, engineering pe1111itting and/or procurement required for the siting, design, and/or installation ofa new pole/steel tower/base equipment and/or attachment to an existing pole or structure relevant lo the above mentioned site. T-Mobile West Corporation understands that ,ill costs incun-ed by PSE directly related to these activities shall be reimbursed in a timely manner when billed, independent of final site approval and construction. Respectfully submitted, T-Mobile West Corporation Q~~y Kautilya Lanba ./ Director Engineering PNW • • PUGET SOUND ENERGY June 28, 2007 Kevin Foy VoiceStream Wireless 19807 Nmth Creek Parkway N Bothell, WA 98011 RE: Puget Sound Energy's PRE-1312.5 kV Distdbution Circuit pole 317787-167208 and T-Mobile Wireless Site SE4619 / 3'" & Anacortes in Renton, Washington Dear Kevin, We have reviewed the PCS antenna system design submitted to Puget Sound Energy prnposed fm installation of a PCS antenna system on an existing disuibution line pole on om PRE-l'J circuit line at 4401 SE J'd Place, in Renton, Washington lt is understood that the piimaty usage of the structure shall be as part of an electrical distribution system, and the installation of the PCS equipment is a secondary function. The strnctural loading and the design of the pole will be performed by Puget Sound Energy or its apprnved engineeiing contractor The analysis will be completed using the PCS antenna loads provided by VoiceStteam Wireless, the FIA/lIA Standatd 222-D, the National Elecuic Safety Code, and electrical industry standards. Under !BC section 105 of the 2003 code, public service entities are exempt from the permitting provisions of the !BC and as such no calculations are requirnd to be provided to the permitting agency Installation of the new pole will be perfo1med by PSE service provider crews and installation of antennas and cable will also be completed by PSE construction personnel. The sttuctural design and installation when completed will comply with recognized national standards and meet all utility code and indusl1 y 1 equirements. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 456-2776. Sincerely, /.,,1~~- I imothy M Gasser Wi1eless Co-Location Prnject Manager Communications Siting and Services Dept w~ Hw global leader IN TELECOM OUTSOURCING Construction Mitigation Description for SE04619 3rd & Anacortes The overall timeframe for constructing a new WCF is usually less then 2 weeks from first breaking soil to final punch walk. The construction start date would be about 2 weeks after receiving all applicable permits, and based on the ACUP and BP timeframes, we will plan accordingly once all necessary permits are finished. Construction will take place during normal business hours, typically between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday thru Friday. The proposed site location is accessible via SE 3rd and Anacortes Ave SE. Take the W A-900 W Exit 4 toward W A-169 S/Renton/Enumclaw Stay straight to go onto Sunset BL VD NE Tum left on to N 3rd St N 3rd St becomes NE 4th St Tum Right onto Union Ave NE Tum left onto SE 3rd Pl The scale of the project is relatively small, with large vehicles only being required at the site on three separate occasions; 1. drill rig for drilling the tower foundation hole, 2. the cement truck to poor cement for the foundation and equipment slab, and 3. the truck w/ boom required to bring in the monopole pieces and lift them into place. Aside from these three instances, the traffic to the site during the construction phase will be non-CDL type commercial trucks (I-ton or smaller). I-Mobile is not anticipating any significant problems with mud, dust, and erosion, so no special measures will