Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-104 glIMPPIRR ,Iminlr:* ,MINIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM111111 'MEW WINIIIIr r,..4,,04111111.111111111P , I ..i . . 4....Yestit...yey;IS.-%412ti L.« a o CIT-1( OF ItENTON 14.••• _ '..30.--„ ,empj p-.',„..4.4i2,....,,,,„,,, , Ai Ili S %11 Ca IA Planning/Building/Public Works 0. 5 \ = CZ .. ft. 7 " VZ AB 9 0°0 0 ! Oe.g,all - U .3 U 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 M Ch , ., , „It= — tat \ P B METER .,,, ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED - . , ,t,.-- n58401 U.S. POSTAGE ) as tt DID ECK. PRESORTED Vii .i ,..7 ,- --,' ....--- r.,,z:,,,i` ^I PNI:V14a1 1:3!I Nol 1 c:N2148wMT AH.I..:E8TN:5G:21.---- - - —L.—ENG-74;6—---9--;;;-6-2-0B6------18---9-4---1-4----0-8;1.-6/0-0--— ---' i eqy RETURN TO SENDER .{„.. LENGYEL I I MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN f0 SENDER 1 s 6t)TS..*'t 73%-•71,2. r--- 11-iimiaill.lit.da.11..1.1.11.1;1,1,1„himild , __ _i • Y O Oe ..0 • NOTICE OF:APPLICATION `,; : ,,,.•..:; • . •`••.. -. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- • SIGNIFICANCE (DNS),- MITIGATED DATE: August 9,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: AT&T MONOPOLE—COLEMAN POINT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. PROJECT LOCATION: 132.1 North 30th Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): As the 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of:the Threshold Determination of,Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance-of theDNS-m: PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 31,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE:APPLICATION:' August 9,2000 APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless . 617 Eastlake°Avenue East Seattle,WA,98109 • OWNER: Paul Miller 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review;Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit,Modification of Landscape Requirements Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permits Requested Studies: NA Location where application may • be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 , PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for October 3,2000,before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th • floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Convenience Commercial(CC). -Hearing Examiner review is required because the monopole is located less than 100-feet from residentially,zoned property .Environmental Documents that, Evaluate"the Proposed Project:` None known' Development Regulations Used For•Project Mitigation: ._The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Sensitive • - Areas Ordinance,Public Works Standards;Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code,and other applicable todes:'and regulations as.appropriate. • NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated July 17, 2000, prepared by ADaPT Engineering Inc.,regarding general earthwork and design criteria for the tower foundation. - Comments on.the above application must be submitted in writing to Mr. Steve Taylor, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 23, 2000. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on October 3,2000,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division, (425) 430-7282, to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please 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: STEVE TAYLOR (425)430-7219 • PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • Lrii.. {•1L`!YI16�I!I10 I1J I n4•/'.Ltt1t:Lt:It,1 - e. ,a :.. .py';v. V. 1 ....17-1. il1 LLI t ''yy'' 1 3 32 i )yy.�.l 1t I J6I Ji�Ja J7'tt j 31 1 16 t,i 71 177 .iL ---�t- I .3 o ` y 1• 1 �1141.1� II_wIIIL • r2 1"^—^yL 'aJ. • ' iii, Q ' '163-+.. . >- CC 1 62 I\. 33RD ST �� •'•I � . - � - --' ::� 1 I 11(� •� I .:�• ` ITT..I• Q C9 V ✓ 1p' !^2 � - 3fS iTZ•' lRG't l��' r ry �- '° ts4 F O I\ a It 'J r - N. 32ND'' ''ST— 3 ' f` p 11 JA ji JL 13 JI 0 • 27 26 S. `I : �1 ii;aCil "' i61 t ii it :j'f 3\ 4_ �/]�� . 32ND- ST.J�t� t�•��� _ I�(S/�101e 1 I 'ta�'t : :::: .' s - '.. 14 r, U �I • I I !lX•L���,Jt��1�� �J DJ-T145.J_ �,C •" iI - '� \�Cq T�� ▪ (3 l M Al 1 III IO 1 t1 1•"•`•,L,..L1tJ .f_ _' :35 ti i !'t1J 60 ^�O. • 11 7! 37]r'I JL I�S 3.11]J� J'i Jol t. it L /' T� .... � ` • at n 1 S I . I. i 1 1 1 1 M. { 31 ST. ST. - 38,. •, 3_7 I . 58 5. I L,�I• �I, a;:c li l 20i 21 I Z.�tJ I��25• ----L__-t-y-_-- i '.1 ^ { } i L-1 �.�.—s seRK - P ��e• ;` Z 6 l `0igrtni .,.„i it_ z. 'GIs ..sr, At •.1= I; `as 1.: N. 30TH a ST. A S _ _ w�eas�va E:C!:�: 3om 513 i, „., 99 , \/,`,... tn ...44. �.�, >, >a t • ..:•.I 1 1t tsi I6 I 11-+1-I t]I I tJ J r-(',,,,,,. • I - S ,' j JaiwT:e r.:a 1, as ��?,JI to I t,fit; _ t3. _ a , s: �2(5\ 29TH ST. '40 a •'I 4� 1 F,�• �' I 91t It W" _� t 1 ,t I`c...•••n l la l,)Iib n ca U I hti l l i.1•w l- n_=_' I ;w Il IL(,II "4Til ISI S6J)J} ,1 7+.] 6 . .t6 a ' „• -4 kb1 '1jt Q I` • t yx..�. _ , Y f a. I_I�:ra�l.,:4 t Z4.. S' _A-J_ _a y',-� I w • 28TH PL. „: , t if „$ �„}i :!. it ` ,` R. ,x. 50 S: Mir i I•' .El I.,. . i SC ., 1. I m:'1',I j Nt It Mi tiT 16 I,!r111 LeILIItt III`C.-(J4� .r,r _ e, `, „ •-,1,.: .\. _.—:_•—S Tr*—.—._._._.-9 *— -6T:—r —fro J.fr - — —'�N. aril•-ST.ZP'• •—' , tt{ 1,1.5 e I,r. n r4j Q :e. c i i } =a.' '1 e j' \ DAMES L d MRS •%f! t" I \ MARENANOS awe LELAN n, t e N.,%' '144. ' ir.ri r a:rr Z'Ji PETER SON ,✓'r, •• ''..r•."" 1VI' ,�,je ,Q� ''1r(ppr�(U��U,I''tt L„ L• y r E O 5'0.',1[;07yE,- a•,/.%'.••i m; 'n o _.: .71k11 7:1' VI . I �r ii ' • � t•'r Gr.LOCI :¢ ,.� r t al" ,. /Lt1,AN0 F.VETERSON t,J 3 eat•.. /,tt4. �t •Ls 2$.00 At. L.t�•a Ke.t i .Z0.'' :Cr-f( ' '' '. riiiart 32 I 31 � '30 . ;,a❑t :7 :, t'L"J. ' ._ •. .. i r; ,.,1.. .." -6. - -,: iii° 7. ' •-'i trot" , - ------- • -•, as aitk�� �� if x. ei C.' \L.. '!sR.iH it4:I M: t'rY lir..f,••,•. rt.1! .may -y=1', 1 rnl Nr 1st 101 �(i1 e; 1•:•\v 29 ,.- NI - 26..H Sr. •• •ri!. 7 — _ Z •i::: ''7� A/ \e 141 = :GYP w y ,®- NCl/ j :% %1 Zi7 Q+ .•r. �a t ..r. '>' -8 --'--. .r.-�, , • IIMIIIIIIIIIIIW 1111111141110111r -41111r1P'""IIIIW) . luiluiw iiI Ith ' 0 4%) CITY OF RENTON ,1 tiii: • ,nr- T-.., -w,.1.____ .4. asfromommageml.MOIR 1.11. Planning/Building/Public Works ii 7x ta 1055 South Grad Wa3}---RentotiWaThms " gto-n-980, ,, _ . ET URivz. Clie_31— _ — .261:cacia 'I' , - To ‘0 1 ' ' PB METEn If ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED SUMER ,1- - 7158401 u.s. POSTAGE ' al fit tt Fttt PIE_”RTED SIR tit 181 •D R615(11" CHF.ettED ‘ 2:lticoptcd-Not?into --'-''' , 103u7iiciaet.ickhess ' :2 2,2o s3ch strer:t___111 I-)such office i)02.1141 ,not rozoil in this '03 `-- LI----: \ , JON ES-PT-PallLLE R zti- CLA 13R-4tA t- '---":.- BURLIN GTON CA 94010-2103 litheittlilitinlelithimilmititailatiliiiiiiiiiiiltillii ov . O1-') 4' ® , • • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED-DETERMINATION OF-NON SIGNIFICANCE;(DNS), •MITIGATED ;_ • • • DATE: August 9,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: AT&T MONOPOLE—COLEMAN POINT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. PROJECT LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): As the 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 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non :Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will-follow the issuance-of the DNS-M. •• ' PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 31,2000 NOTICE OF:COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 9,2000 APPLICANT: .. . .: .:AT&T Wireless 617 Eastlake Avenue East - . • . -: =. , .. • • .. • Seattle,WA 98109 . - OWNER: Paul Miller 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review;Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit,Modification of Landscape Requirements • Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permits Requested Studies: NA Location where application may • • • be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, • 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for October 3,2000,before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th • floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Convenience Commercial(CC). Hearing Examiner review:is required because the monopole is located less than 100-feet from residentially zoned property Environmental Documents that Li:t• :: 50t,' • Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: .The project will be subject•to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Sensitive Areas Ordinance,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated July 17, 2000, prepared by ADaPT Engineering Inc.,regarding general earthwork and design criteria for the tower foundation. • Comments on.the above application must be submitted in writing to Mr. Steve Taylor, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 23, 2000. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on October 3,2000,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division, (425) 430-7282, to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please 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: STEVE TAYLOR (425)430-7219 • PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • 112+: �Y1,1.`I!;IQ IIJ;r34h,Ett;]:I=-1=3� _ B• '_ •• ` tie V. rol 1 1�r—W1 ] '311 3l13S sli rnI JII b133!ti;xt`.t4 • ' �t I 3 t - .. 33RD ST. a Jtto y :,',E.wil: ; 1Irsw i i A� ��� ��� - It* ry to i11 r, i -‘t-i < 0 I ,, ... r F a. ' N. 32NQ ST.�, a_:•� a 3) SA I]t"I• b 1 R 13y3 L I,e� t! to 3e ��i''1 1" tes. tt� '•� „y_ c �� �!l�l' I �C/' � I $ •le ';jtl .tit .I� 1 T, �.� 3^. I 32ND, TST �, 'ss. .,._ i a. r tt max. I *J� Gf'�f o 1. l]1 It1 'ZCI t'!" "'�,_.mil .r -,A 35 Z :I• •=ts\1 60 �t�FQ �i e J. r° ,1 t :in,: ,111 Je1,if AI as 111331• I31 i 3°I t.I"I zelt • ...< "L• s - I(g�y�I� ��}a]��3 tI i(�]�`tI y� J`I, T4 ,o Isr aln l;L2 1. • I, I• I D, ®I®I i S• '' _ ten: N .:r.: 58 31ST. ST. - M 38,_ . 37 1 . 1 e % `,Y�{tiy�lf rM Y.,� N I 1 f,Lry� -Z Y-•nr__--1 - 5::0 : r „. ;} $p liTI�N' 6 IA 1 I t01 tl t: t/I i t. ___'_'L__ i �- ]: ,, ,���•l: ]:I l7 t'� to e .ii'' :.�e 1! !� ? : � � � ' .. II. I. I . 1 ��► ,�, � 5113 0. ¢ 1 , 4 J' t I do A N. 30TH a ST. s = `' -4:::::- 30TH 1 573 9QC ,. .' w m .I — • a• c:" i/: 1 ;0.14'. \'- 29TH ZT. -- a ;40 °• I I 4p t :�_� 1 s31 11 nf- �• '�l ' a `'• I�I •l•:_Y Y ,, Ir -1M_tl.l_ -��'3 l z1.1 p iI{I'� ��1 s A.•l• 1..I.•1 I U• 1•] , ;tazi} L z t it• I .(t , , 11 7.1 i 1 �' • 33 se t� Sf 1A 3 -* 131.i t t1't. a . il' • -. •gyp' q ' III Ta _ ,,�,.1 .41.. -i 'I: N-_• tb �1 /x 7 Fi ..I. I_ >,el I..ieu r _S' 3.__•: -__a_:_-ay.... 'l M - R. rN., y 28TH PL. T tE1 ,TT,t A 1 lff Jt/ 1 .. ..1.. . ' I•1- • IF ' . 111 . R�tR ,,�I�? 4 it rl1 IS to I •a I tt tl:-{] " •'v f:14:1:/1•_. Y..' 5 �t •—-— S•F.-•--•—•—'—•-9•--*— :.—:r -1,., —,r « tt .- -—•-. ---N. 2BTF{--STrzy.,-;•—• J tt ur s4 na] w I.. ,, rR Liu rl:.]-cl .-r . c l 13 d_,l' .br0e tJ . JAMES L d M R S _ �f' 111 - f :_ 1 ! 1 I (\\ MARENANOS ,,, ii � ' �.1! LELANO F� rrr, ,,,I r r4 I n•'r,' •1.4 _ J Z.y ' —_ 7ET ER 50N •r tin ',V1. , ,y4' r .I r7� ; t n °a J r ..Y Y NE'0•s!RIOE__ r, ,,,,,'•'113- tt,to �P2W fA t, f; ,.. N r.u, Tr. a u % ,I tr r, tL l'� 7 t .. ELAND F.P.ETERSON zt 7 Ur CO AC. �yrtiii:1' rrr, ,'! �: t IL _ • i7 32 1 31 _ ' nt''1 1,.`1.- _ 10,' , ,. :S • •u;' 11.1Ra..,,9a_ . 1: .:tl r _ _>v_ _ In 011 •rr,C�L` f \\v\r t/JI I rj �R11 Ell ' .! ;, ear N. 26TH T��sT. �.,tt1p ( mierwormummumwr_-__----m-P-77 -77 -ilemmummumr-wimper---- ,,.,-,r7wer, _ mmi , • a 0 CITY OF RENTON ......4,-- digrjr...6-ci.;--. soll. Planning/Building/Public Works .ga en )... .cc 7 Z tc I:40T ti _ , rj C) 1 AUG 10'0 0 ' 04'..6.56,11 — U ,ZU --2. ' 1055 South.Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Azwan Eci i 4 - PB Mena .f ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED , 715840i U.S. POSTAGE aa it tt Mt PRESORTEt &Et lict 911. c\'b( ( ) JAMES M. DENT ,, 11504 SE 82N ST Q\ RENTON 98056-1647 A I.E.`,1:-7:;---..,_i----i Ofiti Pi C , AS ADLRtSSED — - -- - --- —--- 1 i UNABLE.TO FORWARD (C'''' -4 1 id F5) 1 ' RETURN TO SENDER ' )10. sw-js...s/".-$1,1/07, 1111111111filimlihililiilllil MillEliliiiiiiiiiiiiillittliiilLititilij 7 I • 1�'Nr-v°� . NOTICE OF- APPLICATION AND PROPOSED,DETERMINATION OF NON- • SIGNIFICANCE (DNS),-MITIGATED -.• • • DATE: August 9,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: AT&T MONOPOLE—COLEMAN POINT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. PROJECT LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): As the 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period..There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- , Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE:,. July;31,2000 , • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 9,2000 APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless . 617 Eastlake Avenue Eat ' • : • ' • Seattle,WA 98109 OWNER: Paul Miller 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review;Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit,Modification of Landscape Requirements Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permits • Requested Studies: NA Location where application may • be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, • • • 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 • PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for October 3,2000,before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th • floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Convenience Commercial(CC). Hearing Examiner review is required because the monopole is located less than 100-feet from residentially zoned property Environmental Documents that Evaluate.the,Proposed Project: None known • Development Regulations . . • . Used For Project Mitigation: . The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Sensitive Areas Ordinance,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • • Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated July 17, 2000, prepared by ADaPT Engineering Inc.,regarding general earthwork and design criteria for the tower foundation. • Comments on.the above application must be submitted in writing to Mr. Steve Taylor, Project Manager, Development • Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 23, 2000. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on October 3,2000,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division, (425) 430-7282, to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please 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: STEVE TAYLOR (425)430-7219 • • PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • J,1r.]}'��flu�llllli' i'4 ,EtGl::li:1:1) �r'ev. L.e ( ;LI w 1Y/7 yy3 '_ `, • ,.,.. li T7 Jt;� ]a�,f Ja�J1-JJI ila lf1.117 4r ---®L •� 3 1... y 1 1N I`'j'r I. .` �r.] ' -1I I; Q % `i63�1.. >- LL 162 �'e 33RD ST. j: ° - 11 RI Le, 1 i.�l le n �. t 1{lr {AV�_.C_ u - N. o I . !'� lig 32 N d.'1.4 ..,ST1, 3.;.1 !f?r.';.' 1 11 A 11•�•t 7 14 ]] 11 a L!I e3 to - , al; N I 3:i� 2/5 • I\�•• \ ••3 I I _ 3 . : 1 e' �'\r ]1^1J I ci��1 __ 32ND r ST 'tr:-.i.._.- i i :: �\ i-' I i 0 la iS n to 1 tl .,L .- - j c 1 60 Win`p' . --yy CJ r33.33?41 33��11 33.1 Vf 3.1]]� 111 i 10I=!I 1 t,'1-f ,,, ._ N. t} • -p , - 4h`'nP-+?II I. .I- . I i IQI®I®IVi 1 K,• It: _d• j .1 38:, �, 3� 58 3IST. ST. - ,,, ; f I''. • s _ 4'�' I —g it l]:I 37! I tG I. I : -,E ,IB,.:•.I_ '� r 1i ' ' .. �I ,' J 11f I I W r 1 a § k ' ,,u N. 30TH a ST. b n 9 _j _ 30TH S.73sTa 9Qf , 1 N f 1\ I= IF 1] I.. 2] 2• t1 ' I11 1e flT2.1 33:14 13- ;t J].l , 30127t t. i I .t3aa',\ten Wit 5T: - c..-•'40 , 'I I I 4� ‘t N I I . f 15 S t „wY - —I 1 u 1`rJ i..�nl ulq a� "I L11ttI�I N,• �: �rol _ _ :Y ,a_ e.. �- 'I I 8 ." ` 1 -, 13 1e , 111)♦ 7t-•3S ,1 la+J t::7 N. a tt, IA -------.--1,�y li 2• ,„. Y c' 28TH PL. - e t 1,t3J ... .;!--o-i 1 . .r t• ' 50 • • 1tWCit.i• ivp,.. 141i,3'!•I N I==I=t!ig-• 1., :i„ _ .31',:e,'P _•�. :•-: ; ' S '�, — SF.-•--'—•—•—•-2-4.—t :,—;,—ig •—err efr •�F——1- —rN•F-*-•gars-o--sr.-R•►s'r'—• 1 •� x r„ r.r.] w I "'''Cl ld E-Q � I rE.4 mot,I' 110. el • JaMESC b MRS J. + '.f' t3' 1.CJ•, ( ° / EEL NO MAREN.ROS i,.i fir'NM'• •'4 ':'' —•- y (,r PETERSON r •r''' .. iiii P' ..,y'4x. .I • Z 1 t t,y" t„ a r 2.i E 0 S•R!I�OE •��, %,4'''•'t 15-; Lt,o� ` -ei: Ai t • na ...-N rrG .n ET) gnr r. tL1;ti. .: t - - aui<. G t.?nil 15 •, _33 .t N.E., Z �t WINO F.PETERSON t,7 'I rat... r3ur. ' (/_ri 1 r! 2 0 AC. r•tc,.f it.,• 1'•i ,..,d _..-ZLL":... •.Y' ' :.Y� ,'r�-3� • • J32 31 _ 30 i•.M r, .1]a ^. " .. . , .t, ,' rii .LG _s. ., :te r:�, ..,-® 5It 3 N•crw^;'Q �� r j Y , L ^..\f - I s 4M v ra�� . rr1r • -=i ifl E 01 W ._ 29 '-aN. 26TH - ST. :71%4, ' ''') 2%., 0 Ditai.TIEaFEI\ p I =-: _ . ;1„• •, ___ „.;:::„... /.4flz,/ \90. • a • . ' , 16415:i74-i5 ,CC/71.19.g:r: r----------t.'.. . • . ij-117.- 651IL•fg 164.,; I is it-i'l L.0.1, Lz 171 zt:.7-211 s . cit8. ...! a..,...). z . '."?.. f •sil., . E• l \ ; ; 4-' -•'. -C3 '. .3. 32 ) W, i 3•-'-'313!4; .36 W..34133.-32 I 31 1 30 29 Z!i 27'-i.d., - 3 .0- g zt:-.' [1-...,.i :-...v. :. . ,.., , .., , •P I 2 Et Al IPI 14-7" - Nz :. , ,, ,.., ,,,, ',:.:: ...: • zii, :in.-:., , 1•:.,: ..:,...: 1-63.1„ ›- cr ; 62 33RD ST. . - I: ° ..al.,.; ._ I li al LI., , :. - . I••••1 • A • . sa -s.,,s • • . SS a ii 1. , ? II I i - -1--.7.,- ...1 .:... 0 1..•I, ,,.i . ta.,• . 4 1 1 a . Hi ULkM( N 5 lif 4461 g .v ! 1.r . at n. .i i,:.:.,:- ...-. •,..\15 < . . .. , f. ., iz i3 ‘44.,. s- 4 17 16 19 pl:L-21 ..., _.2 . ?ILIA _4,___Ir_4_47.-__I4D-_-_1;4_v_ ..,, - . N. ,,),, 32ND' '' ST , St-: ,. •'; 2,..f:.I ,-; 19 1 \ r61 ,, s* if;re "" T•39 36 371.6 3 It 33 32 ,,, 26 22 26 so 1' 1 u 1 7 i ,,,, I ';': 21:13.:: : 1\, 2\ 2 tlij I Oaf MI:1 ,E 1 i 3 loffi : 5,. vi , „ h w• ,,: "•• 2::.:•,:::.. •::;•.,.,... NC \ - - _....30.\\ w•69. . I - I - - . 1'1-.1 • I • I • _ • I . _1 ti _____--41 . ... ...:•-c:: Ar \ \ _ _ 32ND ..• ST. s IP 157_,,11 IJ p,' '',.. , . . '.!f \ s. \... ', \ e., " •I tO OP, ' 016 ICJ. IgtO-EZNiair if" b 1 1/61._rweS J N 1; .. ..... .1 1 ,,,,.....,• ., I. 14 15 1 17 I 10 I/I .,,,24 si :.: .;:: ' Oer $* ••• -34 :35 1,..vr:',' : .....: •2es :: . 60 , j, -, Z toi 13?-39 f: 1 634 I 3314211 31 I 30I 29 ION I at.2,§ _ r3 3 •3. 2 S1 mot ri. 151 . IOC .' '112:5...: .;, _: ..,. . \• AlildtP.'F• 1.. - I . i .:FIEj, 1M. ITIVI .'HO p C.:. .. ... .. . I 31ST. ST. : : tiii ... •-. 38; 3T L.• 4, - - • ...„.1 i.:.". .• ::. , * : ..;.. •':: 58 , _,17__ 12 Q ^ .:. :.:.>•'::: i ir 3. • Etir,„,3!2s, min so • I. • • • 1 ,e,• 5i.. z---- --1 E.,,..... L 1: ----i • •• ':: ;...• ...: 59 22 z147,__ 241 5 :1 - 7-- -- , .:-'. =-:.-----,,,-.m sf„ -TI:ii:L:1- :,:w 7-4----1-: •:- '.. .i'A .,,331 4r 1 30 1 pi 22. •aza 613 I, ::, 4''''' 1 6 .. ..k,„ (II -1!..14- I I I I @ 1,. I:e.1 !-.' 1: i , ,/ 1. p It>:03 II 1 51? [h. ID • . • ..-hd, . '0 1201 /II :::. k *•:?.. s i. V 220 30 A N. 30TH a ST. 3 .!... ZIA,•••:..A'...,•IFIE 7:.0i,. ::.` 30TH a up sir; rf3.,:3:-.L4 co 1, :i • 1..• 1 - It.ti cii 6 bt5 1 • .,., ,y.., J`,.I.:. 1 1 ..,"R.14 4.15 1.6. 20ili I a 23 I 24.....,25 ITS2. : , 3 l'% , •..4=4,4_41*L4-..._-_r_ -t_•72_-14-. id- ___: -- Li; 0 .. 1 'Z' ',s.) clIP• • IC I 33.1 315 3:71.31 3E,.34 DI 12 31 1 42,4, 20 1 z?...26, •-- ... g 'A •:.F .•: :i: • ••<.: . 5. cc‘ '1.,s , ..,.. 1 LM,401 0: vanql . 5. ,. 1 . . .\ .:: .... I.:.. . 1 .14 0 ' 4 i 1 : .4 ‘\.. t.::•:::: 1..i. 1 --• : • 8 .- . l'" ly....• ' I • I ki i,. ,pi 56 i 0 0 ' I i . *0 ._..157 . 1 . • . • IMIMIEnit \ . .10 ‘, •s;3D, 'I!LI 5, 1.12 .. ,.. ..._._, ..,.. IL i of : IS 16 17 14 I EiTilNI 2416 cg'..1 W.I 1 k' •• ,11;1 ,9, ii 1 1 11 <A _;_; ,•,-4.-3 '-. ...41 II „ g48 raplIPPP'' *. 39 351232 I 35 1 34 33liil I 301.. ..;--% 27"."26 .... .:'•-. 1.1P.-= '" r N.,..,..'... ' 1 0 7.7117-0.7.:T I " ... C7i 1 „- - •41,1 3I 111 • I • }CZ 01'9,VI 1.o :,ES:Z3R-.. 2[28081 ';', wi---- ..• .-.:230 • i I •_5. __±.1__L..-..r_.-----, 11;W. f: ''.... _ 1•110 . ' 'i fll I lis , .. 28TH PL. 2e3 .X UM ,,, __,__%0:i A:r---;z-,--w .:4 .f ::, . 50 li'llt ' alUr-1 1 - 1-1 •w:: :;1,-t ,,; E.3, . :.:.... -..: , ,..... Few'". . . 12 I II. 17 ! I I) 20 1 21 1 22,23 ICF.2..S. -b° '1" II • ' " ''' "'PP ...r, •••• :E..-• :. .. .,- 5 ,. •,---.,r_.__s-&.__.__..__.__...._.__ __.0._....;1,1.3.r..,_,__' ,,_..5___., ._._,,,, .,..7,..,-,i;: ...--jr--... .L- ''.:, '''...'. ... -.., N. 6,71.1__._sm,T. - ....._. 1 22.4\ 22794, JAMES L & MRS //is do "" t 1„ ..„ , 4-- .... Ily :I! .:.::.:....1 IlYoY1.- ol I I I . il-r3i 0 1,1 111":0.: MARENAKOS . , Tics t'',;- - 0.224c -."<---'' ....::"‘ .,..:.• :! ,-•=1 46 / LELAND\‘‘.\PETERSON ri • ' (Al""% AA f Az, -• /. ' ' "" redo 4‘;17' Xle, 0.1 re `1' -1/4 .:::..: .:0 tip c E -',' Pf3".4? "", . Vag '.:,• .:.* /./84, 0934Z •••• ,< •., ,, 3„io in iFA ;.•1,-,--/ ,7 o4-N pc N 7.,7C. Gov .Lot 1 .1 ; ELAND F. PETERSON ED S-RID oz Ac. ASZIc ..'lit r-. Ztf.`00 Ac., 70.9 r t...;/ ,...f / / 6° • ,..t B 1,. , ..:, • ,,. 420.,..:3" / . :16gt i 31,71.541.-i,-q 411116 ' ----- -: :: .--4.,1 -1-;•1- ;Et ', ::. .Z lio‘ 'GE ELM • • 5E33.16 '', ,,';1,''s,,,..:C.: 1 . 0,.....•. .1-'-.Vkc•:::7 LI actriPi.:._Ii• -•• - 15 :::;. :-•:. e f1..:, .. too PAO t ki , ,.. 29 Ct-c), .ti.-,s N. . 26TH ., ST 4 ... :4, • -,, .?,,,,, . _____, `3'. 41 _ s,./ . . ...... ..,,,,,,,,,.,,,, , ,.,4 e.-te)it,,,?....111),_,,.• ,,,,,,,i ,,,,,,,, OM. . • :,,, . •94 R ! 'EU;, ' - -1-- F'', .-S, --8-- 4,771-- Fcr,,,_ '.... - • o . f t ..FIB~)I^._.a7 9 9 n 9 F3 T1 LU Ai f b�:..%(i Li\,:u:. :i 1'-'1 C..:.i...i Li....y b..-:Y � ), DRAWINGINDEX ATIRIII.u....Crlaltat Let CITY OF RENTON A-1 _ COVER SHEET COLEMAN POINT SD5 I • KENNYDALE w $ITESD51 w Q /� 1321 N.30TH ST. o A-2 SITE PLAN Y / RENTON,WA 98056 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: — A-2.1 COMPOUND LAYOUT THE EAST HALT OF THE WEST HALF OF TRACT4I OF C.D.HILLMANSIAKE WASHINGTON d GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO.1.ACCORDING TO PIAT RECORDED IN VOLUME N 30TH STb 11 OF PLATS ATPAGE(663.IN KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON. A-3 TOWER ELEVATION,WAVEGUIDE AND ASSESSORS'PARCEL NUMBER: ANTENNA DETAILS 334-210-3272-04 C-1 CIVIL DETAILS I DIRECTIONS: \---t---------\lE2 - 1. FRAM AIRPORTOFNCE TAKE I-5 NORTH TO 90 EAST TO 405 NORTH ,,, 77TCT ov C-1.1 CIVIL DETAILS II 1 TAKE 405TO THE 30TH STREET OUT j S pp 3. GO WEST ON 301H STREET OVER BRIDGE PAST CHEVRON ON LEFT -Y..rs Q 1-1 I E-1 ELECTRICAL DETAILS 4. THE SITE 15 LOCATED BEHIND SUMMIT ELECTRIC VVy2 gg Pillg E-1.1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN TO2 N E-2 GROUNDING DETAILS KEY PLAN ILI Y N.T.S. 'Y ES-1 SHELTER DETAILS 5 \,..... ES-2 SHELTER DETAILS • PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: SURVEYOR: JURISDICTION: 0 COLEMAN POINT .. MEEWEOIER LEACHMAN ASSOCIATES CRY OF RENTON 1321 NORTH 30TH STREET 11000 N E.160TH STREET ES-3 SHELTER DETAILS RENTON.WA 99056 BONHEAC1/M/WANN w SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF WORK: PHONE: 1 8 ca=o E FIRE DISTRICT: z ES-4 SHELTER DETAILS SITE DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF p Q PREFABRICATEDLONPOE.AND ENTJIARANTENN' STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Te.n • II'$ STEEL MONOPOLE.AND CEILV U0.AN)EN W15 ES-5 SHELTER DETAILS I020E-1771700005601 AVENUE 111111 m w m PROJECT OWNER/APPLICANT: SURREY.BETISH COLUMBIA V3S1CR SCHOOL DISTRICT 3 r ER ES-6 SHELTER DETAILS ATIRTELESSSERVICES PHONE 574-6432 0 WI0. 617 EASTLAKE AVE E E SEATTLE.WA 59109 IAA ZONING CONTACT:IAUREEN NKOLAY SHELTER MANUFACTURER: ES-7 SHELTER DETAILS PHONE(425)430-T294 CONSTRUCTION CONTACT:KEVIN FREE ANDREW CORPORATION PHONE 1206726-1126 2701 MAYHILL ROAD POWER: DENTON.TEXAS 76205 ES-8 SHELTER DETAILS PHONE:016))331-9-9378 CHAEL P� N o DUGETSOVND ENERGY PARCEL OWNER: PHONE 0313W 225-5773 In ES-9 SHELTER DETAILS PAUL MILLER ANTENNA MANUFACTURER: z 0 RENTON,WA 99056 E ALLGON TELEPHONE p rn Q PHONE C425)227-9991 CONTACT:VICKIE CHANEY d ES-10 SHELTER DETAILS PHONE D317)595-5999 G.TE Z t QOZ ES-11 SHELTER DETAILS CODE INFORMATION: GEOTECHNICAL: TO TO MUM WITN^` T s o M Z F ZONING CLASSIFICATION: CC(CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL) A9n01AncILW u0AR ow0 2I0 Tx0Y,v.it C.OVAAMEHT C TBA V = BUILDING CODE 1/BC 1997 OVERALL PROPERTY AREA TBA 01OPP/o..R PAT[ = COVER SHEET PROJECT AREA: 2500 SO.FT. O BUILDING AREA 3225Q FT. AT&T PATS evwn, onon CI CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-N PA uM Q CM PROPOSED BUILDING USE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS010-01A1 •Ewo.09 W • UM IX OCCUPANCY. 5-2 v no ma,.L f'4_ y.4.�""'' -^'_r',T,{?; EXCAVATION: N/A .,T ;r,�.,`}.3•- F{C,,,.:e AS NOTED nm,9 moo . ESTIMATED VALVE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1130 000.00 A,NPYAD A_1 • • -- r L; ? �c- ae.m. IS .71aGNILII me LS Ix GENERAL NOTES+ EINO.IT IS I. PERMITS,FEES,AND TESTING SHALL BE PAID FOR raresa 2. uc a•,v_IMP NO =M f51• BY AT&T. CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS .E w N WITH REDLINES SHOWING'AS-BUILT'CONDITION •ill 3. TO AT&T. 4 4 a ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE 4. WITH THE UBC,1997 EDITION. :i m • i 7Yd o'DT IN �'IO 20 40 CASE /j,,� 5. CERTIFIED WITH THE GOL➢SEAL PER REV 'U h N89'04'38' 30TH 1 i o 346.25' N89_04'38'V _ 832b4'ROS._._.-_._.__ • / I 832.53'MEAS r 6. SHELTERS ARE EXEMPT FROM INSULATION a /pp y/ / �� ii �� FOUND MONUMENT IN REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON ENERGY CODE. 5-H n j/�/�••q���� �� N CASE(6/5/00) CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE CLEARING AND GRUBBING M sss a i �. •• IFA_7'a` 7.-.r A /. AS REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF .1fr d �'' '' R A/ _ n, p • • APPROACH AND COMPOUND. FR_-p „.4:\?• '-NUUR..� - ... I _ ;yc4".7 ..,•..�..: FOUND REBA• 6 CAP =1'0203.7' SNOT REC. %C •�'.'"t'a LSk 64 =•1� •6=18.56' I O 1999112,300044,x iC.�r /r---- ,%7%J/j/J/// 20 :J J _ .'o-#(.;*.„•_ y'y SUMMIT LEC.SIG e/� TOP=2333888.1' IISR yaf'_±2: ,' • ,'•'!? s ••'(''.,•VI,4'IP TOP=2 8.5' 311IE.Elsi Vim. .Ili GFORRAPHIF I OCATION 4S•+I PROPOSED SITE 12iiii HOUSE `� 9?�. ' •--•'.. ...M .40,3-(12-I6')P TOP=254.0' y8D$ NAB 89 gad RIDGE " `4 LAT. 47'31'047/O7'04.070• =ham,_•T /1 / EL=228.0' 1. / / LONG. 122'II'S6.4�'12'00.931' c s``' _•• "7 ELEV.2082'(KW 29) VS.216'1(BELLEVUE SOUTH F `•"'' I '' '(� ry BASIS OF BFARIN i 14`'. CITY F ENTO C.S.NORTH CONTROL L IN a CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT VS: ''"':+`.'�4 BLDG {�p�'� 26fi 6 1836. 1'•'',f:m k1321 '„}„`,;:.7J VERTICAL DATUM • STOP=24 \� y NAVD 88 -1•>: TOP=231.2 •-8'ALD S u _ ,Z -..,i m 20'!HIG / BASIS OF COORDINATES LEANING .R_. (TYP) WASHINGTON STATE TNAD 83PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM NORTH ZONEGRADUALLY REMOVE CROWN GARAGE I' ''.'• IN ACCESS ROAD TO BLEND R CONS ;j•`r.;' f. RENCH MARK INTO EXISTING CONCRETE i ;.. ,_ 2 ELEPHONE BOO'' CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT PARKING LOTS ... ` PROPOSED GRAVEL ACCESS re. �. CENTERLINE -TOP INTERSECTION STEEL ROD SET IN CONCRETE MONU3 le ROAD TO TIE INTO EXISTIN '�v. CENTERLINE INTERSECTION PARK AVE.NORTH AND N.3 CONCRETE PARKING LOT. I , tip'' ' ELEV=201.26'(NPVD88) REFER TO C-1 LL ( ?Sq O % AS VEN!• 1B2'REBAR V/RED TRIAD 11 6'FIR TOP=2p5.' .. P��P P� CONTROL CAP(JEP-2) CIO n •'I^T,f P. 1 POP9 sil / ELEV=213.1' I FOUND REBAR;• 1�9'?vJ? ?O % I FGENO ",� L``SM 6434 T cyP4-49,��04 / X 34LBiPOT ELEV 1. EXTENT OF LEASED �, N 04`„N' >>b'y j��� PP WAX POWER POLE WI UNDERGROUND CONDUITS W AREA ai ,•1'''I , `•JO O4. - -OVERHEAD POWER ® Cs N PIN FLAG ,•` Af- •l I FLAG 10'PINES TOP=242.2' H2O/A �O ® TS-TELEPHONE STUB CB-CATCH BASIN GROUP OF COTTONWOOD ,-.`C�.CV�� B�2 (HQ. LS-LIGHT STANDARD TOP=277.8' b m FH-FIRE HYDRANT (�) PIN FL• .. \ . P I/2'REBAR W/RED S1 /v\TTREE REEELINEE _o -ROPOSED 50'-0'STEEL - , PIN FLAG TRIAD D/V pRIVEVAY CUT H CO MONOPOLE C/V NEV �� ly 125,_2,�214-4Z zL CAP -2� O DECIDUOUS TREES • z M ANTENNAS O'-0' „�, ) '•I ELEV=213.1' M-MAPLE .iy ��� rv. AP-APPLE TREE O Q 14 II ,' CONIFER TREES • I-3 Y 12'AP TOP=23(.' ' P' =Di I • 2 C-CEDAR Q0LANDSCAPED AREA. 2 • -OSED 11'-6' x 28'-0' p]N FLAG 1. GRAVEL . u U)J Z ABRICATED ANDREV 'U)"'TER / M U.-,cz OSED 32'-0' P : ASPHALT'COMPOUN➢C/V PIN FLAG HM'CHAINLINK FENCE. �'f GROUP TREES TOP315.7't ammo R TO COMPOUN➢ y 36'FIR TOP=•73.5' CONCRETE SITE PLAN UT ON A-2.1 ,.. I n FOUND 3/4'P'E , MAW m wc0 212 2 SRIMxe UNDERLYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PFR FIRST AMFRICAN TITLE ORDER RP. RIM •a • ,e4s5• ET----- '� NSF OF THE VEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D. a0 POI, MAXIM ). / HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO.1,ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF 0070-06A2 0070-0e L5.0'CLFNC IN CONC FTG PLATS AT PAGE(S)63,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. P•. ua AS NOTED AR(19 200 SITE PLAN O A - 2 1 2 o a • ljj i f w7 6717.110 NC 121 TIC GENERAL NOTES: seer rot Lai r.Tx 1, PERMITS,FEES,AND TESTING SHALL BE PAID FOR _ BY ATV.2. N CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS "c"""' .N @ I!w WITH REDLINES SHOVING'AS-BUILT"CONDITIONIli '-c4- - ATV. TO AT , ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE ►'m aVITH THE UBC,1997 EDITION. ' - PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR I INDUSTRY,AND 5. CERTIFIED WITH THE GOLD SEAL PER REV ZZy 43-22-455. Y a y 50'-0• / it LEASED AREA PER THE RULE CR-103,PREFABRICATED WIRELESS F E SHELTERS ARE EXEMPT FROM INSULATION 1W GRAVEL ACCESS Re(D REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON ENERGY CODE. 6 1 CO)6'-0' C- SV1NG -.-.YY' •.�.t::::::.:.:.:4:1,.� IC:*::::::.:11417.�.•.•.•.•.1.�41:1411.�. GATES ��.��►.�.�. . ft:*•:.:::?Cra C10/0 400it !;11;f • 20'-0' "_:;vf.�^= '•'�'yi ?,�ti:{ ':.� _.Yx=�.,t�.�:�,�:�: WASHED LRUSHE➢STONE , C:.,,,,^u : ,ri,,...�;T ,. ,,,:,w'►���� �r 2OXTOUP➢VIDE POSITI AT ^;. ci. 4.i'- ti ,L��.. 2Y.TO PROVIDE POSITIVE iq.''.