be implemented at this site. Vehicular traffic will usually consist of 4-6 vehicle/trips a day, the result of which will not have any very little impact on the surrounding residents, so no traffic control plans have been produced for this proposed WCF. If, in the even a crane will be needed, I-Mobile will work directly with the FAA to obtain any necessary permits or approvals. ~1e/1.:C/2007 WBD 14~ 27 PAX 4254307300 (:fly lli00)./00i 0£VELOPME C/Ty OF '1Jti-~%NING • .'I.PPLICATiUK FOR CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 9 2007 RIGHT OF WA y USE -DEFEKl<.l'.LS . IV AfVERS ... VARIANCES -FEB JN LIJNEC 1055 South Grady Wey, Renton, WA 98055 '1J EIVED (425) 430-7204 PROJECT NAME: __ _!;;_ ¢:'v' ~ f><Nh•. (Xj.\i2::.'ii:,~"'="------'J ... • _ .. _.,N,_c\C,,.-,'.i"'--1';.a?:c. .. ul \@.,.' :-.,_--· SITE ADDRESS: 4tto \ "'"z'f, '::°/$&;,_ __ :f1J, ... (R, jg:;bftvJ b .. l &,. __ _ kr t,1..<>t>?-·, l-\l'.:'kl<-\15\? .. Rw;.,,, 17NJL,,o~...i 1---t., LEGAL DESCRlPTION OF PROPERTY: t:f.:.Cv[Z1?11-"['.J T$ J:\:lE:-Y'.l-b,,J;-t}:ll>C\Zt,;t)fl J;'x,n:,o\c9?\'> ;: .... J ~ 4,:'L OF f'l.A-!"~1 ~(o€:, 1.8, \1--J \2-,~0; ~µt"\/ v.Jf),.: Include King County Assessors Parcel No:~ ,1..-J:-,Jl'--ll.5\J T tD A\J,J 1(-'::>'Z, 1 l 00 0 '!> '?C APPLICANT: Pu\ )(2 f:'.()f:RZJJ,P.. PHONE: 11s '7:Qlcz '/1Rlr1: CELL: tV; ':10lp J 1,;;Je ~ BUSINESS ADDRESS: '5''15 J.,.>-J,;;nlJrn; .. f~(i:¥~ L()e<o,.1 *z.01 'r\)'j&lU\L-e: vJA.. 9"-l \ ~ t'; Zip Code ATTACH A SEPARATE LEITER WITIITIDS APPLICATlON STATING IN DETAil,: l. The request 2. Applicable City Code 3. Items and quantities involved 4. Justification for request · 5. Amount of time requested 6. Provide vicinity map Attach a 1 = 100 drawing of you.-site. Mall or drop off the com11leted application and map to: CJTY OF RENTON Development Services Division ·, Mike Dotson, Coordinator 1055 -S. Grady Way 6°' Floor Renton, WA 98058 425-430-7304 Completed applications will be reviewed and a written determination issued approximately 3-4 weeks from date of receipt of application. You will be contacted if application is incomplete or if additional infomiation is required. APl'LlCANT'S SIGNATURE: -:pi!1171t ... / DATE: 0 / 1q I 1CTJ1 OFFICE USE ONLY OFFIQE USE ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY OFFICE USE ONLY DEFERRAL ( ) New ( ) Extension Off site Onsite -------------- JJXCESS R/W ( ) FEE IN LIEU ( ) WAJVER ( ) H:\Fjlc Sys\BPW .. P.ioarc:! of Public Wwb\APPLIC.A TION\BPWZ007.doc VARIANCE ( ) New ( ) Extension ( ) Underground ( ) Slope Grades ( ) Driveway ( ) Noise Post-l~Fax Nole 7671 To Phone I Fa,# • ri-:t~; i.!";e cdci':.1a! !es.cit:J ! Ull 0 TELE:COIVI OL!TSOURC!N(;; ! City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton. WA 98055 Attn: Jill Ding, Re: T-Mobile West Corp proposal 3rd & i\nac011es Ms. Ding- June l 9, 2007 lam submitting this application on behalf ofT-Mobile West Corporation. T-Mobile is proposing to construct an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of BTS equipment located in a new !3'-4" x 8'--0" vaul! in the right of way with antennas located on a replacement 60' wood utility pole also in the right of way. This right-of-way is located at 4401 SE 3rd Place, Renton, WA 98059. The applicable code for doing this is found in the City of Renton code, RMC 4-4-140 and 4-9-0300. We have previously filed a pre-application with the city #07-043 and have met with you. T-Mobile is proposing to install one vault which will hold the required BTS (base transmission system cabinets) from which the necessary coax that connect the cabinets with the antermas will be run inside of new conduit to and up the utility pole. This site is in a residential area where i l is