•'(t_� r.r- ..,1"4--(I- DRAINAGE 50'-0'MONOPOLE C/V - • •"" j'+ r� ,-Ij T. //i QANTENNA BOOM. REFER \` '�;''_-�:;A j/ a TO A-3 FOR ANTENNA �•^ ` _(/ 1 7'-0'CHAINLINK I DETAILS OCOMPOUND FENCE cix �� �^'� i�i BARBED WIRE �, 9 j �p\\I _ _ UNDERGROUND ANTENNA �/'a 2 \:�:I:j:' CABLE DUCT HANK ,' ► ' �STOO- I �i�% liar eH-FRAME , / m ' CANOPY II'I '' 8'-8 1/2' •♦♦4♦♦♦' tia /� SUPPLIED VITH �l` ♦J♦♦ cc m / SHELTER �i G� �1��=T=�e I►♦�►�i�� PIIII ���►����. LANDSCAPE tstPP BUFFER. REFER -1 2Ar 8 _ ►�:C..�. TO L-1 I�0 • 11.4►.�. il I g ll'-6'x 28'-0'PREFABRICA E' ANDREV A. �1 • /Ai C I I I 14`�� SUPP (./)�0 I� 11�\� SUPPLIED _ `O SEISMIC , EQUAL ,, X�4' VHELTER F=- co - / 1 RESTRAINT 7yP, PDST,TYP QF A ( P.OF 2) Z O ov. /:::•••••,*, ' ''' &COOL 40arte:::!:!:!:**: z cK EXISTING APPLE wvuc rrnr, TREE COMPOUND LAYOUT / 6'-0' / 28'-D• / 6'-0• / :MI.m UR WIN M. ` � �C❑MP❑UND LAY❑UTO 11/4=I'-0' No an 19 zw .o ANTENNAS.MEMO N�un�>M.�.o ..........„--/—EIEVATION FORIYPE pll 1 1 JCFEMALE TERMINATION �221213 WEATHERPROOF KIi V F N <>- -MAC a n e F4-PPM0M-3.1I2 SU CRELE%(3'-O•) °e GAMMA—FACE 45• N Mn� /1 , V-3 'B:D a11— I 221213 WEATHERPROOF YET MIA FIGURE ANTENNAS i t i i b- l 1L5DDF-RG FEMALE CONNECTIONS LIGHTNING ROD AILON ALP 6014 1 Q 12 ANTENNAS(IrP.OF B) / 6 /nI AV b014 ANTENNAS 221213 WEATHERPROOF KIT / GYP.OFB) 204989-22 GROVNDING KR. ,4”j6-e 4 II.1,TI- t11.-, LOCATED NEAR TOP OF MONOPOLE S¢ 411 • I ''l m s° ALPHA—FACE 2)FUTURE ANTENNA MONOPOLE STEEL ii y a 6 140• ee!!!! „ } V 1 19356B HOISTING GRIP 1 (1110 ^63 LDF5-50A7/8 COAX V PLAN VIEW OF STANDARD ANTENNA FD-3DB.V2.5VPERFlEJ( POSITIONS&IDENTIFICATION O roRovoeoerEuc oN)l / sON�eTRFEroBE N NTS I 1 - iH 1) •NRWITHSHELTERSEWITN - SHELTER SHELTER(TYP.OF 27 ®®H-iRAME N 206989-22 GROVNDI NG/UT O Ir l( O O M— LOCATED NEAR BOTTOM OF F4PDM N-MAIE n LCUZ MONOPOLE _ 1 • A TOWER ELEVATION. r_LSPDF-RCNfFMAIE a . 4 6, I, 6 eu.�VEGViw(Awn, 8,�, •§ "w �`".'i� y, �,a,� ,1 ANTENNA DETAILS F - _ ,,•.) ..l A IO Z NORD N Iv MOO WAVEGVIDE SCHEMATIC 7/8"COAX O EAST ELEVATION O NTS 3nB••r-o- A_3 3 STRANDS OF 1LA NTAIVNJNVM GENERAL NOTES:,0'_O MAX /'d-DOINTURB WIRE .' 10'-7' y `1/d•R / 1 ,I MINI LATE WITH MINIMUM 2'RADIUS , COMPOUND SURFACE SHALL BE Ye MINUS WASH ED CRUSHED TM� II ON CORNERS 9 GA.]'CHAIN / STONE CONFORMING T09-00.9({),1994 STANDARD '�"1pjw'wTM°^'��� LINK FABRIC v:. ...:...:..... I 1,O,T,D SPECIFICATIONS 11/I'O D.J ++ 2S� 6061-T63'r3102d9 1/B' t•-11' g TOP RAIL ••'$::::i!i>• ALUMINUM TUBE Ve• 1'-1Z' STAGGERED 1/2.BASE PLATE CAN 2 PROVIDE DEWITT PRO-5(5 MICA WEED BARRIER UNDER WASHED 2Q STEELBAR 'a 3/OER •• FASTENERS ASTE ERRS EDGE \ �tYP SLOTTED HOLES IN CRUSHED STONE COMPOUND UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE o 112'O.D.MIDDLE •••• L BAR Vd'a3/{'MIN. °BRACE iASTENEA502{'O.0 BSEPLATE TO ALLOW ..._ FOR ADJUSTMENT IIIR2' S. LOCATEIXISTING UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM PRIOR TO 3'O.D.PIPE 2'OD.LINE POST VNISTRVTCROSSMEMBER 10'-]'a{-9'at/e' w 6' CONSTRUCTION RE PAIR ALL DAMAGE TO AS-NEW '30 CORNER POST ALUMINUM BAIXPLATE •O CONDITION. .--.- STRETCHER BAR 7GA.BOTTOM WIRE KNUCKLED I BANDS 0IV0.0 GROVE BED IF REOVIRED /FASTENED 026'O.0 7BOTTOM EDGE es TYPICAL FENCING NOTES: 3/45CHAMFE0. 1/ I 1!2'0 V-COLTS p .....x _,-x.•�>,....._•.-x. ,e..f .-� :x.. LB'O HOOKEDANCHOR 61/2' •_ ,, GTE POST.CORNER.END OR PI/II NOST3-1/B'NOMINAL CSS' ' -;: •• BOLTS EMBEDIO' �� OAISCHEDVLLdO KS PIPE FOR GTE WIDTISVDTOb'00.12' 2u H O ..;.S-M_¢3 a.$R)tf/t ya ttt.y'gR`,S r`a BASESLATE X.,R.� FOR DOUBLE SWING GATE PER ASTM-EKED. 4 Ji; Z K#`.RD.+�. FRO 2,6d+3 QO,p.a•..X.{:✓®,a* ��aT.NT 2 UNEROSS2'(2375'O.D.I 3b5 LBS/UN RASTM-N0R3. 90 Sy.; FRONTVIEW SIDE VIEW 3. GATE (1 FRAME 11/2' .9'O.D.)272 LOS/UN FT.ASTM-F106i. ,.-0.m H-FRAME DETAILS 1•-6'0 ,/ ° 4. MOP NJLANDBPACE I(AIL�11I2'(1.9'O.D.)PIPE N 1/2,V-0' FT.ASTM-FI0R3.INSTALL//RACE AT ALL CORNER LOCATIOOCADONS tr GTE OR END POST. DOUBLE DRIVE GTE WIDTH AS NOTED RD WIRE BAND MVP AD/ACENTID GATES I TIT.SEE NOTES. ON COMPOUND LAYOUT ' 12.0' 5. FABRIC: CORE WIRE SIZE 25 MESH.CONFORMING TO 9# [[ppg • i. d'OF Yr GRANULAR A'. AV BS _- - ___ EXISTING GRADE COMPACTTO 55i FWD B TIE WIRE MINIMUM T Ga.GALVANIZED STEEL DRONDEA I ''S5}} CC • .jle i SINGLE WRAP OF FABRIC NEAT POSTS.RAILS AND ATTENSION es p ? �t':i::t?•S''•, • .. GRADE Mt SLOPE WIRE 6Y HOG RINGS MAX.SPACING 26.O.0 p�--� •...... •-• -.-2i SLOPE I235LOPE-+ � I* BRACE BAR.TYP.'ILL 7. TENSION WIRE MINIMUM 7 Ga GALVANIZED STEEL I 3.0.0.PIPE -- ' B BAILED WIRS DOUBLE STRAND 12 Ga 1/2'O.D.TVASTED IMRE GATEPOST i d16'P.T.TIMBER .. IdSv a .. TOMAICLIWFABRICidGZAPT.BARBS 5DA�DONADDROX5' Ya BETWEEN GATE POSTS ORGANIC MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED.COMPACT CENTRES. POSITION FLUSH VATIa UNDERLYING SOIL TO 90i MAD.REVIEW PATH PROJECT FINISHED GRAPE I MANAGER AND GEOTECH PRIOR.TO CONSTRUCTION 9. GATE LATCH:13/B•O.D.PLUNGER ROD"/MUSHROOM TYPE ZZ a __-._.._.•Y:i r• }_.• I, LATCH. F o, B'UFIS OF COMDACTEDGRANLMR 6 ROCK OR PIT \..........65 .-- 4'""0.�ao'a'e�e•oc�ga a; >'"""" +`1- x _ RONTOADEPIH{'//EOOWFINISHED GRADE LEVEL 10.DERMIT CEIF LOCAL,TORECULATT NSF AIREAMR.ED WIRE �jZfe,"�.4°.`w.A, a" v 4,, COMPACTFACH UFTT095SMMD. DERMIT COMPLY TO REGULATIONS IFAPPUCABLE O E co St:z CENTERGATESTOP. F.; n.'i ACCESS ROAD SECTION O 11.HEIGHT•7'VERTIUL•1'BAROED WIRE VERTICAL DIMENSION. b Y REFERTO DETAIL ON V.... S-S L .,. YT-- 3 THIS PAGE .3f.3,: V2•.I'-O• V \ •••Y>>•.2-6' ISM REBAR a 36•LG, 2'-6•Y•;p~ 00a W 2 PERTMBER /I GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD. • 0'CO' REFERTOA.2 FOR 1-F G FENCE DETAILS O I CONTNvnnON �� 1 •z> SMEM= I GRADUALLY REMOVE CROWN j� Q Q-DRODERn LANE ,, Y • Q IN ACCESS ROAD TO BLEND to DL1WCGAS V y 5'Y ® INTO COMPOUND _ N ASSEMBLY) 'I_ 'I W PROPOSED RETAINING WAIL �.`.. :'"ITVJI 'IIII� r N ®6'r6'P.T.TIMBER .... 'Ss `I m 1/d•a2'LDNG LAG ICI ,^'i••T`-`"s•;'� 'i. PROPERTY LINE 7.13 BOLT(TYP.OF d) hM •.:s.+`� -' `- P - 'PI P_ Z we X 11 .[G•1 ,5,1!' GATE STOP DETAIL I�`� ' -�YTE1 II BEND COMPOUND SVRFACEINN 1//2'•1'A' O • H I EXISTING GRADE BEYOND LEASED I./1ini •Y SS 5LOPE� i AREA al SLOPE: i FENCE POST Z F W - Cn BRING COMPOUND UP TO FINISHED GRADE USING OM" 1'-0' Q - - . -----" REFERT C-I.1 FOR.SLOOP. O WASHED CRUSHED STONE WITH NO FINES COMPOUNDI 6' M SHALL BE GRADEDAi20i THROUGHOUT COMPOUND I TO C-1.1 DETAIL (1 AREA.ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE OFF COMPOUND AREA FENCE POST I ' i „ II I• `' 613'P.T.TMBE0. Z'- AND ADJACENT PROPERTY AROUND COMPOUND AREA k I �1_ EXISTING GRADE I ¢0 Z TREATGRADED SITE WITH WEED BARRIER PRIOR T03/d• I H ��' �I I I WZO WASHED CRUSHED STONE FINISH.0.FFERTOGENERALNOES2 FINISHED GRADE OSI Q FINISHED COMPOUND GRADE ZSLOPE FINISHED GRADE TO * t I w O aMATCH IXISTING(3.i MAX) ; h9 I 1.41•C MIL •,..Fa .'::::i:: I fx•{ WASHED CRUSHED STONE 2( "�_2i SLOPE COMPOUND AREA TO BE• P CIYIL DETA1131 "•?-:"^'�',` SLOPEDAT2 TOP OND`Vj(`�sDK 9 v.�vn�mY . POSITIVE DRAINAGE E t.''c^2 \ 1a ,.y ow.,m wag. REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL AND REPLACE WITH 6'TO6•LIFTS OF -:I %,A. MaiMI ;y._ II ,r'1�' L_ aF 11/2-CRUSHED ROCK TO A DEPTH d'BELOW FINISHED GRADE. >. "'^ �:•' L-I--p LEGEND - COMDACTVNDERLYINGSOILT09DiMMD.COMDACTREPIACED SV// B3CL•2 -`, I 1; cv.0 MARL. GRADE TO MIN.952 MMD PERASTM DI557 METHOD D(TO BE VERIFIED 5'x;?•.:5yVi';�;._ :'';i:,4w,\;_:_ •,.,.>.. .'• I •SS IIII IIII� WITH THE SITE SPECIFlCSOIL REPORT.REVIEW WITH D0.0/ECT '' ""'�"- =•ti67 1'• EXISTING ELEVATION II -15M REBAR 06'-O.O.0 °°IawCI °°T°-°a MAN AGER AND GEOTECHPRIORTOCONSTRUCTION i . I'.''1 y S,S'.• I yQFA PROPOSED ELEVATION K'a °'rt' , •i NDrtP 1VN f9Nm COMPOUND SURFACING REQUIREMENTS° COMPOUND EARTH WORKS PLAN RETAINING WALL DETAIL .• AB NR O 11/Y.1'A' O C_1 a , r-r a h ( a :.�E , bl ii U d is v9J is f?s:=_''.E;a Li t,,, 28'0 IL GENERAL NOTES: 1'O 9'1' '•� 1 I B,�• wwuur:ao-u 1. ALL CONCRETE CONSTRRCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE ,�,•"A°. wlnlAn-31B-e3. 3/d•CVW4FERAROVND 2 CEMENTSHALL BE PORTIAND CEMENT TYPE 10VN.O.CEMENT g n n PERIMETER MP.) SHALL HAVE A2B PAY DESIGNST ENTRAINMENT. SLUMP, p K' CORU.MAV F AS,SF-BSAIR GNSTRENGT OF.000 PSI•SLUMP, €c AND MAXAGGRECATESIZE TO BE3/4•. 3. TIEGFNEAALCONTRACTOR SNALLSVPERVISEAND BE -- ' RESPONSIBLE FORME METHODS ANDPROCER/RES OF 66 CONCRETE PLACEMENT ;yy TERMINATE CONDVIIS R•ABOVE STAR y f. PROVIDE SLAB ON GRADE WITH ASTEEL TROWEL FINISH AND p�AFIE0.SNELIE0.HA5 BEENINSTALLED BV4• / 3/4-CHAMFER EDGES.STOOP SHALL BE BROOM FINISHED WITH 0 4'^{e' 1 MDOWN CONDUHS TO NIT / TROWEL EDGES 5551 O 3 ; } Q / 5. STEELREIl.ASTM 61 BARSSH RD AS SH WNPSL YIELD G �' / 5)RS SHALL AETM615ANDSIZED ASSNOVM OBI THE%S.FIELD _ 6. BARS SHALL BE SUPPORTED ON CHAIRS OR DOBIE BRICKS F ,., (I�''-,, WELDING OR HEATING 15 PROHIBRED. 11 ACESHALLBE LEVEL M1 '.. 7. COVER TO PRIMARY REINFORCING: AND FLAT WITHIN 1/p• I I 1/4•L FACES CAST AGAINSTSOIL 3• EQUIPMENT SHELTER 1/4 F ESPosEDrowFATIEa r ` FOUNDATION PLAN y A VIEW / t 1,4•1•-0 0 / 55a 3 VB'F,/a•END CAP pp F B �A } C=1.,$ a T C // 4•TO SHELTER FLOOR RAID UP AREA WIDE/LAND HZ 4•a 4•a3A8•a11A 1/2•LG. ^ 6a6-10/10 W.WM AROVND STOOP TO PROVIDE GRADE J\ . :' 12 / TPANSOIONTO FINISHED P DE PROVIDE 3-HILl1NAM2V60 2' � 1/8'PE0.FOOT SLOPE 31-0. y __ 1g AWAY FROM DOORWAY •Iy T' __ /.`' 6.THICK CONCRETE PAD P1112a31/2'T12 !WEDLD!E .'." y tD 1/2'EXP. IC III c O' R.MIMIC STOOP DETAIL O • H 3 111001 wm ELEVATION A-A A iF6 SEISMIC RESTRAINT POST(GALVANIZED)O V /4 CORNER ARMS 2•-0'FA 3,^ LEG OUTSIDE FACE ONLY TO MATCH HOW-SPACING MP.4 CORNERS) h N PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE SAPPROVED BY TATE LABOUR@WDVSTRY,AND I iLOORSIAB OF SHELTER EWASHINGTON . (12/a 12'a VAHELTER ANCHOR.A36GALV.STEEL P#10404-5(4Y Z_p a CERTIFIED WITH THE GOLD SEAL / TOTAL 2 EACH SIDE)PROVIDED BY BUILDING 0 PER 0.CW 43-23-a55 /4 ROAR.C,2'O.0 EA WAY I MAN ERAND INSTALLED BY 0 NIQ CONTRACTOR Ca. PROPOSED ELEVATION. ' / / CAST INSERT Z F• 'REFER TO C-1 —i < / OS5/8'G0.5 BOLT MFG)(1)1'd•COIL BOLT Q O Z 25 SLOPE _ / z 0 . ... . - - -- _ G Z S:'. - v > 'f+ _ bm11 POLYETHYLENE VAPOUR O SO 4-OF3/4'WASHED y .•//-/I\/•,> i'�•./ ' \\ _ BARRIER - �a U r OL CRUSHED STONE ♦Q,. \O Bli@`:L•' Y\ivy:\....\\ -\ur\;:«'�\/.\w. ..-.•:`.::...:r ___........,.:.*3-:1 /,\ / �1/\\/ �/\ n// \//\/\\/� 6'MIN. • COMPACTED •L"( `f .: :: C• ouwM • /-/ \/j\ CRUSH ED AGGREGATE u- •�� WEED BARRIER r/3' O \. ^:.. {;^:_�<S+'°.'y'V%" v \�'Y' A /. \/ /3E1E06'OC EXISTING ORGANIC MATERIAL • \\ CMIDETAIL511 '1^ iiii N,S\'‘ 244 LONGITUDINAL 06'O.0 TO BE REMOVED.COMPACT /< �♦ Y,/ / , ANCHORTO FOUNDATION WHH CHORS _ O t. VERTICAL PROVIDE OUTSIDE CORNER UNDERLYING SOIL TO 95%MMD. / '�-"' //, WITH 4-1/2F SIN.EMBEDMENT �/` Rr Rsx •w m 9 NOTE ru r«Dw PROVIDE DONE BRICKS TO MAINTAIN SHELTER TO FOUNDATION MIN.3•-O'CONCRETE COVER ANCHOR PLATE , DmD4p 1'•1-0' O N m RI92mM AS 'FOUNDATION EDGE DETAIL O 1~1 C---1.1 lZ ' 'd 'kiV_s(I �LL, .1.,}LPL ) MATCH OUSTING GRADE MATCH EXISTING GRADE MATCH EXISTING GRADE ELECTRICAL NOTES: __ ,�["Z T. INSTALIATIONOF SECONDARY POWERAND CONNECTONTO 711,°L WARNING -_'1T P 'lilt WARNING �IS-ic- Imo- WARNING METE0.5HALLBE COMPLETED IN COMPLNNCE WAIN NATIONAL 'w'^'�1pf^""'� Leal TAPE :Si I '--- TIDE y ilk i) I�!lit TIDE n ll ELECTRIC CODE NFPA]O.AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON �� S'lll _ 1S=1B .• __ CAWS,RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR UNSTARING ELECTRIC g 444 l- MCRNLL WITH CLEAN NATIVE MC%FILLAND =_u BACI(FILL WITH CLEAN NATIVE MCKFlLLAND �L ACDFILLWIIH CLEAN NATIVETAOIPTLL AND WIREHEOVIPMENf,ALL LATEST I55VEAND WITH M 2Q _,y. .. COMPACT TO90S MMD VIM ._:... COMPACT TO SO2 MMD ..-CEN COMPACTT090i MMD SPEUiIUTION5 PE0.AST.M B231.B600.I.GEA 5651J01. o iUd ,T TI. !III: - u- LCEA RBI-570.&IOCALPUD. �_ i"'i11n1 _mg. .. ,___ Iusn '7yT -- - J PVC1-31R•RIGID Om➢n7i __ lifi�Tl tel _ - - �,,tarr CONDUITr/w VLLROPE - - z= 2 PROVIDER METER BASE PER LOULN/O STANDARDS. ie, R=ILL . .i1.-^ '-.11 lei -n - -=���t�}i?%:.-�.._•T�II_ - -..':t '-i _,,�•L'"`>^r''�� �I'`m 'III BRICKSAND MINIMUM 3' _ '•'AAti. .�I:Q "A �nin BRICKSAND"'HMV" i^,-;-`:-^•v�• rg 3 UNDERGROUND CONOVITSHALL BE RIGID POLYVINYL 1-2•WGID PVC CONDUCT 61 ;-.3ro - - 1-2'RIGID WCCONOVIB �i,�_�t./' �LqL COVERAROVNDALL DUCTS COVER AROVNDAM DUCTS I, ••••• +r„ BRICK SAND MINIMUM3' CHLORIDE CONDUIT SCHEDULE dO,TYPE I,CONFORMING TO CAN DVLLROPE(TELCO) "�i�l:Curzrr:..r�s�: �i`- CAW DULIROPE(TELCO) ,.L ..: ._` COVE0.APDVNDAILDVCiS VLARTICLE 651:WESTERN PLASTICS OR CARBON •�• Ea PARALLEL RUNS OF UMW 3A3/0 TRAIN PLUS/6 GROUND - MANUFACTURER COUPUNGS SHALL BE SUP-ON,SOLVENT 5 2 3-/3/0 THAN IN 21/2' IN 21/1•RIGID PVC CONDUIT 2'(T'P.) '� ♦'RIGID PVC CONDVITFOR SEALED T PIPE SOLVENT,WESTERN TYPE COMPATIBLE WITH PVC $Q RIGID PVC CONDUIT ANTENNA CABLES(TYP.OFRI DVCT,AU.RENDSSHAU.BE 36'MINIMUM RADIUS Fn POWER&TELCO TRENCH SECTION O POWER&TELCO TRENCH SECTION O Tx LINE DUCTBANK SECTION O . ALL INDOOR CONDVITTOBEEM.T.ALL OUTDOOR(ABOVE g o NT NT 2 NT 3 GRADE)CONOVITRI BE RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL COUPLINGS SHALL RE RIGID STEEL AND COMPRESSION TYPE FOE EMT.SET SCREW FITTINGS ARE NOT PERMITTED.FOR ALLSNB-UPS,USE RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL CONDUIT, — 5. WIREAND CABLE SHALL BE OF THE TYPE AND SIZEASRFOUIRED a 0 BY NEC THERE WILL SE NOSPUCES ALLOWED. AlEkH FRAME ® & NPODIAL SHALL PEYE COLOR CONEDED.INSULATION SHALL BE UR/PfCABINEf(SIZED PER SUPPLY �a�AF•3d0V,2D•SN SERVICE C 6656�!!!! AVTHORRYSREOZDPERSUPIREMENTS/ ENTRANCE RATED WEATHERPROOF 7. TRENCH RACKFILL SHALL BE NATIVE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO �yy U FUSED DLXONNECTSNTICH 902 MMD. 120V TELCO BOARD 400A240V,2P•SN B. LOCATE EXISTINGVNDERGROVND SPRINKLER SYSTEM PRIOR TO "11R2 y 260V N WEATHERPROOF SPUTTER CONSTRUCTION.REPAIR ALL DAMAGE ID AS-NEW P �3� 120V 200/V200AF 220V 2P•SN GQNDRIQN. 3 Ti WUTHERPROOFPIKED SINGLE PHASES-WIRE PROVIDE METER T� 9. ELECTRICAL SERVICING DESIGN 15 PRELIMINARY AND MAY �1 BASE TO SCAR DIXONNERSVJIRH REQUIRE MODIFICATION BASED ON LOCAL VHUDES APPLETON GENERATOR RUG SUPPLY I `— 200A/IOOAF 2dOV�• REOVIREMENTR CONFIRM WITH ENGINEER PRIORRI FOR 200A AC CONNECTION AUTO,RRY5 CONSTRUCTION. RFAVIREMENTS �ii1j WUTNERP0.00F FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH(FVNRO LOADSUMMARYIII CONNECTED LOAD: 69.5 KVA 2LAAMPS ® ©2 I150UD MAX DEMAND LOAM MIS KVA 160 AMPS 01 TINNED COPPER III"■.'.—I-I„ RSOUD TINNED COPPER AR20033R5 A • I-- I', SERVICE POLE AS DESIGNATED - I WAIL it = - —ILimn INK•L= • BY HTPPLYAVTHORf1Y m m CONNECTORS SHOWN FROM FRONT : MAKE ALL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS u:`O MALE TYPE(FGMALE•MIRIIORIMAGO ul it/Lit! 1 ��( 11 U' 1 PARALLEL RUNS RIGID PVC AND PROVIDE AU.LABOUR AND MATERIAL TIiR LLEL RUNS 0E3,3/ TOOBTAINA 600q IA/2d(BV,10,3W APPLETON GENERATOR PLUG DIAGRAM 4 A CONDVITDOOCTBVRIED SERVICE FROM SUPPLYAVMORIIY• q w m NT O 11P-2A ROC �,,, : 1-21/2'RGX EM PIILLROPE m y Y PARALLEL RUNS OF 3-03/0 TRANSITION TO RIGID PVC TRANSITION FROM ABOVE GRADE THAN IN 21/2'RGX CONDVIT6'BELOW GRADE MP./ PARALLEL RUNS OF 3-03/0 TO BELOW GRADE 'LURID m-W m THHN IN 212'ROTC TRANSITION FROM BELOW 3 P.-W 02/0 SOUP 3-/3/OTHHN PLUS PIS ■ GRADE TOABOVE GRADE TINNED COPPER GROUND IN 21/2'ROTC ARRANGE FOIL SUPPLY _ t0 AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE CT/PT CABINET(9ZEDPLY I REVENUE METER ❑0 AUTHORINS REQUIREMENTS)MENTST H-FRAME ELECTRICAL LAYOUT a00NROOAE210v.1wsNSERVICE 1R'•1'-0' O A1NEDCO �� FUSEDDIXONNECESWITCH ENTRANCE RATED RPPOOF TINNED COPPER /DOA 24014 COMPOUND - WEATHERPROOF SPUTTER GROUND RING 1 200A/200AF,240V.2P•5N --:-o . e=::11 WEATHERPROOF FUSED 0200A/200AF,140V,2P•SN DIXONNECTSWITCH(iVNRO Z I U WEATHERPROOF R&D 1-21/2'MOD PVC CONDUIT CD-.;..'• .:,. •'.:.;::,‘: :r...:.�• - DISCONNECT SWITCH I E/wPUU.ROPE(PNNRE) 0 M Q • ,.':•_.,�, ,'.,, ``.;: 3-0310 THHN PLUSI6 STUB AND CAP AT SHELTER Z J> . GROUND IN 21/2'RIGID IFVIVRU O[ 2E ENTRY 1 9 -\,• _ DVCGQNOVIT ' OUTSIDE SHELTER 0 O PREfAB0.1CATED LBOW �:,.-.:r^•:-, `:r�'•.!r.:. ANDREW INSIDE SHELTER LU F- • SHELTER EQUIPMENT PROVIDED WITH G J r-Z n ��::;:.`�:_�'^•::':�::.�'.-..`':•':':�' SHELTER SHOWN LIGHT GENERATOR RECEPTACLE 0 ry M w TELCO ENTRY 20OA 120/2VOV,2DKN 10T:•,.•STUB Br CAP AT{S ANGLE TRANSFER-SWITCH`': .,.CONDUIT FOR ':• GENERATOR RECEPTACLE FVNRE POWER PROVIDED WITH SHELTER . I......':..,E: :;.; :•.:',� 2.RCIC ELECTRICAL DETAILS 21/1'RGX FINISHED GRADE ■ u•mver. waem •-RI- ........ ...... __- PAGE ID TINNED RP 'fO^-k ..> Cy6,<',..<4.4,'4;... <'.• /Z SOLID TINNED COPPER 225A120/Z/OV,10, �rw Ca 3W PANELBOARD Pita '^ 21/2'RIGID NDIDDVC COMPOUND GROUND RING rom w0 ooRo-oe CONDUIT PVC CONDUIT NORTH ELEVATION O • "ww5 ""'°°° SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM NTS O .. 1. E-1 / o-- ELECTRICAL NOTES: ! ,S INSTALLATION OF SECONDARY POWER AND CONNECTION TO �cCl''•z?'"-���•�• f1T1, I. METER SWILL BE COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE VATH NATIONAL �'®'n'^°i• -2.27. �.: ELECTRIC CODE,NFPAND REGULATIONS TO.AND S STATE OF NGELECTRIN _-- " �.'��^`'"�~ LAWS.0.LM1ESANDREGVIATONS FOR INSTALLING ELECTRIC 99 J:1lY 711'.:�•- • N WIR6trFAVIPMEM.A UTFST ISSUE.AND WITH 2� CONTRACTOR.TOTERMINATE TELCO CONDUIT -,,... 1 I Qo ATCO PROVIDERS POLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH Uy SPECIFICATIONS PER ASTM.6251,B 600,I.GEA.SE61-40I. TELCO PROVIDERS REQUIREMENTS I.GEA DBI-570.!LOCAL DUD. _ FJUSTINGATILSTY POLE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE R WORK RECTA RED BY PUGETSOVND 2. PROVIDE A METER BASE PER LOCAL WI/STANDARDS. De ENERGY TO OBTAIN NEW SERVICE INCLUDING — BUTNOTUMITEDTOPOLERISER.ETC I UNDERGROUND CONDUITSHALL BE RIGID POLYVINYL • CHLORIDE CONDUDI SCHEDULE TYPE I.CONFORMING TO PARALLEL RUNS OF 3-IS/O THHN IN• VLARTICLE 651:WESTERN SACS CS OR CARBON 1/2'RIGID PVC CONDUT DIEECTBVRIED MANUFACTURER.COUPLINGSNEI I SHALL BE SUP-ON.SOLVENT ///////////// ii I SURIED T PIPE SOLVENT.WESTERN TYPE COMPATIBLE WITH PVC F / DUCE ALL BENDS SHALL BE 561MINIMVM RADIUS. :E. / 6. ALL INDOOR CONDVITTO BEEM.T.ALLOVTDOOR(ABOVE 3 6 / 410 GRADE/CONDVITTO BE RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL COUPLINGS 6 171 I SHALL BE RIGID STEEL AND COMPRESSION TYPE SCREW FITTINGS ARE O RT TPERMED.FORALLSTSTV6-VPS¢T VSE S. i,l RIGIDWLVANIZEDSIEELCONDVIT. — ELLLLING WILDING / `• 95�• (Si ,�. I 6Y NEC TSYERE NALL EL BE OF NO SDLITCES ALIDWED.E TYPE AND NZEK REQUIRED:%r e / I I _ 6. NEV@ALSEPPOLYOlOR CODED,INSVUTON SHALL 6E CROSS-LINKED POLYETMENE. �� p~`�� .•_ ��///////�/////� /� 7. TRENCHBACKHLLSHALL BE NATIVE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 4 9x 111; • w;T::2+::r ? - : %A 4 '. ... B. LOCATE COSTING UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER.SYSTEM PRIOR TO 1=ig]g P CONSTRUCTION.REPAIRALL DAMAGE TO AS-NEW l iLig /////H//// / ORSTNG6VIIDING % CONDITION, d 3 'm / / 9. ELECTRICALSERVIONGDEASED ONOOCAL WYANDMAY / % / REONREMODIFlUTON BGSEDONGINEER RIORT / / /////1l/////////// REOVIPFMENR CONFlRM VATi ENGINEER PO CONSTRUCOON. / EK13TNG % Q • `ARAGE LOAD SUMMARY: Z \*".- ~r.,:a:.h,: _ .�,- '�'/ CONNECTED LOAD. 69.5 KVA 208 AMPS • MAY.DEMAND TOAD. 385 KVA 16OAMPS .:^Sri' 1 • C' , ;` w a .: :c 11In111 m m PARALLEL RUNS OF3-03/O TIHN IN 2IR' 'lll'D�I...SORIGID PVC CONDUIT DIRECTBVRIFD 1-2'RIGID PVC CONDVITJwDWPOPE 6 DIRECT BURIED FOR-TELCO a GENERATOR RECEPTACLE y3 LS PROVIDED WITH SHELTER z Q Z O a SIV6 AND CAPFVIVRE POWER 0 NI Q CONDVITATSNELTE0. 0 = • © Z eL ink MY G W Z~ UNDERGROUND ® J ANTENNA CABLE - ® -.� S 0 r W DUCT BANK 11I U CZ - 11i m.tcmu ,:''' ELECTRICAL SITE TERMINATE TELCO CONDIFAT SHELTER T II• PLAN „ TELCO BOARD VIA INCOMING SLEEVE SEAL 1 IBS/0111M P B6 GROUND IN 21/2' mow. pion. AROUND AND INSIDE CONDIA( ,I UL� PM RIGID PVC CONDUIT DIRECT BURIED L... CE m I / �(��\\1-21R'RIGIIT PVC 4 - CONDVITJw DVLLROPE 1-2'RIGID PVC CON DVIT 004.11 CON. I IN DIRER BURIEDFORTELCO v...c wam.P'y ®H-FRAME .Naha rv.93000 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 0 .. C-1 L1 • ljl: 'fi ± ,IJ; TOP OF GRADE `/ GROUNDING NOTES: \\/\ \./<$/\\y/\/'\\/\\%'� '\\�\."�\\�/v 1. ALLDOERIOR GROUND CONNECTIONS TO BE CADWELDED. ALL INTERIOR 02 SOLID GROUND CONNECTIONS TO bE >\'�/ //\'//\ /��`y/\\> / \'\i MECHANICAL• 2 ANDERSONRCPO0.C➢50nLJD STO SSDANDED HA D BA 1 o '/• A/,/�/i/•/A./.&./i//• /i // ///i* ODE COMPRESSION TYPE FORALL STANDARD STRANDED =4.%i `...,, k•vTX,5'•A••.t...- FENCE POST Ez1::::::5R • BRICK 3. MINIMUM 5M — .. l NOSPUCFS \ ", <//` COMPOUND GROUND RING: .�:�:%:�;••• 5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL INTERCONNECTS Z \� .- VIVO HOLE MP. 151 ,\�i �\/` /250UD TINNED COPPER :.•:• :: `':':'•' CADWEID FROM GROUND GRID TO STRUCTURED 3/M0 GALV.LAG BOLTS RYP.2 NACES) >// /// t/t13'a18'LG.CODPERGROUND MR •�:�::::�•�-�;::•�` 6• ALLPEN ETRAnON5TH0.V SHELTER WAILS SHALLBEIS \%` ,',p'/1C� MIv t4'f4..,�`VC/@ DOWNWARD TO OVRIDE AND SHALL BE SEALED TO PREVENT @@@� /,•F-/\'/ CADWEID CONNECTION CONCRETE FOOTING LEAKAGE 52 6• ` \ GROUND BAR DETAIL O Q \ 2 lJ I 7. LOCATE EXISTING UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM PRIOR TO /. 5/8-06RELCRONG COPPER NTS H S'�— CONSTRUCTION.REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO AS-NEW \\� CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD P\• CONDITION. ✓4, , �/2 SOU D TINNED COPPER TD 4 \/ � DRILL BEDROCK AS LEO/RED. OLy��.D COMPOUND GROUND RING °' PROVIDE BENTONITE BACKNLL AROUND GROUND ROD TO TOP FENCE GROUNDING DETAIL \\/\/�\� OF DRILLED HOLE 1/2,V-CV O i J GROUND ROD DETAIL 'n g NT) O 5.� GROUND TINNED COPPER CO PP TINNED f GROUND RING BURIED 24' COOPER r BELOW GRADE . /25OISDTNN ED COPPER ID GROUND BAP.INMONOPOIE ti '1 METERED DETAIL/)ON THIS DRAWING GROUND KITCIYP.) `J � CABLE MP.) W` ANTENNA TAIL REFERTO NOTED ! ' / ,• /250LIDNNED COPPER __- GROUND T i=• FR`�� m 2 /• REFERTO NOTE6 8 t Q 05 / /dal®IGSOUNEU N� /250OD TINNED COPPER /' fN Y 3 TOWER MAN ROAR TO �___--____— __--�\• 'ILIA 1 i N COORDINATE ROAR CAGE • W COPPER II DESIGN WITH ONSITE CONDUIT •.. ,•, ---- / I AND WAVEGVIDE ROWING , ¢ • CADWELD TO BASE OF 4 1 \ F tO MONOPOLE MP.OF 2) " • n 1-1.PVC SLEEVE /250UD TINNED m URGE ARRESTOR -— U COPPER FOR GROUND • ROVIDED WITH SHELTER /2, SOUR TINNED COPPER TO r .EACH H-FRAME LEG A AM ROUND ROD /I. _ Iie� FINISHED FUSED TRANSFER SWITCH 'eV - GRADE 0 PROVIDED WITH SHELTER A �. COPPER :.S:. t,. MP.OF •4 i5s5�%, .k \''. . .5. .` ` �vv.�I�Vv •..... •I .• \ `9'10C LOCATIONS) 2� 1—=m n SOLID TINNED 1.21 • • ✓. S TO FENCED) d 4 'a" �\/� ,l �w\V 'G'1 I :::.•i�J� . SERVICE ENTRANCE GROUND Z F '1��W✓� YL � Os s.N / ./? +`�. I 42/0 SOLID TINNED COPPER 0 M • :F.:5 T INTERIOR SHELTER III. III Z y RETERTO NOTED (V /250UD TINNED COPPER X S/d'RUS'-O'LONG DODDER GROUND BAR.VERIFY -_. g O M W GROUND RING LOCATION ON SITE /250UD TINNEDCODDER U 36•MIN.BEND RADII/5 • ° : CLAD STEEL GROUND ROD MR)46'RIGID PVC CONDUITS : _ °••""c^^° r/w ANTENNA CABLES 1 1 1 SHELTER WALL GROUNDING DETAILS • REFER TO NOTE ANTENNA CABLE GROUNDING DETAIL 425DUDNNNEDCOPPER •4^-" prim.. AT BOTTOM OF WATER TOWER d___=_ h__ . RR. 3/4'•1'-0' O INTERCONNECTED GROUND ' U^•• ^^^w.,,, de HALO DROPS PROVIDED IN LEGEND °B2 00)D.DB SHELTER MP OFd 00>a ( LOCATIONS)REFER TO NOTE2 Sfi' • cramo Roo ww ma • - _ T '� _ {— Q 0 www AS NOTED nm l9zoo0 • COMPOUND GROUNDING LAYOUT 0 \ c-2 • • MSS MMIM IS . oanva.mrco MD IS DC BIB.REMOVE ALL STRINGS, NU ISIMI/C/MAP MC TWINE 6 SYNTHETIC WRAP, STAKING I GUYING REOI)ON FOLD NATURAL BURLAP TREES N w UNDER OR REMOVE , 5'6 TALLER. (2)BVC LEGEND `� . LO➢GEPOLE +H a COMPACT ALL BACKFILL B ��.� STAKES(HIGGINS CORP.- SYMBDIDUANT.BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKSFill HAND METHODS AND VAT• / (453-836-4643) INSTALL TO REMOVE ALL VOIDS VERTICAL „ • v m �� 6E8UREWIRBERORONBROHN AT ACER RUBRUM'ARMSTRONG' 2'CAL. 10'-12'BRANC MLY BRANCHED SPECIMENS, '� ORAUESTA 2'ABOVE FINISH .jt••�•�.f:.,•••�S�.'�%-�!%•••• XIX L ASTER ARMSTRONG MAPLE BIB BRANCHED BETWEEN 5'-6' •�:. I RS.. �w� NATURAL SPREAD I DISTRIBUTION „ CUPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII 6'HT.,BIB FULL AND DENSE,UNIFORMLY R.!i••IW4� L w:'{?+}':•; LEYLAND CYPRESS BRANCHED TO BASE Kb"' 12ir,;-�u !''.:.'_r, �;}':'J,I o 2'DEPTH MULCH , • • *, g-;T j MYRICA CALIFORNICA/ 5 GAL.CONT. FULL AND DENSE,UNIFORMLY �^`vo^„ ;�� r'iY @ a FINISH I /--CREATE WATER BASIN CALIFORNIA HAY LAUREL BRANCHED TO BASE ` - SiiA, in s GRADE / / '4 l AI _ „ Op COTONEASTER PARNEYII 5 GAL.CONT. FULL AND DENSE j- ', `-`�h , w PLANTING PIT BACKFILL / -a PARNEY COTANEASTER .,, II 1 COTONEASTER'LEA/FAST' 4'CONT. FULL,24'D.C.TRIANG.SPACING r 't • 4/ ¢ ITT II'I",R-.•I LDVFAST CDT ONEASTER . '' �� ., j�({, 11' p EXCAVATE PIT 12'DEEPER 6 TWICE /� ji �71;:i��:;J, _II._=-I_ THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL OR TOPSOIL NOTES / . im k- .ei PI ROOT SPREAD.SCARIFY SIDES AND 1 TOPSOIL LA ND 2'SUBGRAT AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR 6'COMPACTED DEPTH IMPOR / 'I I' W °11111=1i BOTTOM OF PIT BY CUTTING. TOPSOIL AND COMPACTED DEPTH MULCH. SCARIFY OR RDTDTILL SUHGRODE TO A MI •% ' I I1 1111r. • ANGLE SIDES,VERTICAL SHOVEL CUTTING. NOT 4'DEPTH. REMOVE DEBRIS 6 STONE LARGER THAN 3/4.IN ANY DIMENSION REMAININ( ON THE SURFACE AFTER TILLING. �i ( ACCEPTABLE / 1 a • IF WATER ENCOUNTERED,RAISE 2 PLACE IMPORTED SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL IN INC LIFTS(I)PLACE MIN 4'DEPTH � • ff p9 TOPSOIL AND ROTOTILL TO A DEPTH OF ,INCHES TO INCORPORATE / i ., ',I . i3 /,9 BOTTOM A PIT ABOVE EATER COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL ', _% NEV TOPSAIL WITH SUBSOIL.(2)FOLLOWING TILLING,PLACE MIN.2-INCH DEPTH TAP! I' ru LEVEL. AT SURFACE.FEATHER MOUND TO SUPPORT TREE / I gg MOUND INTO SURROUNDING GRADE AND COMPACT. �., �� �� � � � y\� Si ''jp PLANT STANDARDS /+ �ti . ��}�*` l CONFORM TO FOR NURSERYGTON STATE DEPT.OF AGRICULTURE(VSDA).WASHINGTON STATE I/%:.T»-.-+••�+ �r'r.:•.•�. 2 § � TYP.TREE PLANTING-DECIDUOUS STANDARDS STOCK,ORDER NO.1627 tom..;•: I 2 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE(ANSI).ANSI-Z 60.1-1986 AMERICAN STAND/ j•:•::• Q(a Q4II(=,[y.:.;jy.>; iraa NTS FOR NURSERY STOCK ` ':'::• '• �� T-T,�,.:KI-•,•.;.•.•: 3 AMERICAN JOINT COMMITTEE OF HORTICULTURE NOMENCLATURE.STANDARD PLANT NAME: j.:-::' �.v.•r:•.••:•, •$$$:::?: CURRENT EDITION L/L: :: -.""-"-"-..-"-..-::-.:._ • •':. BIB.REMOVE ALL STRINGS DELIVERY,STORAGE,AND HANDLING J•1R R ••••••••••••••••••••••••• .._ - TWINE 6 WRAP PLANT SO THAT ROOT MASS PROTECT PLANT FROM HARM AND DAMAGE AT ALL TIMES. PROTECT TREES DURING IS AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE TRANSPORT BY TYING IN BRANCHES AND COVERING ALL EXPOSED BRANCHES. •EXISTING 12•DIA APPLE COMPACT ALL BACKFILL BY FINISH GRADE. SPREAD ROOTS TREE HAND METHODS AND WATER FOR NATURAL SPREAD I JOB CONDITIONS V- TO REMOVE ALL VOIDS DISTRIBUTION PLANT DURING PERIODS NORMAL FOR OPTIMUM GROWTH,AS DETERMINED BY SEASON, WEATHER CONDITIONS,AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE. PLANTING OPERATIONS MAY BE c • 2'DEPTH MULCH,REDUCE CONDUCTED UNDER UNSEASONABLE CONDITIONS BY ACCEPTING FULL RESPONSIBILITY ,..0,..., DEPTH AT FDILAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT,RESULTING LOSSES. LANDSCAPE PLAN "A"•.L,,,.� UNDERGROUND CONDITIONS I/8.=1.-O• S �. CREATE WATER BASIN BE FAMILIAR WITH UTILITY,MECHANICAL,AND ELECTRICAL PLANS SO THAT DIGGING ,+ 3 OPERATIONS DO NOT DAMAGE LINES FINISH GRADE- TR -REPAREO PLANTING BED WARRANTY " DIY :�,,; 1 WARRANT ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR HEALTHY,THRIVING CONDITIONS FOR ONE YEAR i-lll=Ak. "�%l�\ per FOLLOWING PLANT INSTALLATION. i ll'A III> "CANTING PIT BACKFILL 2 DURING GUARANTEE PERIOD,IMMEDIATELY REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL DEAD, l Gll= 11III"II de DISEASED.DYING,BROKEN OR DISAPPEARED PLANT MATERIALS(DUE TO ANY CAUSE, 1111 E%CAVATE HOLE 3'DEEPER I "=I':ItliO: Illm EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW). USE SPECIFIED PLANTS AND PERFORM AT NO ImgEo. Y7._.; 3 TIMES THE DIAMETER OF ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ' ll.`' 71=1LIL /.62 II9'nx@:4. n1I�IO THE ROOT MASS.SCARIFY 3 DURING GUARANTEE PERIOD,THE GUARANTOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING III U "11,021.11F.11171=P_6V2.1 tl'7 SIDES OF PIT BY SHOVEL PLANTS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED BY VANDALISM,ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY OTHERS, ArDN IMID3 11.1-a1M' CUTTING OR ACTS OF GOD. SHRUBS 4'6 TALLER,PLANT COMPACT NATIVE SOIL UNDER PLANT QUALITY AS PER TYP.TREE PLANTING PLANT TO AVOID SETTLING 1 PLANTS SHALL BE FRESH,WELL FOLIAGED,IN PRIME CONDITION WHEN IN LEAF,AND - EXHIBITING NORMAL HABIT OF GROWTH. ALL LEADERS AND BUDS INTACT,FREE OF DISEASE,INJURY,AND ANY SIGN OF INSECTS.FREE OF SEEDS,WEED ROOTS AND E CONTAMINANTS. TYP. CONT./B&B SHRUB PLANTING® 2 PLANTS ARE TO BE NURSERY GROWN. w 3 PLANTS TO BE ACCLIMATED TO THE PROJECT SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. NO NTS COLD STORAGE PLANTS. 4 BALL AND BURLAPPED(BIB)STOCK IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A ROOT STRUCTURE H, SUFFICIENT TO INSURE SURVIVAL AND HEALTHY GROWTH. 5 CONTAINER GROWN MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT ROOT TO HOLD THI U In BIB.REMOVE ALL STRINGS, THE EARTH INTACT WHEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTAINERS BUT NOT BE ROOT BOUND. O TWINE I SYNTHETIC WRAP, STAKING I GUYING READ ON TREES = FOLD NATURAL BURLAP 5'6 TALLER. (2)BVC LODGEPOLE FERTILIZER F- CrN (- UNDER OR REMOVE STAKES<HIGGINS CORP.