not possible to install a new monopole as is standard in the industry. By using an existing utility pole and placing the equipment inside a vault in the right of way, we are doing all that is possible to "stealth" (decrease) the visual aspect of a standard cell site. We are requesting a 30 year right of way permit tor this site. In the event that the site becomes obsolete or the technology changes to where this site is no longer necessary to accomplish T-Mobile goals, the site will be decommissioned and removed from the right of way. A vicinity map is attached to this application. Please feel free to contact me should you lrnve additional questions or need additional infommtion. Thank you for your help with this. Wireless Facilities Inc 425. 306-7886-cell 575 Andover Park West, Suite 201 Tukwila, WA 98188 206. 574-6333 -fax ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: DEVELOPME CITY OF NTR'"f .(ANNING Cl'll/Q{\j JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: T-Mobile :t'1 & Anacortes SE04619 2. Name of applicant: T-Mobi/e 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant-T-Mobile; Teresa Vanselow 19807 North Creek Pkwy N Bothell, WA 98011 Contact-WFI; Kevin Foy 575 Andover Parle West, Suite 201 Tukwila, WA 98188 4. Date checklist prepared: 6/26/2007 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction to begin as soon as practicable following permitting. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. SEPA addendum in connection with City of Renton Building Permit 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton ACU Land use permit and building permit. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses a_nd the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) T-Mobile is proposing to place panel antennas on an PSE utility pole. Associated radio equipment will be placed underground in the ROW. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Page 2 of 12 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Less than3% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Grass d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None proposed f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minimal if any during construction phase. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Impervious surface added due to the proposal is the vaulted hatch door of the vaulted radio equipment (13'x8'). h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard construction, no proposed methods. Page 3 of 12 3 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No emissions are anticipated as a result of this project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No off-site emission sources will affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None are necessary. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None proposed. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not known 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No Page 4 of 12 4 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if .applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NIA · no waste water associated with the project. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. None proposed for the impeivious surface created by the vaulted hatch door. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No measures proposed 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _ _.x,__deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other __ shrubs _x_grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The amount of grass removed due to the vaulted cabinet is a total of 13'x8', size of the vault hatch door. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known Page 5 of 12 5 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: T-Mobile has provided some photo simulations of grass and a different photo-sim of shrubs. T-Moblle will implement the landscaping prefe"ed by the City of Renton. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other--------- Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other---------- Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Unknown d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Nothing proposed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The project will require approximately 200 amp electric service to power the cabinet. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None proposed Page6of12 6 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are necessary. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Minor noise associated with short construction phase. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None are necessary. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. Whal is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is a residential zone. Adjacent properties are residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Closest structure to the site is a residential home. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R•B Page 7 of 12 7 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not known. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None are necessary. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal takes advantage of a the existing features of the PSE utility pole. By vaulting the radio cabinets the proposal is the least amount of impact on the neighborhood characteristics. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NIA b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NIA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are necessary. Page 8 of 12 8 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. PSE utility pole will be extended to the height of 59'11". b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None are necessary. 11 . LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None known. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION Page 9 of 12 9 a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None known Page 10 of 12 10 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. No public transportation will be needed for this unmanned wireless communication facility b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not. what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? NIA -site will not require public access. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The site will not eliminate any parking stalls and will not require a permanent parking stall. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The site will require approximately one visit per month by a technician, for site maintenance purposes. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None are necessary. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None are necessary. Page11 of12 11 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, telephone, water and other services and available at the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The site will require power and telephone service. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, stale that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: K~ Date: 6/26/2007 Page 12 of 12 12 3rd c:x Anacortes Aerial Map mt01¥dth~t,~~;&~1G·~~tfi~ft%f1~;6j_;:.i.,'t;,:;·;,.;~1r1m}ft,JMl{ffir!! 3Jji,iJ-iOU(~Br.),' T~c1 mstu~ij Cou111)' _., Jhe Information Included on thiS-map has been complied by King county staff from a variety of soiJrce& and Is .sUbjtltt to ch8nge Wlthout"nCitlee: Kln'g County tnakes no representations or warranties, express_or Implied,_ as to accuracy, completeness, llmeNness, or. rights to ttte_·IJ$e of such information. ·, -. _-'. -_ _. _.