- 1 FORMULA 4-2-2'TRANSPLANTER'AS MANUFACTURED BY PACIFIC AGRA CO., O (453-836-4643) INSTALL VERTICAL APPLY AT RATE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S PRINTED INSTRUCTIONS. Z(') COMPACT ALL BACKFILL BY SECURE TREE TRUNK TO STAKES 2 CHEMICALS, TABLETS.21-GRAM SIZE,AS MANUFACTURED BY AGRIFORM INTERNATIONAL HAND METHODS AND VATE' WITH CHAINLOCK p2 BY LISTER CHEMICALS,INC.20-10-5 ANALYSIS. APPLY AT RATE OF. 0=Q TREES 4 TABLETS 0_ TO REMOVE ALL VOIDS PLANT WITH ROOT CROWN AT SHRUBS.I TABLET Z OR UP TO 2'ABOVE FINISH GRADE. SPREAD ROOTS FOR MULCH STEERED,GROCO,OR OTHER APPROVED COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FERTILE MULCH. Z z O 0 Z Ir NATURAL SPREAD 6 DISTRIBUTION PLANT INSTALLATION COMPACT ALL BACKFILL BY PLANT SO THAT AT LEAST u A E HAND METHODS AND 2/3 OF ROOT MASS IS IN W f- in 2'DEPTH MULCH I EXCAVATE PLANTING HOLE. WATER TO REMOVE ALL PREPARED PLANTING BED. w Al J CU Z !` 2 PLACE PLANT IN UPRIGHT POSITION IN CENTER OF PIT,REMOVE ANY ROOT COVERING VOIDS SPREAD ROOTS FOR o F]O M W FINISH ` REATE WATER BASIN AS DETAILED AND SPREAD ROOTS TO HAVE A NATURAL SPREAD AND DISTRIBUTION. NATURAL DISTRIBUTION a --V)U. .Ce z GRADE ` 3 BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL. TAKE CARE NOT TO INJURE ROOT SYSTEM. �l�,l THOROUGHLY PACK AND PUDDLE SOIL AROUND ROOTS. ,DEPTH MULCH,REDUCE . .. PLANTING PIT BACKFILL 4 FERTILIZE AS SPECIFIED. DEPTH AT ROOT COLLAR vuwc NDX h _=n ill'_" its� ""'i'➢n=_ 5 STAKE AND GUY AS SPECIFIED LANDSCAPE .. 11111' 6 IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION OF ALL PLANTING,THOROUGHLY WATER PLANTING 'REPAREO PLANTING BED PLAN w 1_I 11 AREA THEN MUCH ALL PLANTING AREA TO A MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH OF 2 INCHES De 1 EXCAVATE PIT 12'➢EEPER 6 TWICE AND AS DETAILED FINISH GRAIiE > I:'I' THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL DR \6 I -1 D: MAINTENANCE -III10 II=Iil ROOT SPREAD.SCARIFY SIDES AND 1 MAINTAIN PLANTING AREA FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR UNTIL THE END OF THE 'i`.. ( RR BOTTOM OF PIT BY SHOVEL CUTTING. WARRANTY PERIOD. ANGLE AIDES,VERTICALICALSIDES NOT 2 WATER PLANTINGS AREAS BY THOROUGH SPRINKLING. PROVIDE AS NEEDED TD KEEP L'"KT'ff..'f_c:-,>L T^°� °®+<T.a iu IF WATER ENCOUNTERED,RATS= ACCEPTABLE GROUND MOIST AND PLANTS HEALTHY. PREVENT SOIL EROSION. 2i;:`;;;�1'y�=y�:�"„ti'-+,`T~ oola-oBLI 0070-0e ^ 3PRUNE,CULTIVATE,FERTILIZE,SPRAY AND PERFORM OTHER NECESSARY OPERATIONS. Yee__•{_'�=IPA=II8=11R�I;=1:3 LEVEL.BOTTOM OAT PIT SURFAABOVE CE..FEATHER MOUND COMPACTED TO SUPPORT TREE 7=DLL W7i=tl"=CI' ,�n�e-m^E..n.=*. .uu SrnE "A, MOUND INTO SURROUNDING GRADE AS NOTED .71 19 200 TYP. TREE PLANTING-C❑NIFER ® TYP. 4" P❑T/SPRIG PLANTING 0 I 1 NTS NTS L - I Ob_ IdLfr, 60 use I JONES PT MILLER STATE OF WASHINGTON TEXACO INC TAX DEPT 411 CLA DR#A DEPT OF HWYS 0 PO BOX 7813 BURLINGTON CA 94010-2103 UNIVERSAL CITY CA 91618-7813 - J KEITH A.NOESS G.A.SIDEBOTHAM SOUTHLAND CORP 21210 4TH PL S 1404 N 30TH ST 2711 N HASKELL AVE 711 DES MOINES WA 98198-3619 RENTON WA 98056-2141 DALLAS TX 75204-2911 II l JONES PT MILLER SKI INVESTMENT BRUCE W.KOCH 411 CLA DR#A 1302 N 30TH ST 2900 PARK AVE N BURLINGTON CA 94010 RENTON WA 98056-2143 RENTON WA 98056-2107 UNITED METH CH KENNYDALE LAWNSHOP BROWNIES LARRY W.HARDIE 3005 PARK AVE N 01281 1305 N 30TH ST 3808 OCEANSIDE DR RENTON WA 98056-2106 RENTON WA 98056-2144 GREENBANK WA 98253-9785 - - \ -- J 2 / WAN T.CHEE CHEVRON USA INC PROPERTY TA STATE OF WASHINGTON 13028 NE 32ND PL 575 MARKET ST 0 BELLEVUE WA 98005-1316 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2823 J \ / KIM W.LANE LORETTA LYONAIS CHARLES N.MCCORD 11700 SE 78TH PL 2820 PARK AVE N 2802 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056-9112 RENTON WA 98056-2109 RENTON WA 98056-2109 � � VIOLET M.G.HANAHAN PHILLIP M.SCOTT THOMAS L.STEVENS 2808 PARK AVE N 1402 N 28TH ST 1408 N 28TH ST RENTON WA 98056-2109 RENTON WA 98056-2161 RENTON WA 98056-2161 • \ / WILLIAM E.GRUNDHAUS VINH LAM JAMES M.DENTON 7001 RIPLEY LN N 1422 N 28TH ST 11504 SE 82ND ST RENTON WA 98056-1528 RENTON WA 98056-2161 RENTON WA 98056-1647 -- - - - - - - - - `r - - ----- -- - - - - - - .\ - THOMAS L.STEVENS WILLIAM C.JENSEN JAMES D.BRUNDAGE 1408 N 28TH ST i 1432 N 28TH ST 1440 N 28TH ST RENTON WA 98056-2161 RENTON WA 98056-2161 RENTON WA 98056-2161 7- -1 PAULA J.&WARREN J.MADAJ 1WAYNE R.GIBBS WILLIAM M.LENGYEL 1428 N 28TH ST 1444 N 28TH ST 1436 N 28TH ST RENTON WA 98056-2161 1 RENTON WA 98056-2161 j RENTON WA 98056-2161 � I r LUAOO — 1O IcL IL? Y6w'Ye.7/0 EPORTER Can you canoe? Please see page 6 March 14,2001 The only newspaper devoted exclusively to the Renton Community. Renton,WA Kennydale residents hopeful wireless tree will be cut.down. By OSCAR HALPERT pealed the hearing examiner's News Editor decision. Kennydale's neighborhood Last year, AT&T Wireless, association also filed an appeal, the cell phone company, asked arguing that the tower should the city of Renton for permis- not be allowed at the 1000 block sion to put a cell phone tower in of North 30th Street, a few the-middle of Kennydale. blocks west of Interstate 405. Because the proposed loca- Specifically, the neighbors tion was within 100 feet of a argued that the cell tower's public area,a hearing was held. placement on the site would be The city's hearing examiner, inconsistent with the city's corn- Fred Kaufman, issued a deci- prehensive plan, which, ac- sion in September to allow con- cording to its wording,is meant struction of the tower as long as to accommodate "small-scale the company met conditions commercial uses"that serve the that included disguising the 50- "personal needs of the imme- foot radio tower as a tree. diate population in residential That didn't sit well with AT&T Wireless, which ap Monopole pany work with Kennydale residents to find a suitable continued from page I paint color for the tower. "So we worked through all areas and reduce automobile of those conditions and even travel." with those conditions were.in In addition, the neighbors place,we were surprised then warned, allowing the one to see an additional require- tower now could open the ment crop up later-the cam- way for others in the future. ouflaging," said Jack "Kennydale's location at McCullough, the attorney the top of a hill and proximity representing AT&T Wireless. to I-405 will certainly make it For its part, AT&T a magnet for additional cell Wireless maintains the com- tower placement in the fu- pany approached a few com- ture,"the association wrote in mercial property owners a Nov. 7 letter to the city about placing the tower on council. their sites but was turned The city's Environmental Review Committee in down. September imposed condi The controversy gets its tions requiring AT&r next public airing in April, Wireless to make sure fast- when the city's Planning and growing evergreen trees were Development Committee added to the northeastern and hears arguments before southern property lines for making its final recommenda- buffering, and that the com- tion to the city council. ;. ..a CITY '� ;F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 23, 2001 Mr. John C. McCullough Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill & Fikso 2025 1st Avenue,Suite 1130 Seattle, WA 98121-2100 SUBJECT: AT&T Project Withdrawal Project No. LUA=00404, CU ECF • Dear Mr. McCullough: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has receivedXour April 10, 2001 requesting the withdrawal of the AT&T Monopole;proposal for the N 30 Street site. The project has been formally withdrawn,;and all,appeals associated with the project have been cancelled. Any future;development associated with this site will require a new application and fee submittal. Please contact me, at(425)430-7219, if you have any questions. . Sincerely, • Steve Taylor,AICP Senior Planner cc: Lori Chase, Pacific Telecom Services Parties of Record `4rito :a,. 1901 2001 AT&T Withd,autal:d.c :" ='' .10 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 04/10/2001 11:39 FAX 2064483444 PHILLIPS McCULLOUGH Iluul •PHILLIPS LAW Qmc� FAX COVER SHEET MCCULLOUGH MARKET PrAcr.TowE WILSON Sv"=1130 2025 FIRST AvENUE HILL L& SEAT i.VJ,LS1 INGTUN FIKSO 95121-2100 A PROFESSIONAL (L06)445-1815 SERVICF.CORPORATION Mx:(206)06.3444 April 10, 2001 TO: Steve Taylor COMPANY: Planning and Building Dept. FAX NO.: 425-430-7300 FROM: John C. McCullough CLIENT NO: 646.009 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 2 COMMENTS: • • PLEASE CALL IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE AND MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL.MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND MAY CONSTITUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. UNAUTHORIZED, USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US AT 206.443-1313. 1' 04/10/2001 11:39 FAX 2064483444 PHILLIPS McCULLOUGH UUZ 6( / 1�i� )Doti C.NICCUL7 OUrri \'" PHILLIPS LAW Ar'PICEs McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE Town WILSON SUITE 7730 CITY OF RENTON HILL & 202511RST AVENUE FIKSO SEATTLC,WASHINGTON APR 1 0 2001 APROPRSSTONJAL 98I2I-21OO SERVICE CORPORATION I2o6I,14S-ISLS RECEIVED FAX:(206) 48-3444 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE April 10, 2001 BY FACSIMILE City Council Planning and Development Committee City of Renton do Renton City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Menton,WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF Dear Councilmembers: We represent AT&T Wireless, the applicant and one of the appellants in this matter. We are writing to advise you that AT&T Wireless is withdrawing its application for the subject monopole. Therefore, further proceedings will be unnecessary in this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, i • C. McCullough JCM:ac cc: Planning& Building Dept. AT&T Wireless Communications GWTTwIRE\696.0091PLOGSICITY000NC IL03.DOC April 9,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 112 The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.) Development Services: A- Noting that the Council had requested a status report one year after adoption of Frame Sign Ordinance the A-Frame Sign Ordinance on March 6, 2000,it was MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL REFER THE A-FRAME SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution#3498 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Franchise:King County, franchise agreement with King County allowing the Renton Wastewater Utility Construct&Maintain Sanitary to operate,maintain,repair,and construct sanitary sewer mains and service Sewer Mains on County Roads lines and appurtenances in,over,along, and under county roads and rights-of- ways. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3499 A corrected resolution was read setting a hearing date on May 7,2001,to Vacation: SE 2nd P1 between vacate a portion of SE 2nd Pl.between Lyons Ave. SE and Nile Ave. SE and Lyons Ave SE&Nile Ave SE that portion of Nile Ave. SE 312.94 feet north of SE 2nd Pl. (Parkside Court &Portion of Nile, VAC-01- Plat/Harbour Homes; VAC-01-001). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED 001 BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/16/2001 for second and final reading: Finance: 2001 Budget An ordinance was read appropriating monies from various fund balances, Amendments increasing the expenditures in various funds and departments, and increasing the 2001 Budget by$14,110.000. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/16/2001. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Clawson reported that he,Councilman Parker,and Legislature: Senate Bill 4160, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman had Transportation Improvements addressed the Senate Transportation Committee in Olympia in support of Local Option Funding Senate Bill 4160. He explained that the bill would provide the Puget Sound region with local option funding for transportation improvements. Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler added that the Suburban Cities Association is meeting this week to discuss the various transportation proposals that are pending in Olympia. Community Event: Centennial Councilwoman Nelson reported that the City's Centennial Celebration float Celebration Float will appear in the Daffodil Parade in Tacoma on April 21 st. King County: Emergency MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER Medical Services(EMS)Levy THE SUBJECT OF THE KING COUNTY EMS LEVY PROPOSAL TO THE Proposal PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Areal: Monopole at N 30th Larry Warren reported receiving notification that AT&T Wireless will St,Kennydale Neighborhood withdraw its application and subsequent appeal to erect a monopole at 1321 N. Association&AT&T Wireless 30th St. �u-00-1 o't • - ,• 1APJ 13;1) ' ... .' - .• 1 . . ) ' ' ' ' - - ' 4i ,7-"-----.' . __ ;- - - CITX _L3F RENT9 0,/A -.. ,(Ctto,4 - -- ., . . -11. ,,, '—',,,,,, , ' . , - • Renton City Council , .. Jesse Tanner,Iviayor. - - . . . . - DEVELOPMENT PLANNING . CITY OF RENTON . . - FEB 2 0 2000 February 15, 2001 APPEALS FILED BY: Kennydale Neighborhood Association . RECEIVED • . Represented by Kim BrowneAnd - • ' : • AT&T Wireless Representative: John C.McCullough of Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill&Fikso , • RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 10/30/2000 regarding the . - Conditional Use Permit to erect a 50-foot monopole at 1321 N. 301 St. File No.LUA-00-104, CU,ECF , . . . . . To Interested Parties: • • - _ . The Renton City Council's Planning&Development Committee will meet to review the above-referenced item on the following dates: • , -- . . Wednesdai;Vebrnary, 21,2001 . .... . 300 PM 7th. Floor/Council Chambers .• City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, - • Renton,:-Washington ' . . 7 - • , This is not a public hearing,but a working session of the Planning&Development • . Committee. As all Council Committee meetings are open to the public,you are welcome to attend. • . . . . ' If you have questions regarding these meetings,please phone Julia Medzegian, Council ' • Liaison, at 425-430-6501. ' - . . . . . Sincerely, . c42-4-13-Q1 - WkilL&)L3 • Kathy.Keo er-Wheeler, Chair Planning&Development Committee . . Renton City Council ' • . . gWF,',,,, t-;-4,,Nf'11172- • - 1901,c2001 . . 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6501 all This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer • - - ••;•'a , 7r., ' *. CITI DF RENTON Renton City Council Jesse Tanner,Mayor February 15, 2001 APPEALS FILED BY: Kennydale Neighborhood Association Represented by Kim Browne And AT&T Wireless Representative: John C. McCullough of Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill &Fikso RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 10/30/2000 regarding the Conditional Use Permit to erect a 50-foot monopole at 1321 N. 30th St. File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning &Development Committee will meet to review the above-referenced item on the following dates: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:00 PM 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This is not a public hearing,but a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. As all Council Committee meetings are open to the public, you are welcome to attend. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6501. Sincerely, Kathy Keo ker-Wheeler, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council • -$.eIltp 1901 2001 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6501 '%•r " entenri'� �.� This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer r PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES JoHN C.MCCI;LLOUGiI McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER WILSON SUITE I130 HILL & 2025 FIRST AVENUE FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON A PROFESSIONAL 9812I-2100 SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1818 FAX:(206)448-3444 February 21, 2001 HAND DELIVERED City Council Planning and Development Committee City of Renton .do Renton City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF Dear Council Members: We represent AT&T Wireless, the applicant and one of the appellants in this matter. We were not notified of the date of the Planning and Development Committee meeting until yesterday. We received no written notification. Instead, a voice mail message was left in the firm's general voice mail box. Such short notice does not provide us with sufficient time to prepare a response to the appeal filed by the Kennydale Neighborhood Association or argument on the AT&T Wireless appeal. Accordingly, AT&T Wireless requests a continuance of the meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, 74,,s John C. McCullough JCM:ac G:WTTW IRE\646.009\PLDGS\CITYCOUNCIL02.DOC M1 January 8,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 3 Mr.Zimmerman pointed out that there is a provision in the City Code which indicates that under certain circumstances,residents who refuse to hook up to the sewer could be charged a monthly utility fee. He said that he would welcome the opportunity to revisit the issue and suggested referral to committee. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER,COUNCIL REFER THE MATTER REGARDING SEWER CONNECTION UTILITY FEES TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX; AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60%PETITION; REQUIRE ADOPTION OF CITY ZONING ON THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2001 and beyond. Items noted included: * The City of Renton's website,www.ci.renton.wa.us, averaged approximately 14,000 hits each week in 2000. * Renton Firefighter's Local 864 cooked Thanksgiving dinner for 100 people at the Griffin Home, donated$500 to a family burned out of their Renton home, and supplied Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners for two needy families in the Renton area. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Appeal: Monopole at N 30th City Clerk submitted appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding a St,Kennydale Neighborhood request for conditional use permit to erect a monopole at 1321 N. 30th St.; Association&AT&T Wireless appeals filed on 11/09/2000 by Kim Brown representing Kennydale 0 0 _ 1 n Neighborhood Association and on 11/13/2000 by AT&T Wireless,represented �l T by John C.McCullough,accompanied by the required fees. Refer to Planning &Development Committee. CAG: 00-064,Old City Hall Community Services Depaitment submitted CAG-00-064, Old City Hall Flood Flood Wall Project, Stouder Wall Project; and recommended approval of the project, authorization for final General Construction pay estimate in the amount of$7,938.66, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of the retainage bond to Stouder General Construction LLC, contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Plat: Windwood Division 3, Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions, of the NE 4th P1&Pasco Ave NE Windwood Division 3 final plat; 50 single family lots on 14.41 acres located in (FP-00-086) the vicinity of NE 4th Pl. and Pasco Ave.NE(FP-00-086). Council concur. (See page 4 for additional discussion on this item and page 6 for resolution.) Executive: CitySource Printing Executive Department recommended approval of a contract in the amount of &Distribution (Renton $73,440 with the Renton Reporter to print and distribute CitySource, the City's Reporter) newsletter to its citizens, in 2001 and 2002. Refer to Community Services Committee. • CITY OI i.__ENTON COUNCIL AGENDA y_�L AI#: q•A • SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 01/08/2001 Dept/DivBoard....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Public Hearing AT&T Wireless' request for conditional use permit to erect Correspondence... monopole at 1321 N.30th St. Ordinance File No.LUA-00-104, CU,ECF Resolution Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeals(11/9/00& 11/13/00) Other C. Request for Reconsideration&Response(11/13/00) D. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(10/30/00) RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: The appeals were filed on 11/9/2000 and 11/13/2000 by Kim Browne representing Kennydale Neighborhood Association and AT&T Wireless,represented by John C.McCullough of Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill&Fikso,accompanied by required fees. %.M- - - - CITY O ' RENTON : ...u, City Clerk Jesse Tanner,'Mayor - • Marilyn J.Petersen • December 21, 2000 • • APPEALS FILED BY: Kennydale Neighborhood Association Represented by Kim Browne and - • • AT&T Wireless . - . . - 'Representative: John C.McCullough of Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill&Fikso RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 10/30/2000 regarding the . -.Conditional Use Permit to erect a 50-foot monopole at 1321 N:30th St. File No. LUA-00-104, CU,ECF. To Parties of Record: - . . . •Pursuant to Title IV,-Chapter 8,Renton:City"Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the- - hearing examiner's decision regarding AT&T Wireless' request for conditional use permit • has been filed with the;City Clerk: :NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEN-that the written appeals and other pertinent documents -will be'reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee.•The Council •secretary will notify all parties'of record"of the'date and time of the Planning and - Development Committee meeting. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by.the full Council at a-subsequent Council meeting. . Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal.Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner . • decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the • merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a . showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at• the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no'further evidence or,testimony on. this matter will be accepted by the City Council. . . : . - _For Additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at (425) 430-6502. . Sincerely, =Man1 . tersen;'CMC - -_city:Clerk - _ - - Attachnment 1055 South Grady Way Renton,-Washington.98055 - (425)4.30-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20°6 post consumer City of Renton Municipal Code;Tine IV,Chapter 8.Section 110- Appeals 4-8-110C3 • Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353; 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) • calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents,including the•written decision or recommendation,findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant.. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony,and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the.Hearing Examiner.(Ord.4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding. to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 o this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-1 7-19971 . , . . A4-rx.Q.9r A APPEAL : CITY OF RENTON • HEARING EXAMINER NOV_ 0 9 ;^,fin WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION T9 RNTOiQ'TITY COUNCIL F'- 7 NO. L. M .C)0 10(4)COI E- cam:-� C_ e7-! '.D-- APPLICATION NAME: �`f- -F--T' CeSt2,vvti4ti-L.,... lecraf The undersigned interested part hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated . Q A_� 20 eft) 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REP ENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: Kk,vv,AAJAILLLaiL e ck&7 C. Name: vv Address: 12`k JU gL110-'`+ Address: 17- yU a P14- &_ t WA- 9<it) S-C R , \Lbl- oi$D Telephone No. Telephone No. q a.S— xa 6 -7q 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets. if necessary) , Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: /� A . c2,QJ��A).b J A Correction: ^.ONCLUSIONS: • 4o. Error: -Q a -PiA o� Correction: CL & .� — A OTHER: r No. Error: . . . • Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: S—c--t- Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other ��- ,,-- A oL ) l l ft, r,--1 Appell epresentative Signature Da NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter S, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-S-110F, for specific procedures. • 1211 N 28th Place K-�� Renton,WA 98056 •� ]V www.kennydale.org ce. • T`r'CI `4L17`- November 7, 2000 N 0 r 9 Renton City Council .- 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Appeal to Council; AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point—File No.:LUA-00-104,CU,ECF Dear City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association(KNA), please accept this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding siting of an AT&T Monopole at 1321 N 30th Street in Kennydale. KNA asks the Council to reverse the decision approving construction of the cell tower. As discussed more thoroughly in Attachment A(Appeal,Hearing Examiner),KNA believes that the pro- posal is inconsistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and the intended use of the subject site. It is zoned Convenience Commercial(CC),which is intended to accommodate"small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel." (Objective LU-FF,Renton Comprehensive Plan, CC). Placement of a cell tower on the property will not meet this need and is therefore inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Our community de- serves better uses for its small valuable Convenience Commercial zoned property. An additional concern is the placement of an intrusive pole(50-foot pole with 12-foot across arrays)in- side our community. The proposed placement west of I-405 is very close to the residential areas of Ken- nydale and visible from our local streets. It will draw attention and significantly affect the aesthetic qual- ity of Kennydale. KNA favors cell tower placement east of I-405 near existing towers, or adjacent to the sound walls of I- 405 at the edge of our community,not near the middle as proposed. There are better options than 1321 N 30th Street. We ask the City to work with the Kennydale neighborhood to develop a cell tower siting plan for our com- munity. Kennydale's location at the top of a hill and proximity to I-405 will certainly make it a magnet for additional cell tower placement in the future. In fact,Linda Knowle, a property owner at the corner of Park and N 30th Street was recently approached by another cell provider looking for an agreeable land- owner to lease a spot for a tower. 'The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit." K.e seusrt5/dLc. .Z.ei 1211 N 28th Place Ne. Renton, WA 98056 F �± . ,'T"a www.kennydale.org 'spa )�''�- .ems. A !.olet. c4 • c • Our community deserves more power in deciding where cell towers can be placed. KNA asks the Council to establish a moratorium on cell tower development within Kennydale until a public involvement/siting process is undertaken that brings together all stakeholders. Our community would rather designate ahead of time areas appropriate for cell towers,than reactively comment on individual tower proposals. There must be a more coordinated process to site these intrusive facilities. It's a matter of protecting the quality • of life in Kennydale. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, BA..cumig. t1 Kim Browne KNA President • `The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit." • ATTACHMENT A,Cont. 2.SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS FINDING OF FACT No. Omission Error: The Hearing Examiner did not include a reference or consider Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-4-140;Goal 3 when making his decision. Correction: According to the Renton Municipal Code placement of wireless communications facilities must be consistent with 4-4-140;Goal 3:"Encourage users of towers and antennas to locate them,to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal." There will be a more than minimal negative impact on our community if the AT&T cell tower is located at 1321 N 30th Street. The pole and antennae will diminish the aesthetic quality of our neighborhood entrance area and preclude redevelopment of the site for uses that would better serve the needs of the community. The proposal is inconsistent with the City code and therefore should not be allowed. CONCLUSIONS No. 1j Error:The Hearing Examiner found the proposal to be consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Correction: The proposal is not compatible with the following objective of the Comprehensive Plan: • Objective LU-FF: Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. (Renton Comprehensive Plan, Convenience Commercial). The subject site is zoned Convenience Commercial(CC). Use of the property for a cell tower would preclude future uses that would meet the intent of the current zoning and provide valuable services to our community. There is limited available property at the heart of Kennydale(N 30th Street area)for non-residential development. From a community perspective,the property in question could provide a higher and better use. Our community is experiencing and will continue to experience rapid growth in population over the years with the development of Port Quendall, Southport and completion of the Alexan and Bluffs Apartments. The demographic changes will continue to increase the value of commercial properties on N 30th Street and the need to site community facilities such as a new fire station, community center and retail establishments. The City planned for our community's needs by establishing the current zoning. Installation of a cell tower is inconsistent with the intended use of the property and diminishes the property's value to the community. Placement of the tower on the east side of I-405 near existing towers or next to I-405's right-of- way would not use property that has a high redevelopment potential. These are the best options for Kennydale. DECISION No. 2 Error:The decision assumes that camouflaging the monopole as a tree will adequately reduce visual impacts. Correction:KNA agrees strongly with the Hearing Examiner and City staff that the proposal will be visually intrusive and,out of character for our neighborhood. We also agree that at a minimum, this facility as well as future cell towers placed in Kennydale must be camouflaged as a tree to help mitigate aesthetic impacts. However,in this case camouflaging will not go far enough in protecting the aesthetic quality of Kennydale. It is the proposal's location in the heart of our neighborhood gateway that makes it inherently intrusive and out of character. Visual impacts can only be appropriately mitigated by siting the cell tower at the edge of our community next to the I-405 right-of-way. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED X Reverse the decision KNA asks the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to grant a Conditional Use Permit for placement of an AT&T cell tower at 1321 N 30th Street,to establish a moratorium on cell tower development in Kennydale and to sponsor a public involvement/cell tower siting process that would result in a cell tower siting plan for our community. • . CITY OF RENTON • APPEAL NOV 5/4/p.�r,. HEARING EXAMINER1 3 2000 • WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTatgigDCOUNC CITY CLERK'S OFFICE E NO.LUA-00-104, CU, ECF APPLICATION NAME: AT&T Monopole • The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Us Hearing Examiner, dated October 30 20 00 1. JDENTIFICATION OF PARTY • APPELLANT: • ' ' ' '• REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: AT&T Wireless Name:John C. McCullough o Loni Chase, Pacific Telecom Services Phi1liFirstCullou,gh Wilson0Hill & Fiks Address:4�5 Pontius ve. Address. e Seattle, WA 98109 Seattle, WA 98121 • Telephone No. 206-342-9000 Telephone No. 206-448-1818 (fx) 206.-448-3444 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets. if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) N0,17, 27 Error: See Attached 30, 31 • Correction: See Attached • CONCLUSIONS: No.1,4.5 Error: See Attached • 6, 11, 12 Correction: See Attached OTHER:Condition N0.2 Error'. See Attached • Correction: See Attached 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) See Attached Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration'as follows: x Other ii •• . Ap tlRepresentativ -ture D to_ . NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code,and Secdoa 4-8-110F. for specidc proccdur:,. • ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AT&T Monopole 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and law. Finding 17,that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing, contains errors of fact and law. Contrary to this finding,the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(`MDNS)issued on September 12, 2000, concludes that landscaping (trees)will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less- than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further,Renton Municipal Code(RMC)Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider`surrounding tree coverage and foliage:' The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site: Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. • Finding 30,that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30,regarding off-site trees, is improper for the reasons previously stated. Finding 31, regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further,RMC Title IV;Chapter 9, section 30.1 provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`inature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties'.' This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3, regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains errors of fact and law. As discussed above,the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above,RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision does not limit the Hearing Examiners consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating_ the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4,regarding visual impacts,contains errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further,this conclusion is improperly based RSERVER'VOLVCATA'ATTPIIRE1C-16CC5TOCS`ATTACHAPPE?LCCC 1 on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project); Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same); Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454,462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). Conclusion 5, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 6,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 11,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities,but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the City s development regulations,not the Comprehensive Plan,control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The Cit}'s development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC, Title IV, Chapter 4- 140 (Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition,the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains errors of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No.2 in the Hearing Examinees decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative,AT&T requests that the City Council remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner with directions to accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of alternative methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. In addition, AT&T is filing a request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner concurrently with this appeal. AT&T requests that this appeal by stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. �}S=n iERri'CL1'.C.1TNATT;j1P,S'.:a CCS\DOCS\ATTACHAPPEAL DOC 2 • • PHILLIPS LAW'OFFICES JOIN C.`ICCCI.I.OL'(III McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER WILSON SCITE I130 CITY OF FOrrCssi HILL & 2025 FIRST AVEN1 E FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 2 2 rL A PROFESSIONAL 98121-2100 SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1818 - - _ - FAX:(206)448-3444 November 22, 2000 HAND DELIVERED City Council City of Renton do Renton City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision File No. LUA-00-104, CU,ECF Dear Council Members: . We represent AT&T Wireless,the appellant in this matter. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code ("RMC")Title IV,Chapter 8, section 110.F.2, AT&T submits this letter in support of its appeal,which was filed on November 13,2000. AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiner's decision dated October 30, 2000 ("Decision"),which requires that the monopole proposed by AT&T be camouflaged as a tree, and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative,AT&T requests that the City Council remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner with directions to accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of alternative methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. AT&T makes these requests on the following grounds. A. The City Council should eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Decision. The City Council should eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Decision because the view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging and the findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. • G.ATTNIREo46.COS'PLDGS`CIT'000NC:U'CCC • City Council November 22,2000 Page 2 1. The view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging. The Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance("MDNS") on September 12,2000. The MDNS was not appealed and is therefore final and binding. The MDNS imposes the following mitigation measures to address visual impacts: • Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line (as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal)to be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence; • The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees,or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. • Prior to building permit approval,the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. The MDNS concludes that,with implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposal will have no significant adverse impacts. Hearing Exhibit No. 1. In contrast,the Hearing Examiner Decision("Decision")in this matter concludes that camouflaging the facility is necessary to reduce visual impacts. See Decision,Findings 17,27,30,31; Conclusions 3-6, 11. This conclusion is inconsistent with the MDNS and,therefore, constitutes a substantial error of law and fact. 2. The findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain substantial errors of fact and law. Finding 17,that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened • by landscaping or fencing, contains substantial errors of fact and law. City Council November 22,2000 Page 3 • Contrary to this finding,the MDNS concludes that landscaping (trees) will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less-than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains substantial errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider"surrounding tree coverage and foliage." The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site. Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. Finding 30,that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains substantial errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30,regarding off-site trees, is improper for the reasons previously stated. Finding 31,regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains substantial errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further,RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the"nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties." This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3,regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains substantial errors of fact and law. As discussed above, the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further,as stated above, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the"nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties." This provision does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further,this conclusion is improperly based on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on,a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same); Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454,462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). City Council November 22, 2000 Page 4 Conclusion 5, regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 6,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 11, regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities,but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the City's development regulations,not the Comprehensive Plan,control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873,947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The City's development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC,Title IV, Chapter 4-140(Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition,the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains substantial errors of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. B. In the alternative,the City Council should remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional evidence and reconsideration. RMC Title IV, Chapter 8,section 110.F.4 permits the City Council to remand a matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional evidence and reconsideration if the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Here,AT&T reasonably believed that the issue of visual impacts had been addressed through the State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA")process by issuance of the MDNS. Further,while camouflaging was proposed in the staff report,AT&T did not find any evidence in the report that the camouflaging was feasible or necessary. Under the circumstances,AT&T did not believe it was appropriate to present evidence regarding the effectiveness or feasibility of camouflaging or the availability of alternative camouflaging methods to those proposed by City Council November 22,2000 Page 5 staff. Accordingly,additional evidence on these issues could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. In light of the Decision, AT&T now believes it would be helpful to the Hearing Examiner to consider such evidence. This evidence would include evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of various alternative types of camouflaging, including flagpoles and lighting standards. With this additional evidence, AT&T believes the Hearing Examiner would be able to make a well considered decision that addresses the concerns regarding visual impacts and takes into account the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging. Accordingly,AT&T requests that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional information on the feasibility and effectiveness of various types of camouflaging and for reconsideration of Condition No.2 in light of that information. C. Conclusion For these reasons, AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No.2 in the Decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative, AT&T requests that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging and for reconsideration of Condition No.2 based on this additional evidence. AT&T filed a request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner concurrently with this appeal. AT&T reserves the right to address the Hearing Examiner decision on the request for reconsideration, if appropriate, after it is issued. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Very truly yours, PLii1/4/ John C. McCullough JCM:ac • City Council November 22, 2000 Page 6 cc: Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Rod Hansen Lori Chase • { PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES IOI N 1:.MICCCll.0UG11 McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER CITY OF RENTON WILSON SUITEI130 �:y;'prA • HILL & 2025 FIRST AVENUE NOV 1 3 2000 FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON RECEIVED A PROFESSIONAL 98121-2I00 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1818 FAX:(206)448-3444 November 13, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: We represent AT&T Wireless,the applicant for the conditional use permit in this matter. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code("RMC") Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100.G.4, AT&T respectfully requests reconsideration of Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiner Report and Decision("Decision") dated October 30, 2000. AT&T bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging. The Environmental Review Committee("ERC") issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance("MDNS") on September 12, 2000. The MDNS was not appealed and is therefore final and binding. The MDNS imposes the following mitigation measures to address visual impacts: • Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line(as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal)to be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence; • The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional • l`,S ERVE R\VOL 1`,DATA'ATTNIREUW OF MANO 1.DOC Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 3 Finding 31, regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3, regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains errors of fact and law. As discussed above, the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.1 provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties'.' This provision does not limit the Hearing Examinees consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further,this conclusion is improperly based on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986(1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990)(same);Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454,462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978)(same). Conclusion 5,regarding visual impacts,contains errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 6,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition,as stated above,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 11,regarding visual:impacts,contains errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities, but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was • required here. In addition,the Citys development regulations,not the Comprehensive Plan, control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, Fred J. Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 5 D. Conclusion For these reasons, AT&T respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner withdraw Condition No. 2 in the Decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative,AT&T requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. In order to preserve its appeal rights, AT&T is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. AT&T requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, . r C. McCullough JCM:ac cc: Rod Hansen Lori Chase - CITX F RENTON • Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • November 20,2000 • • John C.McCullough Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill&Fikso Market Place Tower,Suite 1130 2025 First Avenue Seattle,WA 98121-2100 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No.LUA-00-104,CU,ECF Dear Mr.McCullough: This office has reviewed the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant. This office is also aware that both the applicant and neighbors have submitted appeals of the decision to the City Council. This office will start with the concluding request of the applicant to reopen the public hearing to.consider• • more evidence regarding the camouflage issue. Code is clear that only new testimony that could not be reasonably available at the original public hearing may be submitted.'The staff report recommendation and • discussion of camouflaging the monopole was known to the applicant a week prior to the public hearing. The applicant was free to bring forward evidence regarding this matter.The applicant also could have asked that the matter be continued. They did not choose either of those options. The applicant merely indicated that they did not believe camouflaging was.reasonable or necessary in this location. This office will not reopen the hearing at this time for the submission of new evidence. The applicant has suggested that the Environmental.Review Committee's(ERC)Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance(MONS)ended all discussion regarding visual impacts and measures to limit those impacts. The MDNS does not in any respect address the visual impacts of the development beyond those that would eliminate the possible need to prepare an environmental impact statement. That fact that the visual intrusiveness might have been lessened beyond a threshold that would eliminate the need for an environmental impact statement does not mean that there are no visual impacts. • One could argue that those visual impacts are significant in the normal definition of the word"significant" as opposed to the definition found in SEPA. The SEPA definition of"significant"is whether the impact will have"more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment." More than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment,"which is the threshold question facing the ERC,is different than impact in terms of neighborhood compatibility. If the SEPA determination were to end any review or conditioning authority,then the purpose of the public hearing on the Conditional Use permit could establish little outside of the SEPA realm.The conditional review is intended to provide an independent assessment of a proposal's compliance and suitability to fit in with the character of the community and the immediate surroundings. The subject site is not merely a commercially zoned parcel of property. It is a commercially zoned parcel of property surrounded on two sides by residential property designated and zoned for single family uses. Those properties and their current or potential developments deserve protection that cannot be provided by accepting just the ERC's mitigation measures,particularly when those mitigation measures were intended to lower the threshold for significant impacts triggering EIS preparation. Nor does the ERC's determination in any way affect the ability to condition a proposal that has impacts that make it incompatible with surrounding development. The applicant's urgings are contrary to law. The single family parcel immediately west of the proposed location deserves protection from a visual eyesore. To argue that a 50-foot-tall tower surmounted by a 12-foot-wide antenna array is not visually jarring and intrusive is contrary to ordinary intelligence: While an engineer might find it attractive in an 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 ISIS rr... .,°cn._r�.rior1 m-atarial 20°'.cost consumer • • John C.McCullough November 20,2000 Page 2 abstract way or the lessor of land might not find it intrusive,a reasonable party looking at a single family lot would,needless to say,have some problems with it. It is a simple matter of looking at a cell tower and determining whether it makes a suitable neighbor for single family homes. This is not a cell tower located a block away or across the road. This is a cell tower located within 25 feet of the single family property. This office did consider the off-site landscaping and the potential that it will not remain. This office does not have to give any preferential weight to landscaping that is outside of the control of the applicant or the applicant's lessor. Those trees could be gone within the next week,month or year. The applicant cannot in any way guarantee those trees will provide any long term screening benefits Or benefits that will run the life • of the project. • This office also did consider the Texaco sign and surrounding power and light standards. The Texaco sign is not immediately next-door to the subject site's single family neighbors. And while it may be adjacent to other residential uses,it was there prior to annexation to Renton and may be a legal non-conforming use. The applicant is correct--the Zoning Code does not require that a cell tower be camouflaged to look like a tree. It provides that conditions that make the use a compatible neighbor may be imposed. The code also permits a use to be denied if it is not compatible.'This'office chose to approve the use with a condition that makes it more appropriate in this location:"Staff analyzed the proposed use and staff made the recommendation..The examiner did not manufacture the condition in'a vacuum. Similarly,the fact that such cell tower camouflage has been developed,shows that it provides reasonable,if not perfect,ability to screen and camouflage such uses and that the need to camouflage such uses is real. The fact that this applicant has provided such‘camouflaging in other locales suggests that it is a'reasonable method of integrating unsightly cell towers into a community,whether that community-be'a park or a single family neighborhood. In conclusion,there is no reason to alter the decision this'matter. • If this office can provide any additional assistance;`please feel,free to write Sincerely, • Fred J.Kaufm r�y • Hearing Examiner • . FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney Steve Taylor Parties of Record October 30,2000 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless AT&T Monopole,Coleman Point File.No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF LOCATION: 1321 N 30th St. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant is seeking a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit to erect a 50-foot monopole on a 2,500 square foot site of a larger parcel located in a CC zone. The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 3,2000 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report,examining available information on file with the application,field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 10, 2000 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 10,2000 at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 10: Propagation Map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 11: Propagation Map Exhibit No.3: Set of Plans and Details Exhibit No. 12: Letter From Pacific Telecom Exhibit No.4: Location Siting Process and Map Exhibit No.13: Brochure Packet from Larson Utility Camouflage Company Exhibit No.5: Map and Photosimulations Exhibit No. 14: Zoning Map AT&T Wireless. • AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 2 Exhibit No.7: Map and Balloon Test Photos Exhibit No. 15: Report by Hatfield and Dawson Exhibit No. 8: Inventory of the five existing AT&T Exhibit No. 16: Series of Photos from Pacific Cellular Facilities Telecom Exhibit No 9: Propagation Map Exhibit No. 17: Rosberg Letter to the Environmental Review Committee The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by STEVE TAYLOR, Senior Planner,Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. Mr.Taylor gave background information on the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the requirements of the Wireless Communications Ordinance of the City of Renton's Zoning Standards. This Ordinance defines cell towers that are less than 60 feet as monopole I,those greater than 60 feet are monopole II. It also defines certain criteria about where these cell towers can be placed.One of the criteria for a monopole I is that it be located in a commercial or industrial area,not in residentially zoned property. If it is within 100 feet of residentially zoned property, it must receive Hearing Examiner approval. . Although the monopole would be located far enough up on the site to be over a hundred feet away from the residentially zoned property to the south,it is not able to be located far enough from the western edge because the property has split zoning. Mr.Taylor described the businesses located on the commercially zoned properties surrounding the proposed location. He described the proposed 50-foot monopole I with three-sectored antenna and lightening rod at the top. The applicant is also asking that the 15-foot landscape buffer be reduced to 5 feet of enhanced plantings on the east and west side,and nine feet on the north and south side. This would also allow the property owner access to the rear portion of the lot. This matter went before the.Environmental Review Committee on September 12,2000. The ERC issued the SEPA Threshold Determination on October 2. Five Mitigation Measures were also issued. These measures were not appealed. First,the recommendations concerning construction of the site stated in the Geotechnical Report be followed. Second, a covenant be placed on the property requiring that a row of trees which acts as a visual buffer remain in place. Third,in addition to the landscaping that is required around the base of the tower, fast growing evergreen trees be planted on the entire south property line and the south 200 feet of the west property line. Fourth, in order to reduce the visual impact of the tower itself, it should be painted a color that would blend in with the neighborhood. Fifth,a fire mitigation fee must be paid which is applied to the shelter for the equipment. Some documentation was also required stating that the transmissions from the wireless tower would not interfere with Police and Fire Department radios. Mr.Taylor described the criteria which were looked at in terms of whether the proposed project met these criteria and what the impacts on the neighborhood would be. These criteria include the height of the tower,the proximity of the tower to adjacent residential areas,-minimizing the visual impact of the tower on the neighborhood,the applicant's efforts in contacting nearby commercial property owners to see if they would be willing to have the tower on their property,why the tower could not be co-located on the existing towers across I-405,construction time required for the project,impact on traffic ingress and egress,construction noise involved,and the fact that the tower will not need to be lighted. AT&T Wireless. AT&T;Monopole File No.:LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 3 Mr.Taylor described the various methods available which allow utility towers to be camouflaged as any number of things, including a trees, flagpoles,church steeples,etc. This monopole is in compliance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code,and the Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance 4689. It will have a negative visual impact on this neighborhood if camouflage measures are not taken. It is recommended that the tower be allowed in the neighborhood,but that it be camouflaged to minimize negative visual impact to the area. It is suggested that camouflaging the tower as a tree would be the most appropriate form of camouflage for this area. It is also suggested that AT&T be allowed to make the tower higher,up to the limit of less than 60 feet. The reason for this is that it will allow more co-location on this facility and allow the applicant to recoup some of the cost of the concealment measures. Staff would support re-opening the SEPA on this project because if the camouflage measures are done,it would no longer be necessary to paint the pole or have additional plantings around the outside boundaries of the site. Staff recommends approval of the AT&T Monopole on condition that the applicant comply with the ERC Mitigation Measures,that the monopole be disguised as a tree,that the location of the equipment shelter be reconfigured to meet all zoning setback requirements,that the tower not exceed the height of the Texaco sign at the intersection of N 30th St and I-405, and that the applicant comply with all FAA requirements prior to building permit approval. Laurie Chase,Pacific Telecom Services,425 Pontius Ave N#202, Seattle,WA 98109,stated that AT&T strategically plans their networks. It is very important that they locate their sites in the proper places throughout the region. The Kennydale area for some time has been a missing puzzle piece in their network of coverage there. About a year ago AT&T set out to remedy this situation.