- This documenfls not Intended for use as a survey product_. King County shall 11o_t btJ Hable fot_ any genElr.!1, spoclal, Indirect, fl'ltklental, or consequenti:al ~ . -1,' .-_ . · . -·_ . : -_-.. _.:._ damages Including, bu. t "°. t limited to; lost re\l80U8S or iost profits te?;;Ulting from the.. use or misuse of the lnfotmatlon COJ:ltillood 00 this map. Any sale of tQ. ·K·.,n· ·g··C· o· .. · ... unt. y· · .. ·· this map or Information on this map Is prohibited except by written pennisslon of King County. _ -· · · -. _ . _ __ _ _ Date:4/9/2007 Source: KingCountylMAP-Propert;lt'lfonnation(h_tlp;/lww,i;.,r:rietro_kC!?_~IGIS/l~AP) · .---' .·'.·,',-_ ... ' · '\], 3rd & Anacortes Vicinity /Parcel Map ,--------------------· --.-•:,;';'_,(1:"_1;1 :·,-1· '_;'.I'. l: !/j'. ,: I '.'l'.1(;,-'.• I , ' :i':'! . .I: 1~1~:· it.' ~' ~•/!-!'..•'..''.Hi(.0'.' :): 'Ii!.:~,~' : .. ~1_1:.iu,-;,· ··~. 4 ·_,:1:;:1·u:, ,l,,•Pi,_ ·,~·:,'.,:I•, I, J.I .)r;'/ !fl(l[l{l!',fl g11 ::.1::n%c1 Jn 1uo:1~1n1 j// .'!}[li}/,!j(_! 3-.,.•1 ;':J:'J'.1~1,f\) j;_' ! J!)J::_1~1,.''..I i,;r: ;1-~ :: _I.,' I i ,_1~!'.):I ;' '..i 3~' ,' .'[>'.):) _1/,!:_\ ::;.·11~1!'.):)/ J[l .fr':/ !,l!.1:1.1 L::J .n1.r1.1:x.1.11::.i jj ! / ~J::_I() i (l::_J ~ (, r,;.: . .i~'/1'.JY.IJ::,'.J .f/;' .' [_l;y~I .' (jf_l _r,._'f .':J'.1!_1_!f[.I 3,' 1 .' r.1::.1r.131.;L1 :!~'/ 10'.l::J.HU "3-'! ,,;.1[1::_1.,,rr.1 3~'; I !:J:.1[.JJJ'.J T.'110'..l:J'.J[,lrJ ~, i,:.'r~ ?Jv.n ·" :..<:.' 11 (lf}f.132:J '3(,'/![!00310 "J/11[.lf.l!H'.,'..l :!;'/ 1r.i:}£N6D ~,211 vr.1:ir1~:1 J2.'tD:w:.,.::o J:! ! ~ VOU J!)U 3;~1 ~~l):_1~1;,•9;:1 :321 J!,1:J/.1/8!) 3;n1,:N<J'lh J:..• ,' W!JU2(.if.! pRoP~£D --r:~e An1enn ,,,,,,,,,,'"0/n /(.OvJ 'J~l 10DrN!W :, '.-' ~ ~ ~-1~1 '.1:·::, v'--:iJ:•,.' ;:·, .'!/ ! hl~JU~d[l ~ '. l'.'"..i'. 1: i•l--::J ·, J"-' / 10:.•:JC:tiL• .','•l'.1'.I ',,·1 ':1:1::::,.<1,1 ?,,_o ',I "1:1 /,l_l'.i' '.'•l•i•I•,.-,,. 45 E., Q ':5!1,'f.lf.l'..lfJ5[1 ]j'} 1 OOtJf,(j~J '[\ :q110LJ!)B,w U :{~' 11 OUL!tU'..1 ,,.,v·,. ,;,,.f.Y·' )::_'~ 1 ! [J~l1 Y~.1 Ji'! 1 ~J:'.J0820 / J;._'/ !1!.11}!/j~I J;,.'i~f.lO~H::10 / :s::.·11 !.l!)'..18!'.I~) ''""'''"l'" P/l..0Po51E-D -r-rriob,/e,. ""' "~, 3;_•1thl~l1/0 3::.•i 1100-rn:1 J;!/ ! /'Y]!!.,U J21tWf!H9 "''""""'"''Rr-010 'i.Qvwmen+ , .. '""'"""'-.,. -~;,,11001.in~ , .. ,.I+ ,_, T. -'"""''''"'" V.,.,..., eG\ If\ ~Olt)(wo,c•J 'tfll ,;;,'i.--'-"<;_'r\Si J.{/ 1 /!.l:J3:::0fJ :<21 ·/ 1{I::}·/ }(.l ,,,, ]2 ,l 1 !(l[i:c'~!:I ,Z. :~;n ,11oc12/o 0 :ii/1/:J0:?69 d S.:.'11 t:J!l2!J:J J'/11 WO,''.!fJ j;? .' ! t !.1(lD9'!.1 3;_,11 E1'.XJ6U J;.'J I tf.l!.!08~ J! 1 11 ou,r:::,;J ]/ 111 !J!.l'.Jl[l 1 ;n 1.•:.io~if.-.r.1 4P. 3.:.'1 / tLl!.i=.>:'.,LI ~ J'"""''"''" <:l 3,uwu19u j;,'/ 1'/{1(.146~> 3;,'1;',IOtl·f/!.I J:t: / ;t ,1 !)~18!.l J!./ 11V%J;.1 ];'·! 1 !-!hJ!_,;;'{,I ·~ 1,1 ]:!111 OLl!J!.JO 3,!/11.[![l~,10 J;)1 I tf.ltJ:)/0 "2 3'/ / 11 /.1()!':,8,~I ~ ,s-'f."'-<;'f\'r"- QEVELOPMENT PL.f\NN\NG CITY Of RENTOM + 32111()[.IGJ[.1 J"i!t110f!6lU ]'d 111 LJOfj£1f) ft' 32111(1%0'.) ~ gntu'Jr:;1;,1 .6 J~·n 1001~-- 3J'l,,.-08W ""' ,a.iutl' '1''!!'1'lOu1 ?-::!IIW068!.I 'J~'11WLJl!JU (CJ 200SK!i1111 C-cu.m-1)' ·," w,, 114511 OUl The_ Jnlormat1on ll'.IC!Udfld'()f\ 'ihlB map ~hiiB. been compiled ·py· King' County steff_ from a val'.iety ol sources and is·.subject_ to e~r>g1;1 Wlthbut notic~·: _King Cc,unty ma,kes no repr~s&ntalions or werrahties, eXpress-pr_.lmpUed, as 10 .accu~e:y,_i;ompletenes&, titn,ellness, o_r rights to _th~ use. of such Information. This document ls nol Intended. fo_r use as 8 _S_UMIY product._ Klng Cqunty &_hall oOrbe Hobie.for.any gen9tal, ·spec!af, Indirect, incidental, O! eonuquenlis.l parriages including, ·1>ut-nofJi171ited to; Jost.tf;ivenues_or lost J)toflts resulting.frQITl the use-or.misuse o1 the·inlormal19f! contained on this map. Arrtsa[!:) ~r !his map ot_ic:iforma1lon on this-niB.p Is p~I~~~ except by Written permission of King C6unly. · · · Det&: 4/9/2007 S_~u:rc13: 'King_q~llf!~j~: ~ .P~ny lnfci~li_qn..(~p:/~,metro_kc\yovfG!S!i~} lQ King County LEGEND ""''"'-Q,V. e • ~ '" NOTES ,. • LANDSCAPE PLAN 22ic34 SCALE: 318""' 1' 11•17 SCALE: 3'16"" 1' NAME '"" COMMENTS EMERAl..DGREEN SPACED OC 2'.s":t AAORVffAE MIN.4'HT • (Thuha l!CC!duolells) FROM 8Ult.OING 4'CONT. DWARF PERWINKlE MIN.(3) 1B" O.C. TRIANGULAR [Ylni:a minor} VIGOROUS Sl'ACING '""""' I • s jj of ~;a ~~ • PROPOSED (9) EMERALD GR:EEN ARSORVITAE TYPICAL CONIFER (I:\ PLANTING DETAIL STAKING & GUY.ING REQ'O ON TREES 5' & TAUER: (3) ave LOOGEPDLE STAKES [HIGGINS CORP.• {45Ml36,..(643) INSiALl VERTICAL SECURE TI'IEE TRUNK TO STAKES Wlltt CHAINLOCK 112 BY LISTER BIB; REMOVE AU STRINGS, SYNTHETlC WRAP & TWINE, FOLD NATURAL Blftll.AP UNDER OR REMOVE. REMO\/E WIRE BASKET 2" MULCH -PER SPEC. CREA1E WATERING RING PlANTING PIT BACKFILL AS PER SPEC!FlCATlONS COMPACT BY HANO METHODS ANO WATER TO REMOVE All VOIDS EXJSTINGG_~E FEATHERFIMSHGRAOE INTO EXISTt>IG GFIAOE BREAK/SCARIFY SIDES AND 80TIOll!OFP!T. a·coMPACTEO PLANTING PfT 8ACKFtLL TO SUPPORT TREE EXISTING SUBSOll NOTES: TOPSOIL N01ES 1. OVEREXCAVATE SU8GAAOE AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR 6" COMPACTED OEPT1-l lMPDATE0 TOPSOi.AND 2' COMPACTED OEPTH MULCH. SCARIFY OR ROTOTILLSU&GRADE TOA MIN. 4' DEPTH. REMOVE DEBRIS &STONE LARGER THAN lf.4" IN ANY DIMENSION REMAINING ON THE SURFACE AFTER TIU.ING. 2. PLACE IMPORTED SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL IN TWO UFlS: (1) PLACE MIN 4'DEPTH TOPSOIL AND ROTOT!ll TO ADEPll-1 OF B INCl1ES TO INCORPORATE NEWTOPS011. wrrn SUBSOIL !2) FOLLOWING TILLING, PLACE MIN. 2.JNCH DEPTH TOPSOIL ANO CDMPACT. Pl.ANT STANDARDS 1. CONFORM TO WASHINOTON STATE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE (WSOA): WASHINGTON STATE STANDARDS fOR NURSERY STOCK. ORDER NO. 1627 2. AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS !NSTIIUTE (ANSI): ANSl-2 00.1-1980 AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK 3. AMERICAN JOINT COMMITTEE OF HORTICULTURE troMENCt.AlURE: STANDARO PlAITT NAMES, CURRENT EDffiDN DELiVERY, STORAGE,AND HANDLING 1. PROTECT PLANT FROM HA.RM AND DAMAGE AT ALL TIMES. PROTECT mees DURING TRANSPORT BYTYING IN eftANCHES AND COVERING AU EXPOSED BRANCHES. JOB CONDITIONS 1. PLANT DURING Pl:RlODS NORMAL FOR OPTIMUM GflOWTH, AS DETERMINED BY SEASON. W'EA.11-JER CONOITTONS, AND ACCEPTED PAACTICE. PLANTING OPERATIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED UNDER UNSEASONABLE CONDITIONS 8'1' ACCEPTING FUU RESPONSlBIUTY FOR Mfr SUBSEQUENT, RESIJL'flf,,IG LOSSES, UNDERGROUND CONDmONS I. BE FAMILIAR WITH UTII.ITY, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL Pt.ANS SOlHAT DIGGING OPERATIOWS 00 NOT DAMAGE UNES WAR"-'"'Y 1, WAARANT AU PlANTMATERIAL FOR HEAlTHV, THRMNG CONDITIONS FOR ONE VEAR FOLLOWING PL.ANT JNSTAUATION. OlJRING GUARANTEE PERIOD. IMWCDIATELY flEMOVE AND REPLACE All DEAD, DISEASED, OYING, BROKEN OR DISAPPEARED PlANT W,TERIALS (DUE TO ANY (:/<USE. EXCEPT AS NOTED BEi.OW). USE SPECIF,ED PU\!