•They began to look at where they could locate for the easiest and best use, co-location being the first priority. They looked at locating on the east side of I-405 with the two existing monopoles. That location was found to be a very tight space for equipment. It is a small parcel of land and has some topography and setback issues. The RF frequency problem in that area was the major issue. Locating on the east side of I-405 would interfere with coverage at several other sites;there would .. . be too much coverage in that area. By locating at the proposed site,however,the antennas would be directed in such a way that they would not interfere with coverage from other sites in the area. AT&T approached the Texaco station first,as it would be a perfect location,but the owner was not willing to have the tower located on his property. AT&T then approached the Chevron site,and they were also unwilling to do the deal at this time. AT&T also approached the other commercial property owners•on the row,but were turned•down by them as well. The proposed location is a good choice because it is next to the Chevron station,which is very commercial. The topography of the property is such that the tower would not affect a large number of neighbors. There are 60 to 100 foot trees located to the south and southwest portion of the property,which will lessen the visual impact. AT&T is willing to comply with the ERC's recommendation that fast-growing evergreen trees be planted along the south and western half of the property. The property owner will not cut down the existing trees on the property,which will allow additional buffering. The pole will also be painted a dark color to minimize the visual impact. It will be a benefit to the residents in this area to have wireless technology that will bring good quality voice and data coverage. AT&T concurs with items number 1, 3,4 and 5 of the Staff Report. It is not standard practice in this area for AT&T to camouflage,utility towers to look like trees,etc. AT&T may have done this in public parks and Federal lands where there was a need for it.This is a commercial property,and with the fast-growing evergreens and painting the pole dark,AT&T feels that the pole will not have a negative visual impact on the area. Ian Hopkins,617 Eastlake Ave,4th Floor,Seattle,WA 98106,stated that the coverage on the east side of the freeway doesn't meet objectives for this area. If they locate on the east side of the freeway,the tower would be about 20-30 feet higher in elevation. There is a ridge line there that goes along the freeway as it curves to the • AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 4 east. The signal would overshoot the highway,get onto Lake Washington,then into downtown Seattle and cause a lot of interference on sites along the eastern border. If the tower is located on the west side of the freeway,the signal strength would be contained much better and serve only the Kennydale area of I-405. Paul Miller, 3623 Lincoln Ave NE, Renton,WA 98056, stated that he is the property owner at 1321 N.30th. He said that while he sympathizes with the Kennydale Neighborhood Association causes as stated in their letter of October 3, he feels their objections on this issue are misguided. Allowing a monopole to be installed on his property would be away to collect some revenue from his unused land,as well as result in the least amount of impact to the neighborhood in the way of pollution,noise,traffic,etc. Mr.Miller also discussed the need for • having cell phone service available in the neighborhood in emergency situations. He stated that he feels having . the monopole located on his property will cause minimal negative side effects to the community. Tony Chee, 13028 NE 32nd P1,Bellevue,WA 98005,stated that he had not been contacted by AT&T until 3:00 p.m.the day before. He was sent a notice by the city,and has discussed the situation with Steve Taylor. He stated that he does not know enough about the zoning restrictions in this area. He is confused about whether it would be 15 or 25 feet away from his property. He feels that the proposed monopole will be a little bit too close to his property. He expressed concern about the visual impact on the neighborhood. He is also concerned about possible frequency interference with his tenant's TV,telephone,etc.,as well as the possible effects on human health. He is opposed to having the monopole located next to his property. Patricia Rosburg, 1402 N 26th St,Renton,WA 98056,expressed concern about AT&Ts claim that there is no coverage in the area. She was able to use her cell phone to call 911 during the Inaugural Day storm when power lines were down in the area. She has used her cell phone frequently on the I-405 corridor coming up Kennydale Hill from various locations. Her daughter is able to use her cell phone in the area without problems. Ms. RosburQ feels that the contention that there is no service in the area is unfounded. She expressed concern as well with the height and kind of trees they are planning to use as camouflage. In addition,some of the properties on the north side of the location are large lots owned by elderly people and will eventually be sub- divided into lots for multi-family homes. Kim Browne, 1003 N 28th PI, Renton, WA,98056,represented the Kennydale Neighborhood Association. The Association is concerned about the visual impact on the immediate neighborhood. The monopole would be located at the entrance to Kennydale. The trees around the site that could provide screening from the north are not on the subject site, and could be cut down. Even camouflaged as a tree, it would be a singular 70-foot tall tree with nothing comparable around it. She also expressed concern about the City allowing an additional height of up to 70 feet if the monopole is camouflaged as a tree. In addition,she feels there is a strong possibility of the monopole being lighted. Policy U-100 requires that the locations of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the adjacent land uses. She is not certain that can be done when siting a monopole. Policy U-101 requires collation with existing structures wherever practical. The Kennydale Neighborhood Association would like to have the possibility of locating the monopole with the two existing. towers explored more fully. They question the notion that there is a high need to provide this "essential public service," and whether cell towers are an essential public service as defined.by the City Code. The Neighborhood Association feels that the community is adequately served at the present time,as noted by the . green service level area on the propagation map. This means some people can get reception,but may be"kicked off'at times. The objective of this monopole is to take a level of some coverage and upgrade it to 100% coverage. The cost in terms of impact on the neighborhood might be justified if the monopole had a larger coverage area, but the coverage area is actually quite small. AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.:LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 - Page 5 Ms.Browne questioned the urgency of AT&T placing the monopole at this time if there is no critical need to change the situation. She feels AT&T has not spend adequate time working with the community in this situation. She suggested that AT&T work with Chevron on locating the monopole on their property at a future time,since there is not a critical need for it at present. Installation of the cell tower is inconsistent with the intended use of the properties along N 30th Street,which is to provide small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. The Neighborhood Association is also concerned about co-usage at the intended site. Once a cell tower is located on the site,the city will be pressured to located other towers there as well,which will make the problem worse. The Association feels that this proposal would have more than a minimal negative impact,and that it is not consistent with code. They request that the Conditional Use Permit be denied. The Examiner questioned why the coverage level of the area needs to be improved from green to red at this point in time. Ms. Chase and Mr.Hopkins responded that green area coverage can be intermittent at times. Traffic is also a factor. The more people who use the service,the more coverage is affected negatively. At peak traffic times,people are unable to make calls because too many people are trying to use the service. Upgrading the coverage level to red would allow more people to make calls at peak traffic times. The Examiner questioned Mr.Taylor as to what the staffs recommendation would be if the applicant does not agree to camouflage the monopole as a tree. The response was that if the applicant needs this pole at this site badly enough,then they should do what it takes to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. If they are unwilling to do that,then they should find another location. FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,AT&T Wireless,filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to erect a monopole within one hundred feet(100')from a property zoned for residential purposes. The applicant also seeks permission to reduce the landscape buffer required around the perimeter of the site. . 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit 41. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 1321 North 30th Street. The subject site is located on the south side of N 30th approximately three parcels west of I-405. 6. The applicant proposes developing approximately 2,500 square feet of the larger, approximately 19,560 square foot parcel,with a monopole facility. The facility would consist of the monopole and equipment shed. AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 6 7. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2531 enacted in December 1969. 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Convenience Commercial uses,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the areas to the rear of the N 30th Street frontage for single family uses. 9. The subject site is zoned CC(Convenience Commercial). This CC zone generally fronts along both the • north and south sides of N 30th. The CC zone is approximately 300 feet deep along the south side of N 30th immediately west of I-405. This 300 foot deep CC zone includes the subject site. The CC zone then narrows to approximately 120 feet deep immediately west of subject site. The CC zone runs from I-405 west to Park Avenue N. The CC zone on the north of 30th is approximately 130 feet deep between 405 and Park. 10. To the south and north of the N 30th CC zone is an R-8 (Single Family Residential- 8 dwelling units/acre)zone. Two small parcels of R-10(Multiple Family-Options)are located west of Park Avenue,one each north and south of 30th. 11. There is a small office located on the north half of subject site. The rest of the subject site is vacant. • 12. The parcel abutting the subject site to the west has split zoning. It has CC on its north approximately 120 feet and R-8 on its southerly approximately 200 feet. A single family home is located on the CC portion of this abutting property. 13. As noted,the subject site currently houses an office. The owner of the subject site would lease out a portion of the larger parcel for the erection of the monopole and equipment shed. The monopole would be located in the CC zone where it is permitted but it would be located within 25 feet of the westerly abutting residential R-8 zone. Any Monopole I facility constructed closer than 100 feet to a residential zone requires a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing. Due to the width of the lots west of the subject site,two separate residential properties fall within 100 feet of the proposed tower. 14. The primary monopole-antenna structure consists of the main monopole,antenna array and a lightening rod. The entire structure will be approximately 62 feet(sixty-two)tall. The monopole support tower would be 50 feet. It would contain an antenna array that would extend 2.5 feet above that. The lightening rod would be approximately 9 feet tall. 15. The monopole would support a three-sectored,triangular antenna array. The triangular faces are each approximately twelve feet(12')across and approximately 2.5 feet high. 16. The equipment shed is approximately 12 feet by 28 feet. 17. The code requires fifteen feet of landscaping plus fencing to surround the facility. Staff had the • following comments: "However, due to the facility's proximity to residential property,there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole that cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing." AT&T Wireless. - h - AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 7 18. The CC zone.to the north of 30th contains a Texaco station, a single family home,a 7-11 store and a realty company. East of I-405 is additional CC zoning that contains additional cellular facilities. Two monopoles are east of 1-405. The Texaco sign,northeast of the subject site is approximately 70 feet tall and was permitted when that property was in King County. 19. Single family homes are located south of the subject site. As noted,there is also a single family home on the CC zoned parcel west of the subject site. 20. Property east of I-405 is higher in elevation than the proposed location. 21. The subject site is approximately 64.25 feet wide and approximately 304 feet deep. 22. If approved,the facility would most likely be constructed during the Spring of 2001. It would take approximately three(3)weeks to build. 23. Staff and the applicant were not sure if the monopole would require a warning light due to its height and its location northeast of the airport. The FAA will make any decision on this issue. 24. The applicant has leased a 50 foot by 50 foot portion in the west central area of the subject site. The site, would be approximately 175 feet from N 30th and approximately 75 feet from the main lot's south property line. It would abut the main lot's west property line. 25. The applicant proposed reducing the required 15 foot landscape buffer and proposes 5 feet of landscaping along the east and west and 9 feet north and south. The southerly 100 feet of the overall parcel would remain unoccupied and the reduced landscaping is intended to preserve access for the underlying owner. A wider landscaping buffer might block such access. Staff indicated that the 15 feet of landscaping serves well to screen ground level shed and equipment. The ERC recommended additional landscaping along the west boundary of the subject site and specifically recommended that the examiner not reduce the 15 foot landscaping buffer. 26. The ERC required covenants requiring the retention of trees along the northeast property line or that the trees be replaced with fast growing evergreens. They also required planting appropriate screening vegetation along the south property line and along the southerly 200 feet of the west property line. These protections were aimed at the R-8 property adjacent to those property lines. 27. There are larger conifer trees located off of the subject site. These trees cannot be counted on for continued screening since they are not on the subject site. 28. The subject site and immediate vicinity has approximately 2 percent slopes. The slopes become steeper a block south and west of the subject site. 29. • The applicant's studies show that locating its equipment on the east side of I-405 causes technical problems. Its signals would overshoot its desired range and cause interference west of the City. The technical information shows that.a site on the west side of the freeway would be better. The technical information shows that coverage would be improved, although the improvement might only be marginally better if the subject site is used. • 30. The applicant used balloons to show the potential visual impacts. The studies are subject to AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 8 interpretation in this case. The balloon studies do not reflect the visual impact on the immediate neighboring property. Many of the visually buffering trees are not on the subject site and therefore, afford no permanent screening. In similar monopole cases,the screening trees were on the subject site and covenants required them to remain during the life of the monopole. 31. In addition,to the Texaco sign, the applicant noted that there are a variety of 40'power poles and wires in the vicinity of the subject site. The City does have an Ordinance that encourages underground utility lines. 32. The applicant indicated that they reviewed the existing monopole facilities east of I-405 and inquired of other property owners in the area and that the subject site was the best available for their purposes. There were frequency issues as well as directional problems on the existing poles. Either other properties were not available or they may have commanded too high a rent. 33. The following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to cellular facilities: Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers,additional setbacks,reduced height,and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts(e.g.,visual,noise, odor, light)on adjacent,less intensive uses. Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g., lighting,fences, landscaping,setbacks should all be considered during site design. 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. 34. The wireless regulations also include language that encourages reduction of visual impacts for all types .of wireless facilities. The provision provides: "site location and development shall preserve the pre- existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses." (RMC section 4-4-140.F.2). CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit for a cellular facility is in the public interest and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section Section 4-9-030(I)which provides in part that: a. Height of the proposed tower. b. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries c. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties d. Surrounding topography e. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage • AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 9 f. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness g. Proposed ingress and egress h. Potential noise, light and glare impacts i. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures j. Compatibility with the general purpose,goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinances and any other plan, program,map or ordinance of the City. The code does provide for some flexibility in these criteria if it appears to serve the overriding principles of the Wireless Ordinance. It does appear that based on the main criteria that the Conditional Use Permit should be approved but approval should be conditioned to make the use more compatible with the neighborhood and the immediately abutting residentially zoned land. 2. There does not appear to be any reason to alter the main criteria. Nor is there a compelling reason to reduce the landscape screen required. Both the planning staff and the ERC recommended that the applicant meet the landscaping requirements stated in the code. While the site is zoned CC and permits commercial uses, it is immediately adjacent to residentially zoned land and residential uses. The property immediately west of the location chosen for the monopole is zoned R-8. The parcel south of the subject site is also zoned R-8. 3. The monopole would be 50 feet tall and the antenna would be affixed to the top and a lightening rod would be above that. Staff concluded that this tall structure would be visually intrusive and out of character. They concluded this even given the Texaco sign. That sign is part of a land use that was annexed to the City and does not meet current code limitations. The monopole would,therefore, introduce yet another tall, intrusive structure into this-community. 4. In addition to the general neighborhood opposition to this intrusive monopole being erected in this gateway to the Kennydale neighborhood,the immediately adjacent western neighbor also objected. His property will be directly affected by the project. The monopole facility will be 25 feet from his residential property. There can be little question about the visual impacts of a 50 foot tall monopole topped by an three-sectored,triangular antenna array. The triangular faces are each approximately twelve feet(12')across. Ground screening,even the full 15 feet which the applicant suggests is not necessary,cannot visually screen the tower structure. There is additional residential property,again R- 8, both west of this neighboring site and south of the subject site. 5. The topography does not provide much relief as there is very little slope to the area until a viewer moves a block south or a block west of the area. Much of the tree cover in the area is provided offsite and cannot be guaranteed to provide any long term screening. Staff has,therefore,suggested that the applicant provide camouflaging to provide a more long term, durable solution for screening the monopole from immediately adjacent residential uses. Staff noted that camouflaging in the form of tree-like branches has been used to good affect in other locations including locations developed by this applicant. There is no reason that Renton and this residential community should not be similarly provided with a method that actually works well to hide a visually intrusive use. The fact that the AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 10 subject site is zoned CC does not diminish in the least the fact that adjacent property is zoned R-8,a single family zoning district and that single family homes are developed on adjacent properties. It would appear that developing a monopole immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property is situation that calls for this suitable measure. Staff noted that the solution is not necessarily a cheap measure but,again, it appears that the applicant has provided it in other jurisdictions. 6. The tower is not only 50 feet tall but it will have a triangular array that is approximately twelve feet (12')on each side at that fifty foot level. This will not diminish its impact but accentuate its intrusiveness. The camouflage suggested by staff should visually diminish the visual impact. 7. The full complement of landscaping around its base shed also appears necessary to screen what will be a utilitarian shed that,again, is adjacent to residentially zoned property. The applicant chose the subject site and chose the lease dimensions. To now claim that it cannot meet the landscaping requirements to screen the facility is unacceptable. The City is not required by its ordinances to provide the applicant with perfect site specifications. The City does provide some reasonable provisions to make sure that the facility is well-screened in order to reduce its impacts on neighboring property. The City's -Comprehensive Plan is designed to forge a well-designed community,to protect single family amenities and to provide an aesthetic backdrop for developing its residential housing base. Therefore,reducing the required landscaping on a property the applicant chose is not appropriate. The property immediately west of the proposed monopole site is zoned residential. It needs to be screened or the neighboring property's value for residential purposes will be diminished. 8. The ingress and egress should not create any undue issues regarding access to the facility nor should the infrequent access affect adjoining properties. 9. The operation of a monopole is not anticipated to generate substantial noise although their is supporting equipment. Unless the FAA requires a light to warn air traffic,the facility should not have intrusive lighting or glare. 10. It appears from the record that the applicant did attempt to find or use other already appropriately developed sites. Those locations were either not available or unsuitable. 11. As noted,the Comprehensive Plan has policies that suggest that unless this proposed monopole is appropriately screened,that it is not a suitable project for property immediately adjacent to single family zoned and developed properties. The Zoning Code specifically requires this proposal to undergo conditional use review due to the proximity of residential zoning and uses. There is an occasional need to remind applicants that a Conditional Use is not permitted in an area outright. The use has to meet certain criteria,and conditions may be imposed that will allow it to meet those criteria-that is why it is a conditional use. In this case, not only has the applicant sought to place a conditional use in this location but it has sought to reduce the normally mandated fifteen feet of landscape buffering. So rather then what is required by code the applicant seeks to do less. Staff and the ERC have suggested that the monopole have the full complement of ground level screening landscaping and be camouflaged-an operation that is now occurring in more and more situations. In this case,those conditions appear reasonable. • 12. In conclusion,the proposed use is appropriate but only if it meets the conditions recommended by the ERC and staff. • AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 11 DECISION: The AT&T monopole is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. In order to reduce visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood,the applicant shall redesign the monopole to be camouflaged as a tree. Final design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The location of the equipment shelter shall be reconfigured to meet ill zoning setback and landscape requirements. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all Federal Aviation Administration's(FAA) requirements prior to building permit approval. ORDERED THIS 30th day of October,2000. FRED J.KAUF N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 30th day of October,2000 to the parties of record: Steve.Taylor Ian Hopkins Tony Chee 1055 S Grady Way 617 Eastlake Ave,4th Fl 13028 NE 32nd P1 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98106 Bellevue,WA 98005 Laurie Chase Paul Miller Patricia Rosburg Pacific Telecom 3623 Lincoln Ave NE 1402 N 26th St 425 Pontius Ave N,#202 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98109 Kim Browne, President Kennydale Neighborhood Assoc. 1003 North 28th Pl Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 30th day of October,2000 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. r AT&T'Wireless. • AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 12 Members, Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev. Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,November 13,2000. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the •evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the-invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. December 22, 2000 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF KING ) MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 22nd day of December, 2000, at the hour of 5:00 p.m., your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeals of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by AT&T Wireless and Kennydale Neighborhood Association. File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF. h-✓ Marilyn . Pet sen, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me on this 22nd day of December, 2000. -fi /Ltu4/n azitzru Notary Public in alild for the State of Washington, Residing in )t-Z 2`71, s'. . . : . c. _ CITY .RENTON City Clerk . Jesse Tanner,'Mayor - Marilyn J.Petersen • December 21, 2000 • • APPEALS FILED BY: Kennydale Neighborhood Association Represented by Kim Browne • and . • AT&T Wireless • - .Representative: John C. McCullough of Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill&Fikso RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 10/30/2000 regarding the Conditional Use Permit to erect a 50-foot monopole at 1321 N:30th St. . File No. LUA-00-104, CU,ECF . • To Parties of Record: . •Pursuant to Title IV;Chapter 8;Renton:City Code of.Ordinances,written appeal of the • - hearing examiner's decision regarding AT&T Wireless' request for conditional use permit has been filed with the City;Clerk: • NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEN-that the written.appeals and other pertinent documents . •-will be'reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee.•The Council secretary will notify all parties'of record"of the'date`and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting.i_The recommendation of the Committee will be . presented for consideration by the full Council at a"subsequent Council meeting. • Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations: Please note that the City Council will be considering the • merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that:additional evidence could not reasonably have been available • at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no`further evidence or testimony on. • this matter will be accepted by the City Council. ' • . For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at(425) 430-6502. • - Sincerely, Marl J. tersen,'CMC --City'Clerlc - Attachment : ... :1055 South Grady Way -Renton,'Washington 98055.- (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • City of Renton Municipal Code:Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110 - Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by.the City Council unless a showing is made by the . party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony,and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the.Hearing Examiner. (Ord.4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) A APPEAL CITY OF RLNTON • HEARING EXAMINER o ' P WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION T� NT9OICI"CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LOA "00- 10&1)W =�' '' t' i c! • F ice=- APPLICATION NAME: The undersigned interested part hereby files its Notic of Appea from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated Q,� `� 20 brD. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: n REP SENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: X� ��C. Name: Address: 1 a.\ f age Address: 1 0.0-5 it) Telephone No. Telephone No. `'l 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: VA).A - A Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: • , a� Correction: OTHER: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other I I Appell epresentative Signature Da NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. Ke/vi,v y/aCae' 1211 N 28th Place • � ® N � ��� Renton, WA 98056 • www.kennydale.org F 4±). ea Y A ,o'yt/ ♦ November 7, 2000 Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Appeal to Council;AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point—File No.:LUA-00-104,CU,ECF Dear City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association(KNA),please accept this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding siting of an AT&T Monopole at 1321 N 30th Street in Kennydale. KNA asks the Council to reverse the decision approving construction of the cell tower. As discussed more thoroughly in Attachment A(Appeal,Hearing Examiner),KNA believes that the pro- posal is inconsistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and the intended use of the subject site. It is zoned Convenience Commercial(CC), which is intended to accommodate"small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel." (Objective LU-FF, Renton Comprehensive Plan, CC). Placement of a cell tower on the property will not meet this need and is therefore inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Our community de- serves better uses for its small valuable Convenience Commercial zoned property. An additional concern is the placement of an intrusive pole(50-foot pole with 12-foot across arrays)in- side our community. The proposed placement west of I-405 is very close to the residential areas of Ken- nydale and visible from our local streets. It will draw attention and significantly affect the aesthetic qual- ity of Kennydale. KNA favors cell tower placement east of I-405 near existing towers, or adjacent to the sound walls of I- 405 at the edge of our community,not near the middle as proposed. There are better options than 1321 N 30`h Street. We ask the City to work with the Kennydale neighborhood to develop a cell tower siting plan for our com- munity. Kennydale's location at the top of a hill and proximity to I-405 will certainly make it a magnet for additional cell tower placement in the future. In fact,Linda Knowle,a property owner at the corner of Park and N 30th Street was recently approached by another cell provider looking for an agreeable land- owner to lease a spot for a tower. "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" 1211 N 28th Place �® ® K Renton, WA 98056 N . www.kennydale.org \%a • Our community deserves more power in deciding where cell towers can be placed. KNA asks the Council to establish a moratorium on cell tower development within Kennydale until a public involvement/siting process is undertaken that brings together all stakeholders. Our community would rather designate ahead of time areas appropriate for cell towers,than reactively comment on individual tower proposals. There must be a more coordinated process to site these intrusive facilities. It's a matter of protecting the quality of life in Kennydale. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, 15;;Aihs.., Kim Browne KNA President "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of fife in Kennydale and fostering community spirit." ATTACHMENT A,Cont. 2.SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS FINDING OF FACT No. Omission Error: The Hearing Examiner did not include a reference or consider Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-4-140; Goal 3 when making his decision. Correction: According to the Renton Municipal Code placement of wireless communications facilities must be consistent with•.4-4-140;"Goal 3:"Encourage users of towers and antennas to locate them,to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal." There will be a more than minimal negative impact on our community if the AT&T cell tower is located at 1321 N 30th Street. The pole and antennae will diminish the aesthetic quality of our neighborhood entrance area and preclude redevelopment of the site for uses that would better serve the needs of the community. The proposal is inconsistent with the City code and therefore should not be allowed. CONCLUSIONS No. 1j Error:The Hearing Examiner,found the proposal to be consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Correction: The proposal is not compatible with the following objective of the Comprehensive Plan: Objective LU-FF:: Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. (Renton Comprehensive Plan, Convenience Commercial). The subject site is zoned Convenience Commercial(CC). Use of the property for a cell tower would preclude future uses that would meet the intent of the current zoning and provide valuable services to our community. There is limited available property at the heart of Kennydale(N 30th Street area)for non-residential development. From a community perspective,the property in question could provide a higher and better use. Our community is experiencing and will continue to experience rapid growth in population over the years with the development of Port Quendall, Southport and completion of the Alexan and Bluffs Apartments. The demographic changes will continue to increase the value of commercial properties on N 30th Street and the need to site community facilities such as a new fire station, community center and retail establishments. The City planned for our community's needs by establishing the current zoning. Installation of a cell tower is inconsistent with the intended use of the property and diminishes the property's value to the community. Placement of the tower on the east side of I-405 near existing towers or next to I-405's right-of- way would not use property that has a high redevelopment potential. These are the best options for Kennydale. DECISION No. 2 Error:The decision assumes that camouflaging the monopole as a tree will adequately reduce visual impacts. Correction: KNA agrees strongly with the Hearing Examiner,and City staff that the proposal will be visually intrusive and out of character for our neighborhood. We also agree that at a minimum,this facility as well as future cell towers placed in Kennydale must be camouflaged as a tree to help mitigate aesthetic impacts. However,in this case camouflaging will not go far enough in protecting the aesthetic quality of Kennydale. It is the proposal's location in the heart of our neighborhood gateway that makes it inherently intrusive and out of character. Visual impacts can only be appropriately mitigated by siting the cell tower at the edge of our community next to the 1-405 right-of-way. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED X Reverse the decision KNA asks the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to grant a Conditional Use Permit for placement of an AT&T cell tower at 1321 N 30th Street,to establish a moratorium on cell tower development in Kennydale and to sponsor a public involvement/cell tower siting process that would result in a cell tower siting plan for our community. . CITY OF RETJlON APPEAL HEARING EXAMINER NOV V 3 200 1 3 2000 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTlaitgiR6COUNC CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FILE NO_LUA-00-104, CU, ECF APPLICATION NAME: AT&T Monopole • The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Us Hearing Examiner, dated October 30 20 00 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY • APPELLANT: ' •• REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: AT&T Wireless Name:John C. McCullough /o Lori Chase, Eacifflc Telecom Services P illipir cCullough Wilson Hill & Fiks, Address:425 Pon ius ve. Address: Seattle, WA 98109 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone No. 206-342-9000 Telephone No. 206-448-1818 (fx) 206.-448-3444 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) • Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) N0.17, 27 Error: See_ Attached 30, 31 • Correction: See Attached CONCLUSIONS: No.3,4.5 RIVE see Attached 6, 11, 12 Correction: See Attached OTHER.:Condition N0.2 Error: See Attached • Correction: See Attached 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) See Attached Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: X Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration•as follows: • x Other • I113/o Ap t/Representativ S ture • ; D•to_ • NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code,and Sectioa 4-8-110F. for specific procedures. • • ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AT&T Monopole 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and law. Finding 17,that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing, contains errors of fact and law. Contrary to this finding, the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(MDNS'issued on September 12, 2000, concludes that landscaping (trees)will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less- than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further, Renton Municipal Code (RMC)Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider"surrounding tree coverage and foliage:' The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site. Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. • Finding 30, that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30, regarding off-site trees, is improper for the reasons previously stated. Finding 31, regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the Cit}'s ordinance on undergrounding of • utilities. 'Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider thebature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties'.' This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3,regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains errors of fact and law. As discussed above, the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above,RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties" This provision does not limit the Hearing Examiners consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further,this conclusion is improperly based \\SERVER\VOL1\DATA\ATTWIRE\646.009\DOCS1ATTACHAPPEAL.DOC 1 on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same);Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). Conclusion 5, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 6, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 11,regarding visual impacts,contains errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities, but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the Cit)'s development regulations,not the Comprehensive Plan, control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The Cit)'s development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC,Title IV, Chapter 4- 140 (Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition,the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains errors.of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiner's decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative, AT&T requests that the City Council remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner with directions to accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of alternative methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. In addition,AT&T is filing a request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner concurrently with this appeal. AT&T requests that this appeal by stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. 11SERVERIVOLI1DATAWTTWIRE\656.009\DOCSWTTACHAPPEAL.DOC 2 • { PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES JOIN C.MCCCLLOUGI I McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER WILSON SUITE I130 CiTY OF RE,,i T'`?': HILL & 2025 FIRST AVENUE FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 7 w A PROFESSIONAL 98 1 2 1-2 100 SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1813 FAX:(206)448-344{ November 22, 2000 HAND DELIVERED City Council City of Renton do Renton City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF Dear Council Members: We represent AT&T Wireless,the appellant in this matter. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code ("RMC")Title IV, Chapter 8, section 110.F.2, AT&T submits this letter in support of its appeal,which was filed on November 13, 2000. AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiner's decision dated October 30, 2000 ("Decision"),which requires that the monopole proposed by AT&T be camouflaged as a tree, and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative, AT&T requests that the City Council remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner with directions to accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of alternative methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. AT&T makes these requests on the following grounds. A. The City Council should eliminate Condition No.2 in the Decision. The City Council should eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Decision because the view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging and the findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. G:WTTW IRE\646.009\PLDGS\CITYCOUNCILOI.DOC City Council November 22, 2000 Page 2 1. The view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging. The Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") on September 12, 2000. The MDNS was not appealed and is therefore final and binding. The MDNS imposes the following mitigation measures to address visual impacts: • Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line (as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal)to be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence; • The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees,or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. • Prior to building permit approval,the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. The MDNS concludes that,with implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposal will have no significant adverse impacts. Hearing Exhibit No. 1. In contrast,the Hearing Examiner Decision("Decision")in this matter concludes that camouflaging the facility is necessary to reduce visual impacts. See Decision,Findings 17,27, 30, 31; Conclusions 3-6, 11. This conclusion is inconsistent with the MDNS and,therefore, constitutes a substantial error of law and fact. 2. The findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain substantial errors of fact and law. Finding 17,that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing, contains substantial errors of fact and law. • City Council November 22,2000 Page 3 Contrary to this finding,the MDNS concludes that landscaping (trees)will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less-than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains substantial errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider"surrounding tree coverage and foliage." The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site. Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. Finding 30,that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains substantial errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30,regarding off-site trees, is improper for the reasons previously stated. Finding 31, regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains substantial errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the"nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties." This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3,regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains substantial errors of fact and law. As discussed above, the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the"nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties." This provision does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4, regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further,this conclusion is improperly based on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same);Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). City Council November 22, 2000 Page 4 Conclusion 5,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 6,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 11,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities,but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the City's development regulations,not the Comprehensive Plan, control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The City's development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC,Title IV, Chapter 4-140 (Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition,the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains substantial errors of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. B. In the alternative,the City Council should remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional evidence and reconsideration. RMC Title IV, Chapter 8, section 110.F.4 permits the City Council to remand a matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional evidence and reconsideration if the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Here,AT&T reasonably believed that the issue of visual impacts had been addressed through the State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA")process by issuance of the MDNS. Further, while camouflaging was proposed in the staff report,AT&T did not find any evidence in the report that the camouflaging was feasible or • necessary. Under the circumstances, AT&T did not believe it was appropriate to present evidence regarding the effectiveness or feasibility of camouflaging or the availability of alternative camouflaging methods to those proposed by City Council November 22, 2000 Page 5 staff. Accordingly, additional evidence on these issues could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. In light of the Decision, AT&T now believes it would be helpful to the Hearing Examiner to consider such evidence. This evidence would include evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of various alternative types of camouflaging, including flagpoles and lighting standards. With this additional evidence, AT&T believes the Hearing Examiner would be able to make a well considered decision that addresses the concerns regarding visual impacts and takes into account the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging. Accordingly, AT&T requests that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional information on the feasibility and effectiveness of various types of camouflaging and for reconsideration of Condition No. 2 in light of that information. C. Conclusion For these reasons, AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative, AT&T requests that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging and for reconsideration of Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. AT&T filed a request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner concurrently with this appeal. AT&T reserves the right to address the Hearing Examiner decision on the request for reconsideration, if appropriate,after it is issued. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Very truly yours, ei)GiA kul tOUf14/ fr John C. McCullough JCM:ac City Council November 22, 2000 Page 6 cc: Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Rod Hansen Lori Chase CITY , IF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor' Marilyn J.Petersen December 21, 2000 APPEAL S FILED BY: Kennydale Neighborhood Association Represented by Kim Browne and AT&T Wireless Representative: John C. McCullough of Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill &Fikso RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 10/30/2000 regarding the Conditional Use Permit to erect a 50-foot monopole at 1321 N. 30th St. • File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF • To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision regarding AT&T Wireless' request for conditional use permit has been filed with the City Clerk. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal.Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or"testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. ' For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at (425) 430-6502. Sincerely, • Maril J. tersen, CMC City Clerk Attachment 1055 South Grady Way = Renton, Washington 98055 (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 '_ This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the.Hearing Examiner. (Ord.4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) } 6i_e)/NN1 A APPEAL CITY OF FRENTON HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RE®TON TY COUNCIL FILE NO. LL),Ac `00—U)1'3 W RECEIVED 1 CITV CLEi-KT5 OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: j4 -�� C AAADA...4..". 1/Coy,^-" The undersigned interested part hereby files its Notic of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated QA `I 20 f30 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REP SENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: Name: B e-0z,u\kJ E Address: 2\ Address: ) It) P WA- ZLO S- R J - Telephone No. Telephone No. L4 s- d.aL -7-7-7q ( 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: 01±46t (2it wvKA A Correction: CONCLUSIONS: o n No. Error: /�- A--- Correction: � - CL JA AA OTHER: No. Error: al4,5Lej,tAA_,, ,,i---- Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other cy- A /0--b Appella epresentative Signature Da NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. heappeal.doc K eAtt'v aollei 1211 N 28th Place {i�r, � N - ��� Renton, WA 9E056 L-0 ' 1—) www.kennydale.org 007 • 4m • c • CITY OF FRENTON November 7, 2000 N O V 0 9 2000 Renton City Council RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Appeal to Council; AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point—File No.:LUA-00-1O4,CU,ECF Dear City Councilmembers: On behalf of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association(KNA), please accept this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding siting of an AT&T Monopole at 1321 N 30th Street in Kennydale. KNA asks the Council to reverse the decision approving construction of the cell tower. As discussed more thoroughly in Attachment A(Appeal, Hearing Examiner), KNA believes that the pro- posal is inconsistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and the intended use of the subject site. It is zoned Convenience Commercial(CC), which is intended to accommodate"small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel." (Objective LU-FF,Renton Comprehensive Plan, CC). Placement of a cell tower on the property will not meet this need and is therefore inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Our community de- serves better uses for its small valuable Convenience Commercial zoned property. An additional concern is the placement of an intrusive pole(50-foot pole with 12-foot across arrays)in- side our community. The proposed placement west of I-405 is very close to the residential areas of Ken- nydale and visible from our local streets. It will draw attention and significantly affect the aesthetic qual- ity of Kennydale. KNA favors cell tower placement east of I-405 near existing towers, or adjacent to the sound walls of I- 405 at the edge of our community,not near the middle as proposed. There are better options than 1321 N 30th Street. We ask the City to work with the Kennydale neighborhood to develop a cell tower siting plan for our com- munity. Kennydale's location at the top of a hill and proximity to I-405 will certainly make it a magnet for additional cell tower placement in the future. In fact, Linda Knowle, a property owner at the corner of Park and N 30th Street was recently approached by another cell provider looking for an agreeable land- owner to lease a spot for a tower. • "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" • KeA1y� C�t j 1211 N 28th Place �,, � N � ��� Renton, OVA 9E056 Cam° www.kennydale.org G?O ,. , • Our community deserves more power in deciding where cell towers can be placed. KNA asks the Council to establish a moratorium on cell tower development within Kennydale until a public involvement/siting process is undertaken that brings together all stakeholders. Our community would rather designate ahead of time areas appropriate for cell towers,than reactively comment on individual tower proposals. There must be a more coordinated process to site these intrusive facilities. It's a matter of protecting the quality of life in Kennydale. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Kim Browne KNA President • "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" ATTACHMENT A,Cont. 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS FINDING OF FACT No. Omission Error: The Hearing Examiner did not include a reference or consider Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-4-140; Goal 3 when making his decision. • Correction: According to the Renton Municipal Code placement of wireless communications facilities must be consistent with 4-4-140; Goal 3: "Encourage users of towers and antennas to locate them,to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal." There will be a more than minimal negative impact on our community if the AT&T cell tower is located at 1321 N 30th Street. The pole and antennae will diminish the aesthetic quality of our neighborhood entrance area and preclude redevelopment of the site for uses that would better serve the needs of the community. The proposal is inconsistent with the City code and therefore should not be allowed. CONCLUSIONS No. i Error:The Hearing Examiner found the proposal to be consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Correction: The proposal is not compatible with the following objective of the Comprehensive Plan: Objective LU-FF:• Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. (Renton Comprehensive Plan, Convenience Commercial). The subject site is zoned Convenience Commercial(CC). Use of the property for a cell tower would preclude future uses that would meet the intent of the current zoning and provide valuable services to our community. There is limited available property at the heart of Kennydale(N 30th Street area)for non-residential development. From a community perspective,the property in question could provide a higher and better use. Our community is experiencing and will continue to experience rapid growth in population over the years with the development of Port Quendall, Southport and completion of the Alexan and Bluffs Apartments. The demographic changes will continue to increase the value of commercial properties on N 30th Street and the need to site community facilities such as a new fire station, community center and retail establishments. The City planned for our community's needs by establishing the current zoning. Installation of a cell tower is inconsistent with the intended use of the property and diminishes the property's value to the community. Placement of the tower on the east side of I-405 near existing towers or next to I-405's right-of- way would not use property that has a high redevelopment potential. These are the best options for Kennydale. DECISION No. 2 Error:The decision assumes that camouflaging the monopole as a tree will adequately reduce visual impacts. Correction:KNA agrees strongly with the Hearing Examiner and City staff that the proposal will be visually intrusive and out of character for our neighborhood. We also agree that at a minimum,this facility as well as future cell towers placed in Kennydale must be camouflaged as a tree to help mitigate aesthetic impacts. However, in this case camouflaging will not go far enough in protecting the aesthetic quality of Kennydale. It is the proposal's location in the heart of our neighborhood gateway that makes it inherently intrusive and out of character. Visual impacts can only be appropriately mitigated by siting the cell tower at the edge of our community next to the I-405 right-of-way. • 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED X Reverse the decision KNA asks the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to grant a Conditional Use Permit for placement of an AT&T cell tower at 1321 N 30th Street,to establish a moratorium on cell tower development in Kennydale and to sponsor a public involvement/cell tower siting process that would result in a cell tower siting plan for our community. a.. ( k.A Kev d LIei N hooad,Aao-a tti o-vv E �q� OPPY , � �3 *. r � �, PM � _ � , ao 1211 N 28 Place/ m a, 0® Lbpli i- �© �>D ,+J '� OB Mai fiomthe `1 1 evi,to-w, WA 98056 ,?00 0Sgal a ''S ' Renton City Council Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . - Renton, WA 98055 setos3—z2'3,2 e%9 Ilslsslssls,liiiilthili1titilliliiiit'lisillIghl1!'t'Isllld • CITY OF RENT ON APPEAL d'44, HEARING EXAMINER NOV 1 3 2000 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENT COUNC CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • FILE NO.LUA-00-104, CU, ECF APPLICATION NAME: AT&T Monopole The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Us Hearing Examiner, dated October 30 2000 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: . •' REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name:_AT&T Wireless Name;John C. McCullough 4o Loi Chse, ac Telecom Services Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill & Fikso Address: Pon ius ve. Address:�025 First Ave. , Ste. 1130 Seattle, WA 98109 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone No. 206-342-9000 Telephone No. 206-448-1818 (fx) 206.