>:TS AND PERFORM AT NO ADDJTIONll.l COST TO THE OWNER. DURJt,;G GUARANTF.E PCRIO\J, ·me GUARANTOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING Pl.ANTS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED BY VANDALISM, ACCIDENTS 1~A1JSED BY OTHERS, OR ACTS or GOD. Pl.ANT QUALITY 1, PlANTS SHALL BE FRESH, WELL FOLIAGED, IN PRIME CONDITION WHEN IN LE.,,\F, ANO EXHIBITTNG NORMAL HABIT OF GROWIB, AU LEADERS ANO BUDS !NTACT, FREE OF DISEASE, INJURY, ANOAIN SIGN OF INSECTS. FREE OF SEEDS, WEED ROOTS ANO OlttER CONTAMINANTS, 2. PlANTS ARE TO SE NURSERY GRO'NN. 3. PLANTS TO BE ACCLIMATED TO lllE PROJECT SITE ENI/IRONMENTALCONOITIONS. NO coto STOOAGE Pl.ANTS. 4. BAU ANO BURL.AP PED (B&BJ STOCK IS REOU!REO TO HAVE A ROOT STRUClURE SUFFICIENT TO !NSlffiE SURVll/AL AND HEAL THY GROWTH. 5. CONTAINUI GROWN MATERIALS ARE REOUlfl:EO TO HAVE SUFFICIENT ROOT TO HOto THE THE EARTH INTACT INHEN REMOVED FROM me CONTAINERS BUT NOT BE ROOT BOUND. FERTILIZER 1. FORMUlA ~-2 "TRANSPLANTER" AS MANUFAClUREO BY PAC1flC AGRO CO., APPLY AT RATE Mo PER MANUFACTURER'S PRINTED INSTRUCTIONS. 2. AGRlfORM TABLETS, 21-GRAM SIZE, AS MANUFACTURED BY AGRIFORM INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS, INC, 20-10,,6 ANALYSIS. APPLY AT RATE OF: MULCH TREES: 4 TA81.ElS SHRUBS: 1 TA8LET STEERCO, GROCO, OR OTHER APPROVED COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FERTILE MULCH. PLANT INSTAU.ATION 1. EXCAVATE Pt.ANTlNG HOLE. 2. PI.ACEPLANTIN UPRIGHT POSfTION IN CENTER OFPIT, REMOVE ANY ROOT COVERING AS DETAILED ANO SPflEAD ROOTS TO HAVE A NAlURAL SPREAD AND DISTRIBUTION. 3. BACkFJLL WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL TAKE CARE NOTTO INJURE ROOT SYSTEM. THOROUGHLY PACK ANO PUDDLE SOIL AROUND ROOTS 4. FERTIUZEASSPECIFIED. 5. STAkE AND GUY AS SPECIFIED I MME.DIA TEL Y AFTER COMPLETION OF Alt PlANTING, THOROUGHLY WATER Pl.ANTING AREA THEN MUCH All PLANTING AREA TOA MINIMUM COMPACTED OEPTH OF 2 INCHES AND AS DETAILED MAINTENANCE 1. MAINTAIN PLANTING AREA FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR UNTIL THE ENO OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD, 2. WATER PI.ANT!NGS AREAS BY THOROUGH SPR1NkLING. PROVIDE AS NEEDED TO KEEP GROUND M01$T ANO PLANTS HEAL.THY. PREVENT SOil.EROSiON. 3, PRUNE, CULTIVATE, FERTILIZE, SPRAY ANO PERFORM OTHER NECESSARY OPERATIONS. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED ~ • ·Mobile· 19807 NORTHCREEK PKWY N BDTIH!.U.. WA 9901 t OFPJCI! (425> 3Cl8-7000 :: PROJECT INFORMATION: 3RD & ANACORTES/ PSE/ROW SE04619H 4401 SE 3RD PLACE RENTON, WA 98059 '-ISSUED FOR: [! I] BUILDING PERMIT ' -REVISION HISTORY: •.. DATE: D£9CRIPTION• CNK. APPV. BY• BY, ~ D6/15l200J MlNORREVS. M" LC & 3/2217007 ISSUED fOfl BPS [J.Jl cc -------·. -· ·---------- L:, ?126/2007 ISSUED DESIGN REVlfc\1/ ""' LC !::PLANS PREPARED BY: B, J, THOMAS, P.E. 7607 80TH AVE NE MARYSVILLE, WA 98270 206-851,1106 [DRAWN BY,= CHI<. BY,: APPV. BY•- JL IBJTIAMII . LICENSURE: rE.XPI_RES =-"" EQUIPMENT1 ~ WIRELESS COMNIUNJCATIONS fAClt.lTY WI ANTENNAS LOCATED ON A 5!1'-11" AGL WOOD UTILITY POl.E WITH BTS EOUIPMENT IN AN UJG VAULT. DRAWING INFORMATION: DO NOT SCALE ORA WINGS. CONTRACTOR MUST VER FY ALL DIMENSIONS ANO A0\11$E CONSULTANTS OF ANY ERRORS ANO OMISSIONS. ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OFTHIS ORA.WING ARE SUPERSEDED BY THE LATEST RE\/ISION. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS IS PROPRIETARY SY NATURE. AwrUSE OR DISCLOSURE Olli£R THAN WHICH IS RE LA TEO TO NA.MEO CL!ENT IS STRJCTLY PROH181lED DRAWING TITLE: LANDSCAPE PLAN ----. ___ _ $ TOPOFPOLE ~-ff•"itGI: (Pf T-MOBILE CK'IINMOUHT ANTENliASANOREW #TMBJ(!(.651fi..R2M (TYP 0!' l: 1 PER SECTOR) IP) T•MOSILE CHAINMOUNT UMlSANTENJiAS ANDFIEW 6TMBX-651li-R2M {TYP OF 3: 1 PEA SECTOR) - I// »' ~ [ r?; :f/ I v; '//: :W ~-· _8AfH~ENJ:ER 0 RADCENlER 0 50''6" AGL -l ,f---[P) 69'·11" AGL REPLACEMENT V\000\.IT!UTY PO\.E ,,,o'"'""""""~-------------~llffl __ _ -·---·---I I i·I·:. ' d, '. : ' T~Lll)' POLE 0 38'-4"AGL ---~- (E) ATTACHME.ITTS I 1;' 1· 11 ·/ 01 PAINT NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO PAINT ALL EXl>OSED AREAS OF CONCRETEVAlJlTSIEEN. PAlNTNOTE: AlL PROPOSED ANTENNAS & ATTACHMENTS TO BE PAINTING TO MATCt4 WOOD UTIUrf POLE. smUCTURAl. NOTE: NEW POLE STR1JCT1JRAL DESIGN BY Ollil:AS. 2 ]~ I -'"o'"""'°"""'~ --, )1------------- ====-==--~-==-----------=-t:-~===~-===--=---} ';--------=---=====---=--=======------===----- ltl (: ,, I/' !I I I (P) LANDSCAPING """' I ' " . .I I' I I •• I I ' I " I L,__ ____ '_j I'. (PJ (~) 4" PVC COAX CONDUITS MOU~ON 1·5/B UN1Sm1JTSTAND0F1' OROUNOL_~ IE)HOUSE @ SOUTH ELEVATION / SCALE:NTS T'i:';y"~ 7)X r-.:- 1-rnt=~-I I ___ ,, ____ , DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED ~··Mobile· 19807 NORTHCREliK PKWY N BOTHELL, WA DSOt 1 OFFICE (425) 398•7600 ;::PROJECT INFORMATION: 3RD & ANACORTES/ PSE/ROW SE04619H 4401· SE 3RD PLACE RENTON, WA 98059 L. ISSUED FOR: [[ BUILDING PERMIT : REVISION HISTORY: I ] •.. PA'U:: DESCIUP11DN, CHK. APPV. ... ,v, fl::, 06f1Sl2007 MINOR REVS. '" lC 6 3122/2007 , ISSUED FOR BPS M ,c ·-·-,--~-~-.. --:-·---I bi 2126/~007 ! ISSUED OF.SIGN REVIEW "' lC " ! ~ PLANS PREPARED BY: B, J, THOMAS, P,E, 7607 80TH AVE NE MARYSVILLE, WA 98270 206,851-1106 [ DRAWN BY,= CHK. BY•=APPV. BY,n I ~ I Bfl I ~ I .LICENSURE: [ Dl'UU:."> h~iZJ-~17_] EQUIPMENT: ~ WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACIL!TYW/ ANTENNAS LOCATED ON A S!l'-11" AGL WOOO UTILITY POLE WITH BTS EQUIPMENT IN AN U/G VAULT. DRAWING INFORMATION: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY AU. DIMENSIONS ANO ADVISE CONSULTANTS OF ANY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS. All PREVIOUS ISSUES OFTHIS ORA WING ARE SUPERSEDED BY1HE lATEST REVISION. TIE INFORMATION CONTAtlED !N llilS SET OF DOCUMENTS IS PROPRIETARY BY NATURE. ANY USE OR DISCtOSURE OTHER THAN WHK:H IS RELATED TD NAMED Cl.lENTIB STRICTLY PROHl8rTEO. DRAWING TrfLE: SITE ELEVATIONS Payn entM a:e: TY OF RENTON 1055 s Grady w ay RentrJn, W A 98055 L a n d U se A c tio n s RECEJPT Perm it# LUA07-065 ReceptNun tEr: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 9 2007 RECEIVED RO?OJ:3,6 To1a1Payn ent C6,.f9,,fro7 02 43 PM 1,500 DO Payee: T -MOB LE USA CurrentPayrn entMade 1D 1tle Folbw ng l!Bn s Trans Account Code 5J09 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environrrental Review Payrn en1s made for1tli3 recept Trans Payrrent Method Cescription Check AccountBamces Trans Account Code #08233)2 Cescript10n 3J21 3J3.000.00.345.B5 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5J07 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5J08 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5J09 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environrrental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 R..D 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 C:rading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line AdJustrrent 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile H::Jrre Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation M;Jmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline 9.Jbst Cev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence !=€view 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00 0005 Comprehensive Plan Arrend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Eboklets/EIS/Cop1es 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) =£64 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Ceposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 59SI3 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax RemanrgBalrceOue: $'.JOO ArTOunt 1,500.00 ArTOunt 1. 000 .00 5:J0.00 Balance we .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 00