-448-3444 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) NO.17, 27 Error: See Attached 30, 31 Correction: See Attached CONCLUSIONS: No.3,4,5 Error: see Attached 6, 11, 12 Correction: See Attached OTHER:Condition NO.2 Error: See Attached • Correction: See Attached 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief; (Attach explanation, if desired) See Attached Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: • x Remand to the Examiner for further consideration'as follows: • x Other • • /l 13/a0 Ap t/Representativ S ture • D to • •• ROTE: Please refer to Tide IV, Chapter 8,of the Renton Municipal Code.and Section4-8-110F. for specific procedures. ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION AT&T Monopole 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and law. Finding 17, that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing, contains errors of fact and law. Contrary to this finding,the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance f MDNS')issued on September 12, 2000, concludes that landscaping (trees)will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less- than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further, Renton Municipal Code (RMC)Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider"surrounding tree coverage and foliage:' The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site. Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. Finding 30,that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that,rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30, regarding off-site trees, is improper for the reasons previously stated. Finding 31,regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further,RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`hature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3,regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains errors of fact and law. As discussed above,the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision does not limit the Hearing Examinefs consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further,this conclusion is improperly based \\SERVER\VOL1\DATMATTWIRE\646.009\DOCSWTTACHAPPEAL.DOC 1 on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same);Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). Conclusion 5, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 6,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 11,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities, but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the City's development regulations, not the Comprehensive Plan, control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The City's development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC, Title IV, Chapter 4- 140 (Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition,the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains errors of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiners decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative, AT&T requests that the City Council remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner with directions to accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of alternative methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. In addition,AT&T is filing a request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner concurrently with this appeal. AT&T requests that this appeal by stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. \\SERVER\VOLT\DATA\ATTWIRE\646.009\DOCSWTTACHAPPEAL.DOC 2 sir ` PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES JOT IN C.MCCUL.LOUGH McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER WILSON SUITE 1130 CITY OF RENTON HILL & 2025 FIRST AVENUE FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON J 0 V 2 2 2000 A PROFESSIONAL 98121-2100 SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1818 RECE.iVED FAX:(206) 8- CITY CLERKS OFFICE 44 3444 November 22, 2000 HAND DELIVERED City Council City of Renton c/o Renton City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF Dear Council Members: We represent AT&T Wireless, the appellant in this matter. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code("RMC")Title IV, Chapter 8, section 110.F.2, AT&T submits this letter in support of its appeal, which was filed on November 13, 2000. AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiner's decision dated October 30, 2000 ("Decision"), which requires that the monopole proposed by AT&T be camouflaged as a tree, and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative,AT&T requests that the City Council remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner with directions to accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of alternative methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. AT&T makes these requests on the following grounds. A. The City Council should eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Decision. The City Council should eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Decision because the view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging and the findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. G:\ATTW IRE\646.009\PLDGS\CITY000NCIL0I.DOC City Counrtz November 22, 2000 Page 2 1. The view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging. The Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") on September 12, 2000. The MDNS was not appealed and is therefore final and binding. The MDNS imposes the following mitigation measures to address visual impacts: • Prior to building permit approval,the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line (as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal)to be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence; • The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. • Prior to building permit approval,the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. The MDNS concludes that, with implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposal will have no significant adverse impacts. Hearing Exhibit No. 1. In contrast,the Hearing Examiner Decision("Decision") in this matter concludes that camouflaging the facility is necessary to reduce visual impacts. See Decision,Findings 17, 27, 30, 31; Conclusions 3-6, 11. This conclusion is inconsistent with the MDNS and,therefore, constitutes a substantial error of law and fact. 2. The findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain substantial errors of fact and law. Finding 17,that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing, contains substantial errors of fact and law. City Cour.,' -- November 22, 2000 Page 3 Contrary to this finding, the MDNS concludes that landscaping (trees)will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less-than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains substantial errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider"surrounding tree coverage and foliage." The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site. Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. Finding 30,that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains substantial errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30, regarding off-site trees, is improper for the reasons previously stated. Finding 31, regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains substantial errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the "nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties." This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3, regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains substantial errors of fact and law. As discussed above, the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.1 provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the "nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties." This provision does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further, this conclusion is improperly based on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same);Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). City CourJr' : November 22, 2000 Page 4 Conclusion 5,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 6,regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 11, regarding visual impacts, contains substantial errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities,but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the City's development regulations,not the Comprehensive Plan, control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The City's development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC, Title IV, Chapter 4-140 (Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition, the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains substantial errors of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. B. In the alternative, the City Council should remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional evidence and reconsideration. RMC Title IV, Chapter 8, section 110.F.4 permits the City Council to remand a matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional evidence and reconsideration if the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Here,AT&T reasonably believed that the issue of visual impacts had been addressed through the State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA")process by issuance of the MDNS. Further, while camouflaging was proposed in the staff report, AT&T did not find any evidence in the report that the camouflaging was feasible or necessary. Under the circumstances, AT&T did not believe it was appropriate to present evidence regarding the effectiveness or feasibility of camouflaging or the availability of alternative camouflaging methods to those proposed by City Councri November 22, 2000 Page 5 staff. Accordingly, additional evidence on these issues could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. In light of the Decision, AT&T now believes it would be helpful to the Hearing Examiner to consider such evidence. This evidence would include evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of various alternative types of camouflaging, including flagpoles and lighting standards. With this additional evidence, AT&T believes the Hearing Examiner would be able to make a well considered decision that addresses the concerns regarding visual impacts and takes into account the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging. Accordingly,AT&T requests that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional information on the feasibility and effectiveness of various types of camouflaging and for reconsideration of Condition No. 2 in light of that information. C. Conclusion For these reasons, AT&T respectfully requests that the City Council eliminate Condition No. 2 in the Decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative,AT&T requests that the City Council remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner for acceptance of additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging and for reconsideration of Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. AT&T filed a request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner concurrently with this appeal. AT&T reserves the right to address the Hearing Examiner decision on the request for reconsideration, if appropriate, after it is issued. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Very truly yours, e0A,10-1 John C. McCullough JCM:ac City Coui November 22, 2000 Page 6 cc: Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Rod Hansen Lori Chase PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES )Oli\C.MCCL'L7.OLI(3II McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER CITY OF REN 1 ON WILSON SUITE I130 4/1p,y72 • HILL & 2025 FIRST AVENUE NOV c 1 3 2000 FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON RECEIVED APROFESSIONAL 98121-21°° CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1818 FAX:(2°6)448-3444 November 13, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: We represent AT&T Wireless, the applicant for the conditional use permit in this matter. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code("RMC") Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100.G.4, AT&T respectfully requests reconsideration of Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiner Report and Decision("Decision") dated October 30, 2000. AT&T bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging. The Environmental Review Committee("ERC") issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance("MDNS") on September 12, 2000. The MDNS was not appealed and is therefore final and binding. The MDNS imposes the following mitigation measures to address visual impacts: • Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line(as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal) to be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence; • The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional ME RVERWOLI IDATAATT W IREIKAU FMAN01.DOC Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 2 plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. • Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. The MDNS concludes that, with implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposal will have no significant adverse impacts. Hearing Exhibit No. 1. The Decision, in contrast, concludes that camouflaging the facility is necessary to reduce visual impacts. See Decision,Findings 17, 27, 30, 31; Conclusions 3-6, 11. This conclusion is inconsistent with the MDNS and,therefore,was made under erroneous procedures, constitutes an error of law and fact and is an error in judgment. B. The findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and law. Finding 17, that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing, contains errors of fact and law. Contrary to this finding, the MDNS concludes that landscaping (trees)will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less-than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further,RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider"surrounding tree coverage and foliage" The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site. Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. Finding 30,that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30,regarding off-site trees,is improper for the reasons previously stated. • Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 3 Finding 31, regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3, regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains errors of fact and law. As discussed above, the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`hature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4,regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further, this conclusion is improperly based on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same);Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454,462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). Conclusion 5, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further, there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 6, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 11, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities, but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the City's development regulations, not the Comprehensive Plan, control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 4 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The City's development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC, Title IV, Chapter 4-140 (Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition,the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains errors of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. C. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of camouflaging. RMC Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100.G.4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the prior hearing. Here,AT&T reasonably believed that the issue of visual impacts had been addressed through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)process by issuance of the MDNS. Further,while camouflaging was proposed in the staff report, AT&T did not find any evidence in the report that the camouflaging was feasible or necessary. Under the circumstances, AT&T did not believe it was appropriate to present evidence regarding the effectiveness or feasibility of camouflaging or the availability of alternative camouflaging methods to those proposed by staff. In light of the Hearing Examiner's decision,AT&T now believes it would be helpful to the Hearing Examiner to consider such evidence. This evidence would include evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of various alternative types of camouflaging, including flagpoles and lighting standards. With this additional evidence,AT&T believes the Hearing Examiner would be able to make a well considered decision that addresses the concerns regarding visual impacts and takes into account the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging. The RMC expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with a request for consideration, stating that the Hearing Examiner may"take further action as the Examiner deems propel' after such a request, including requesting that additional information be provided within 10 days. RMC Title IV, Chapter 8,.Section 11.G.4. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 5 D. Conclusion For these reasons, AT&T respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner withdraw Condition No. 2 in the Decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative,AT&T requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. In order to preserve its appeal rights,AT&T is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. AT&T requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, 4% C. McCullough JCM:ac cc: Rod Hansen Lori Chase .. x CIT`- DF .RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J..Kaufman November 20,2000 • John C:McCullough Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill&Fikso Market Place Tower,.Suite 1130 2025 First Avenue Seattle,WA 98121-2100 Re: Request for.Reconsideration File No.LUA-00-104,CU,ECF Dear Mr.McCullough: This office has reviewed the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant. This office is also, aware that both the applicant and neighbors have submitted appeals of the decision to the City Council. This office will start with the concluding request of the applicant-to reopen the public hearing toi consider• more evidence regarding the camouflage issue. Code is clear that only,new testimony that could not be reasonably available at the original public hearing may be submitted. The staff report recommendation and discussion of camouflaging the monopole was known to the applicantt a week,prior to the public hearing. The applicant was free to bring'forward ev_idence.regarding this matter:.the applicant also could have asked that the matter be continued. They did not choose either of those options: .The applicant merely indicated that they did not believe camouflaging was;;reasonable or necessary in':this location. This office will not reopen the hearing at this time for the:subinission'of new evidence. The applicant has suggested that the Environmenta_1`Review Committee's.(ERC):Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance(MDNS)ended all discussion.regarding.visual impacts and`measures to limit those impacts. The MDNS does not in any respect address the visualimpacts of the development beyond those that would eliminate the possible need to prepare an environmental.inipact statement. That fact that the visual intrusiveness might have been lessened beyond a.threshold that would-,,eliminate the need for an environmental impact statement does.notmean that there are no visualinipacts. One could argue that those visual impacts are significant in the normal defmition of the word"significant" as opposed to the definition found in SEPA.'The SEPA definition of"significant"is whether the impact will have"more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment." More than'a moderate impact on the quality of the environment,".which is the threshold question facing the ERC,is different than impact in terms of neighborhood compatibility. If the SEPA determination were to end any review or conditioning authority,then the purpose of the public hearing on the Conditional Use permit could establish little outside of the SEPA realm.The conditional review is intended to provide an independent assessment of a proposal's compliance and suitability to fit in with the character of the community and the immediate . surroundings. The subject site is not merely a commercially zoned parcel of property. It is a commercially zoned parcel of property surrounded on two sides by residential property designated and zoned for:single family uses. Those properties and their current or potential developments deserve protection that Cannot be provided by accepting just the ERC's mitigation measures,particularly when those mitigation measures were intended to lower the threshold for significant impacts triggering EIS preparation. Nor does the , ERC's determination in any way affect the ability to condition a proposal that has impacts that'make it incompatible With surrounding development.. The applicant's urgings are contrary to law. t The single family parcel immediately west.of the proposed location deserves protection from a visual • eyesore. To argue that a 50-foot-tall tower surmounted bya 12-foot-wide antenna array is not visually • . jarring and intrusive is contrary to ordinary intelligence:: While an engineer might find it attractive in an 1055 South Grady Way.- Renton; Washington:98055 (425)430-6515 Thic nowt enntainc Ftl%rwnvnleri metwrial 911°/nnct ennc"mwr .•. - • • John C.McCullough November 20,2000 Page 2 abstract way or the lessor of land might not fmd it intrusive;a reasonable party looking at a single family lot would,needless to say,have some problems with it. It is a simple matter of looking at a cell tower and determining whether it makes a suitable neighbor for single family homes. This is nota cell tower located a block away or across the road.'This is a cell tower located within 25 feet of the single family property. This office did consider the off-site landscaping and the potential that it will not remain. This office does not have to give any preferential weight to landscaping that is outside of the control of the applicant or the applicant's lessor. Those trees could be gone within the next week,month or year. The applicant cannot in any way guarantee those trees will provide any long term screening benefits Or benefits that will run the life. of the project. This office also did consider the Texaco sign and surrounding power and light standards. The Texaco sign is not immediately next-door to the subject site's single family neighbors. And while it maybe adjacent to other residential uses,it was there prior to annexation to Renton and may a legal non-conforming use. The applicant is correct--the Zoning Code does not require that a cell tower be camouflaged to look like a tree. It provides that conditions that make the use a compatible neighbor may be imposed. The code also permits a use to be denied if it is not compatible "This'office chose to approve the use with a condition that makes it more appropriate in this location. :Staff analyzed the proposed use and staff made the recommendation..The examiner did not manufacture the condition in a vacuum. Similarly,the fact that such cell tower camouflage has been developed,shows that it provides;reasonable,if not perfect,ability to screen and camouflage such uses and that the need to camouflage such uses'is real. The fact that this applicant has provided such camouflaging in other locales suggests;that'it is a reasonable method of . integrating unsightly cell towers'into a community,whether that community be,a park or a single family neighborhood. In conclusion,there is no reason to alter the decision;m this matter. If this office can provide any additional assistance,please feel free to write Sincerely, rat-A- Fred J.Kaufmry Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney Steve Taylor Parties of Record PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES jOTIN C.MCCi;ILOLJGTI McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER WILSON SUITE I130 CITY OF RENTQ(V HILL & 2025 FIRST AVENUE N O V 1 3 2000 FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON RECEIVED A PROFESSIONAL 98121-2I00 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1818 FAX:(206)448-3444 November 13, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Re: Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA-00-104, CU, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: We represent AT&T Wireless, the applicant for the conditional use permit in this matter. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code("RMC") Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100.G.4, AT&T respectfully requests reconsideration of Condition No. 2 in the Hearing Examiner Report and Decision("Decision") dated October 30, 2000. AT&T bases this request on the grounds discussed below. A. The view impacts of the proposal are fully mitigated without camouflaging. The Environmental Review Committee("ERC") issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance("MDNS") on September 12, 2000. The MDNS was not appealed and is therefore final and binding. The MDNS imposes the following mitigation measures to address visual impacts: • Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line(as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal)to be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence; • The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional \\SERVER\VOL1\DATAVITTWIRE\KAUFMAN01.DOC Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 2 plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. • Prior to building permit approval,the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. The MDNS concludes that, with implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposal will have no significant adverse impacts. Hearing Exhibit No. 1. The Decision, in contrast, concludes that camouflaging the facility is necessary to reduce visual impacts. See Decision,Findings 17,27, 30, 31; Conclusions 3-6, 11. This conclusion is inconsistent with the MDNS and,therefore, was made under erroneous procedures, constitutes an error of law and fact and is an error in judgment. B. The findings and conclusions regarding view impacts are not supported by the facts or the law. The following findings and conclusions contain errors of fact and law. Finding 17,that the upper portions of the facility cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing, contains errors of fact and law. Contrary to this finding,the MDNS concludes that landscaping (trees)will reduce the visual impacts of the facility to less-than-significant levels. Finding 27,that off-site trees cannot be relied upon for screening, contains errors of fact and law. No facts in the record indicate that those trees are likely to be removed in the future. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider"surrounding tree coverage and foliage:' The RMC does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration of trees and foliage to those located on site. Therefore, it was improper for the Hearing Examiner to discount the mitigating effect of surrounding off-site trees. Finding 30, that the visual impact studies do not reflect visual impact on immediate neighboring properties, contains errors of fact and law. There is no information in the record that rebuts the visual impact studies. The further finding in Finding 30,regarding off-site trees, is improper for the reasons previously stated. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 3 Finding 31, regarding nearby power poles and wires, contains errors of fact and law. These physical features exist regardless of the City's ordinance on undergrounding of utilities. Further, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`Snature of uses on• adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision requires nearby power poles and wires to be taken into consideration when evaluating visual impacts. Conclusion 3,regarding visual impacts and the nonconforming status of the Texaco sign, contains errors of fact and law. As discussed above, the conclusion that the facility will have unmitigated visual impacts unless it is camouflaged is directly at odds with the MDNS. Further, as stated above, RMC Title IV, Chapter 9, section 30.I provides that the Hearing Examiner must consider the`Snature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties:' This provision does not limit the Hearing Examiner's consideration to conforming uses only. Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner must consider the Texaco sign in evaluating the visual impacts of the proposal. Conclusion 4, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. These errors are discussed above in relation to Finding 17. Further, this conclusion is improperly based on neighborhood opposition. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 788, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (community opposition cannot justify the denial of, or imposition of unreasonable conditions on, a project);Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804-805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (same);Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978) (same). Conclusion 5, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. Errors relating to the consideration of off-site trees are discussed above in relation to Finding 30. Further,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 6, regarding visual impacts, contains errors of fact and law. This conclusion is inconsistent with the previously issued MDNS. In addition, as stated above,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding this matter. Conclusion 11, regarding visual impacts,contains errors of fact and law. The Comprehensive Plan encourages screening of telecommunications facilities, but does not specifically address the camouflaging of these facilities, as was required here. In addition,the City's development regulations, not the Comprehensive Plan, control the development standards to which the facility must be designed. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 4 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (zoning ordinance prevails over an inconsistent comprehensive plan). The City's development regulations do not require camouflaging of telecommunications facilities. RMC, Title IV, Chapter 4-140 (Wireless Communications Facilities). In addition, the portions of this conclusion relating to camouflaging are inconsistent with the MDNS for the reasons discussed previously. Further, as with Conditions 5 and 6,there is insufficient information in the record relating to the feasibility or effectiveness of the proposed camouflage to support the conclusions regarding these matters. Conclusion 12 contains errors of fact and law to the extent it requires compliance with the camouflaging condition proposed by staff. C. The Hearing Examiner should consider additional evidence on the issue of camouflaging. RMC Title IV, Chapter 8, section 100.G.4 allows reconsideration on the ground of discovery of new evidence that was not reasonably available at the prior hearing. Here, AT&T reasonably believed that the issue of visual impacts had been addressed through the State Environmental Policy Act ('SEPA)process by issuance of the MDNS. Further, while camouflaging was proposed in the staff report, AT&T did not find any evidence in the report that the camouflaging was feasible or necessary. Under the circumstances, AT&T did not believe it was appropriate to present evidence regarding the effectiveness or feasibility of camouflaging or the availability of alternative camouflaging methods to those proposed by staff. In light of the Hearing Examinees decision, AT&T now believes it would be helpful to the Hearing Examiner to consider such evidence. This evidence would include evidence on the feasibility and effectiveness of various alternative types of camouflaging, including flagpoles and lighting standards. With this additional evidence, AT&T believes the Hearing Examiner would be able to make a well considered decision that addresses the concerns regarding visual impacts and takes into account the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging. The RMC expressly provides the Hearing Examiner with authority to accept additional evidence in connection with a request for consideration, stating that the Hearing Examiner may"take further action as the Examiner deems propel' after such a request, including requesting that additional information be provided within 10 days. RMC Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11.G.4. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner November 13, 2000 Page 5 D. Conclusion For these reasons, AT&T respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner withdraw Condition No. 2 in the Decision and grant approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions for visual impacts contained in the MDNS. In the alternative, AT&T requests that the Hearing Examiner accept additional information on the effectiveness and feasibility of various methods of camouflaging and modify Condition No. 2 based on this additional evidence. In order to preserve its appeal rights, AT&T is filing an appeal to the City Council concurrently with this request for reconsideration. AT&T requests that the appeal to the City Council be stayed pending resolution of this request for reconsideration. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, C. McCullough JCM:ac cc: Rod Hansen Lori Chase CITY CLERK DIVISION Send Copies To: Date: I CITY ATTORNEY II CITY COUNCIL 1 ! COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS I EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP. Su,e C fISn't FINANCE/INFO SERVICES I FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION P DuD HEARING EXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMT HUMAN SERVICES LIBRARIES MAYOR/EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL COURT Q PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE CODIFIER NEWSPAPER PARTIES OF RECORD(sea 1+6- ,Oi vt) Planning/Building/Public Works: • I ADMINISTRATION C1111 J 7AIr►mt"rnah l ';1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES kit W itd1'S/LArr yilkeOl' TRANSPORTATION SERVICES saftvilmt Mar UTILITIES&TECH SERVICES I yS jrnvb y I �A-r� • NOTES RECEIPT DATE -• NO. 0954 J +. RECEIVED FRO�JM� • ADDRESS (1 1/4' 't X/j iv/ >1 as.* Pi ns-a k� GUI 98'D �' $ 'yam, cis 0 co FOR r./x•Q Bier. r-J V, ell, &CF =O>. ACCOUNT • HOW PAID • DJ cr) AMT.OF _ Q p ACCOUNT CASH II- C C AMT. 02. ® PAID CC r CC CHECK // BALANCE MONEY BY Sr ° ` DUE ORDER m19e8 REDIFORM®8L80-2 • • 901406927 9) 10 3 7 KENNYDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DATE / P!J tolJ 2107...) gill PAY TO THE \����(( '• Ij 82 ORDER OF• I J jJLLcIS 0 o FIRST FIRST SA NGS BANK la SAVINGS I of Renton MAIN OFFICE gg BANK 201 Wells Avenue So.,Renton,Washington 98055 g 1/� (425)255-440 (425)277 8610 j I MEMO v L • 'VP �-:I. 3 2S L7 8771: 0 /n1110 6 9 2 70 911' L037 _.•.„-,,,, _ _ - a..Erve..Ew r� " 0 • NOTES / N, CC w RECEIPT DATE // lS--Oo NO. 0956 U • RECEIVED FR//OM .r4 fi. ///r�lrP.GdL � i' ' • 6 ADD /� T- I,U• .Ut • m ADDRESS L�A�,a� l� • .� DJ FOR o./i,J..L r C wif,,,, /an-oo-/D i ei( t?1 ©� `'u;:ACCOU/NT:i _L7ti:r roP' y q n�, . / �. i;,,! HOW PAID r'. '' LU 0 AMT.OF r ' (. �"„ C') C ACCOUNT "CASH ! Li,. C C AMT. ' CHECK 's 0 ^ i+ O PAID / / _ ! �) ^ BALANCE MONEY BY , •O,�;(- UJ /�JQ,J%497,`, • '. DUE ORDER :rL _,..,.-..............._...._.......... _.._...,...,.. _, -,......_.......,....... ., ..y._,,,......,.,.,...,..,.,...,.... .u......m,..,.,..,w,•....,_.........<..,,,,., ©1998 REDIFORM®8L802 .. ; WY-•'I1.NM...n,.. '•'Itii•i:�,.pya`♦i sr.he+1:`.,;y..r .,LR ttii'e� a< •. r •t i.H•J''ifi:'Nx"r:'<t T:.1':, _• �:1�:L.i_-i�..i.:ti'st.rt:Je:L�'ii St';+'�•i��:✓.I:y • PHILLIPS MCCULLOUGH WILSON HILL & FIKSO PS 14 6: 'pp NCHECK • C1 LQTEOf 8�RT1L�p O�ri INVOICE# AMOUNT DEDUCTION NET AMOUNT 11/13/00 Filing Fee 75 . 00 75 . 0( 1 n L CITY OF RENTON ' NOV 13 2000 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 , cmcAp&&00 CONTROQN/14I1ER Gross : 75 . 00 Ded: 0 . 00 Net : 75 . 0( TOTALS ► • , •� f;"- =; � 'li` yE < 't',' •�-" ,i,° .. ,I ,I t v p: i . � 1,� .�• THE COMMERCE BANK li Il I. ! PHILLIPS.MCCULLOUGHWILON ii OF WASHINGTON u .11":, :741, � i �HILL& FIKSOPS: . i( a--'' 'iSEA+TT 49-L8E01W-1A9810 ,_ '`r �:°, „ ', I'i .ti, I( --',MARKET PLACETOWERSUIT 1130 :i':� : � . , _ :, . '•=. 1 i .- -`'L, - :;::.,- (.' '• '2025 FIRST AVENUE f ., : i •; , i;;, SEATTLE,,WA 98121;; DATE ' CHECK +; A�OUNT:' . 11/13/00. 1461 ,,; 75 00' 4:::-f1 fr' 1 : ''1: -''','` ,' ***• SEVENTY-FIVE & 00/100 DOLLARS , ' • rf'PAY ` • . . • •sITO THE; ' • i3ORDER City of Renton • HOF: ' ' •• \I ..H:d,'.,., . • i L _____ II'OO L46 /1I' 1: L 2 SO0E10 L 31: OO L L 76404e f-, ,.. , dir --st C-.) r-------r—r--------------------------:------------------MTES '..,,, RECEIPT DATE hi-kg-eV/9 No. 0956 cc '- 9--A ( (4 /./ ..44). _1 . RECEIVED FROM • 1 - r , .•'''' •, . 0 >- ch rss ADDRESS ..1.- /i ...6-el t ------,9'----$ Lij Td71:3 c) 7Al / 2 v f i L. 019-mcl e(i = eLcti co FOR .,,,it. ...1 ,..' i"—:5(.9 CD il E-siLL g ..a •ct ,‘..4, '7.5 ,, 'ACCOUNT.7.').• 2','-,,,• .••r,,:•HOYI,PAID:-`, AMT.OF , CASH AccouNT E.L, E in •••-• AMT. CHECK 1.6-0,e) ) -', 0 cg 5.-::2 CC BALANCE HONEY DUE ORDER ©199s RFP1FORM®8L802 PHILLIPS MCCULLOUGH WILSON HILL & RKSO PS 1461 CHECK • ciprof wrayiN INVOICE# AMOUNT DEDUCTION NET AMOUNT 11/13/00 Filing Fee 75 . 00 75 . 00 al-1'0F RENTON RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • . • cApgy 00 CONTROOIRIER Gross : 75 . 00 Ded: 0 . 00 Net : 75 . 00 TOTALS ------ - - - -- - - ---- - --- ---- _ • 191%4 L5 r , AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) Joan Thompson ,being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 30th day of October ,2000, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIB D,OID SWORN to before me this 3 0 a-` day of©c- -e-re-e,,- , 1999 .0 v o 0. L O ", cJ :0 ato �''13 dam. su • • . _ ; Not ubli 'n and o the State of Washington, ,fl(in��C� residing at (� ,therein. ,;= Applicatibn.,� �e t,ioror Case No.: AT&T Monopole LUA-0 0-1 04,CU-H,ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. • ry t, ?if • • - ' . e� . • . - .: 3 .. - r.;IT u_ �s..• Art' • . u .' 1 HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT r`,,- fl' i October 30,2000 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF LOCATION: 1321 N 30th St. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant is seeking a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit to erect a 50-foot monopole on a 2,500 square foot site of a larger parcel located in a CC zone. The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 3,2000 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 10,2000 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 10,2000 at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 10: Propagation Map application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 11: Propagation Map Exhibit No.3: Set of Plans and Details Exhibit No. 12: Letter From Pacific Telecom Exhibit No. 4: Location Siting Process and Map Exhibit No. 13: Brochure Packet from Larson Utility Camouflage Company Exhibit No.5: Map and Photosimulations Exhibit No. 14: Zoning Map AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30, 2000 Page 2 Exhibit No. 7: Map and Balloon Test Photos Exhibit No. 15: Report by Hatfield and Dawson Exhibit No. 8: Inventory of the five existing AT&T Exhibit No. 16: Series of Photos from Pacific Cellular Facilities Telecom Exhibit No 9: Propagation Map Exhibit No. 17: Rosberg Letter to the Environmental Review Committee The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by STEVE TAYLOR, Senior Planner,Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. Mr. Taylor gave background information on the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the requirements of the Wireless Communications Ordinance of the City of Renton's Zoning Standards. This Ordinance defines cell towers that are less than 60 feet as monopole I,those greater than 60 feet are monopole II. It also defines certain criteria about where these cell towers can be placed. One of the criteria for a monopole I is that it be located in a commercial or industrial area,not in residentially zoned property. If it is within 100 feet of residentially zoned property, it must receive Hearing Examiner approval. Although the monopole would be located far enough up on the site to be over a hundred feet away from the residentially zoned property to the south,it is not able to be located far enough from the western edge because the property has split zoning. Mr. Taylor described the businesses located on the commercially zoned properties surrounding the proposed location. He described the proposed 50-foot monopole I with three-sectored antenna and lightening rod at the top. The applicant is also asking that the 15-foot landscape buffer be reduced to 5 feet of enhanced plantings on the east and west side, and nine feet on the north and south side. This would also allow the property owner access to the rear portion of the lot. This matter went before the Environmental Review Committee on September 12,2000. The ERC issued the SEPA Threshold Determination on October 2. Five Mitigation Measures were also issued. These measures were not appealed. First,the recommendations concerning construction of the site stated in the Geoteclmical Report be followed. Second, a covenant be placed on the property requiring that a row of trees which acts as a visual buffer remain in place. Third,in addition to the landscaping that is required around the base of the tower, fast growing evergreen trees be planted on the entire south property line and the south 200 feet of the west property line. Fourth, in order to reduce the visual impact of the tower itself, it should be painted a color that would blend in with the neighborhood. Fifth, a fire mitigation fee must be paid which is applied to the shelter for the equipment. Some documentation was also required stating that the transmissions from the wireless tower would not interfere with Police and Fire Department radios. Mr. Taylor described the criteria which were looked at in terms of whether the proposed project met these criteria and what the impacts on the neighborhood would be. These criteria include the height of the tower,the proximity of the tower to adjacent residential areas,minimizing the visual impact of the tower on the neighborhood,the applicant's efforts in contacting nearby commercial property owners to see if they would be willing to have the tower on their property,why the tower could not be co-located on the existing towers across I-405,construction time required for the project, impact on traffic ingress and egress, construction noise involved,and the fact that the tower will not need to be lighted. AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 3 Mr. Taylor described the various methods available which allow utility towers to be camouflaged as any number of things, including a trees, flagpoles, church steeples, etc. This monopole is in compliance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Code, and the Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance 4689. It will have a negative visual impact on this neighborhood if camouflage measures are not taken. It is recommended that the tower be allowed in the neighborhood, but that it be camouflaged to minimize negative visual impact to the area. It is suggested that camouflaging the tower as a tree would be the most appropriate form of camouflage for this area. It is also suggested that AT&T be allowed to make the tower higher, up to the limit of less than 60 feet. The reason for this is that it will allow more co-location on this facility and allow the applicant to recoup some of the cost of the concealment measures. Staff would support re-opening the SEPA on this project because if the camouflage measures are done, it would no longer be necessary to paint the pole or have additional plantings around the outside boundaries of the site. Staff recommends approval of the AT&T Monopole on condition that the applicant comply with the ERC Mitigation Measures,that the monopole be disguised as a tree,that the location of the equipment shelter be reconfigured to meet all zoning setback requirements,that the tower not exceed the height of the Texaco sign at the intersection of N 30th St and I-405, and that the applicant comply with all FAA requirements prior to building permit approval. Laurie Chase.,Pacific Telecom Services,425 Pontius Ave N#202, Seattle, WA 98109, stated that AT&T strategically plans their networks. It is very important that they locate their sites in the proper places throughout the region. The Kennydale area for some time has been a missing puzzle piece in their network of coverage there. About a year ago AT&T set out to remedy this situation. They began to look at where they could locate for the easiest and best use, co-location being the first priority. They looked at locating on the east side of I-405 with the two existing monopoles. That location was found to be a very tight space for equipment. It is a small parcel of land and has some topography and setback issues. The RF frequency problem in that area was the major issue. Locating on the east side of I-405 would interfere with coverage at several other sites;there would be too much coverage in that area. By locating at the proposed site,however,the antennas would be directed in such a way that they would not interfere with coverage from other sites in the area. AT&T approached the Texaco station first, as it would be a perfect location, but the owner was not willing to have the tower located on his property. AT&T then approached the Chevron site, and they were also unwilling to do the deal at this time. AT&T also approached the other commercial property owners on the row, but were turned down by them as well. The proposed location is a good choice because it is next to the Chevron station,which is very commercial. The topography of the property is such that the tower would not affect a large number of neighbors. There are 60 to 100 foot trees located to the south and southwest portion of the property,which will lessen the visual impact. AT&T is willing to comply with the ERC's recommendation that fast-growing evergreen trees be planted along the south and western half of the property. The property owner will not cut down the existing trees on the property,which will allow additional buffering. The pole will also be painted a dark color to minimize the visual impact. It will be a benefit to the residents in this area to have wireless technology that will bring good quality voice and data coverage. AT&T concurs with items number 1, 3,4 and 5 of the Staff Report. It is not standard practice in this area for AT&T to camouflage utility towers to look like trees, etc. AT&T may have done this in public parks and Federal lands where there was a need for it.This is a commercial property, and with the fast-growing evergreens and painting the pole dark,AT&T feels that the pole will not have a negative visual impact on the area. Ian Hopkins,617 Eastlake Ave,4th Floor, Seattle,WA 98106, stated that the coverage on the east side of the freeway doesn't meet objectives for this area. If they locate on the east side of the freeway, the tower would be about 20-30 feet higher in elevation. There is a ridge line there that goes along the freeway as it curves to the AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30, 2000 Page 4 east. The signal would overshoot the highway, get onto Lake Washington,then into downtown Seattle and cause a lot of interference on sites along the eastern border. If the tower is located on the west side of the freeway,the signal strength would be contained much better and serve only the Kennydale area of I-405. Paul Miller, 3623 Lincoln Ave NE,Renton,WA 98056, stated that he is the property owner at 1321 N. 30th. He said that while he sympathizes with the Kennydale Neighborhood Association causes as stated in their letter of October 3, he feels their objections on this issue are misguided. Allowing a monopole to be installed on his property would be a way to collect some revenue from his unused land,as well as result in the least amount of impact to the neighborhood in the way of pollution,noise,traffic, etc. Mr. Miller also discussed the need for having cell phone service available in the neighborhood in emergency situations. He stated that he feels having the monopole located on his property will cause minimal negative side effects to the community. Tony Chee, 13028 NE 32nd PI,Bellevue, WA 98005, stated that he had not been contacted by AT&T until 3:00 p.m.the day before. He was sent a notice by the city, and has discussed the situation with Steve Taylor. He stated that he does not know enough about the zoning restrictions in this area. He is confused about whether it would be 15 or 25 feet away from his property. He feels that the proposed monopole will be a little bit too close to his property. He expressed concern about the visual impact on the neighborhood. He is also concerned about possible frequency interference with his tenant's TV,telephone,etc., as well as the possible effects on human health. He is opposed to having the monopole located next to his property. Patricia Rosburg, 1402 N 26th St,Renton,WA 98056, expressed concern about AT&T's claim that there is no coverage in the area. She was able to use her cell phone to call 911 during the Inaugural Day storm when power lines were down in the area. She has used her cell phone frequently on the I-405 corridor coming up Kennydale Hill from various locations. Her daughter is able to use her cell phone in the area without problems. Ms. Rosburg feels that the contention that there is no service in the area is unfounded. She expressed concern as well with the height and kind of trees they are planning to use as camouflage. In addition, some of the properties on the north side of the location are large lots owned by elderly people and will eventually be sub- divided into lots for multi-family homes. Kim Browne, 1003 N 28th Pl,Renton, WA, 98056,represented the Kennydale Neighborhood Association. The Association is concerned about the visual impact on the immediate neighborhood. The monopole would be located at the entrance to Kennydale. The trees around the site that could provide screening from the north are not on the subject site, and could be cut down. Even camouflaged as a tree, it would be a singular 70-foot tall tree with nothing comparable around it. She also expressed concern about the City allowing an additional height of up to 70 feet if the monopole is camouflaged as a tree. In addition, she feels there is a strong possibility of the monopole being lighted. Policy U-100 requires that the locations of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the adjacent land uses. She is not certain that can be done when siting a monopole. Policy U-101 requires collation with existing structures wherever practical. The Kennydale Neighborhood Association would like to have the possibility of locating the monopole with the two existing towers explored more fully. They question the notion that there is a high need to provide this "essential public service," and whether cell towers are an essential public service as defined by the City Code. The Neighborhood Association feels that the community is adequately served at the present time, as noted by the green service level area on the propagation map. This means some people can get reception, but may be "kicked off' at times. The objective of this monopole is to take a level of some coverage and upgrade it to 100% coverage. The cost in terms of impact on the neighborhood might be justified if the monopole had a larger coverage area, but the coverage area is actually quite small. AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 5 Ms.Browne questioned the urgency of AT&T placing the monopole at this time if there is no critical need to change the situation. She feels AT&T has not spend adequate time working with the community in this situation. She suggested that AT&T work with Chevron on locating the monopole on their property at a future time, since there is not a critical need for it at present. Installation of the cell tower is inconsistent with the intended use of the properties along N 30th Street,which is to provide small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel. The Neighborhood Association is also concerned about co-usage at the intended site. Once a cell tower is located on the site,the city will be pressured to located other towers there as well,which will make the problem worse. The Association feels that this proposal would have more than a minimal negative impact,and that it is not consistent with code. They request that the Conditional Use Permit be denied. The Examiner questioned why the coverage level of the area needs to be improved from green to red at this point in time. Ms. Chase and Mr.Hopkins responded that green area coverage can be intermittent at times. Traffic is also a factor. The more people who use the service,the more coverage is affected negatively. At peak traffic times,people are unable to make calls because too many people are trying to use the service. Upgrading the coverage level to red would allow more people to make calls at peak traffic times. The Examiner questioned Mr. Taylor as to what the staffs recommendation would be if the applicant does not agree to camouflage the monopole as a tree. The response was that if the applicant needs this pole at this site badly enough,then they should do what it takes to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. If they are unwilling to do that,then they should find another location. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,AT&T Wireless,filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to erect a monopole within one hundred feet(100')from a property zoned for residential purposes. The applicant also seeks permission to reduce the landscape buffer required around the perimeter of the site. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 1321 North 30th Street. The subject site is located on the south side of N 30th approximately three parcels west of 1-405. 6. The applicant proposes developing approximately 2,500 square feet of the larger, approximately 19,560 square foot parcel,with a monopole facility. The facility would consist of the monopole and equipment shed. AT&T Wireless. ' AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 6 7. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2531 enacted in December 1969. 8: The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Convenience Commercial uses,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the areas to the rear of the N 30th Street frontage for single family uses. 9. The subject site is zoned CC(Convenience Commercial). This CC zone generally fronts along both the north and south sides of N 30th. The CC zone is approximately 300 feet deep along the south side of N 30th immediately west of I-405. This 300 foot deep CC zone includes the subject site. The CC zone then narrows to approximately 120 feet deep immediately west of subject site. The CC zone runs from I-405 west to Park Avenue N. The CC zone on the north of 30th is approximately 130 feet deep between 405 and Park. 10. To the south and north of the N 30th CC zone is an R-8(Single Family Residential- 8 dwelling units/acre)zone. Two small parcels of R-10 (Multiple Family-Options)are located west of Park Avenue, one each north and south of 30th. 11. There is a small office located on the north half of subject site. The rest of the subject site is vacant. 12. The parcel abutting the subject site to the west has split zoning. It has CC on its north approximately 120 feet and R-8 on its southerly approximately 200 feet. A single family home is located on the CC portion of this abutting property. 13. As noted,the subject site currently houses an office. The owner of the subject site would lease out a portion of the larger parcel for the erection of the monopole and equipment shed. The monopole would be located in the CC zone where it is permitted but it would be located within 25 feet of the westerly abutting residential R-8 zone. Any Monopole I facility constructed closer than 100 feet to a residential zone requires a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing. Due to the width of the lots west of the subject site,two separate residential properties fall within 100 feet of the proposed tower. 14. The primary monopole-antenna structure consists of the main monopole, antenna array and a lightening rod. The entire structure will be approximately 62 feet(sixty-two)tall. The monopole support tower would be 50 feet. It would contain an antenna array that would extend 2.5 feet above that. The lightening rod would be approximately 9 feet tall. 15. The monopole would support a three-sectored,triangular antenna array. The triangular faces are each approximately twelve feet(12') across and approximately 2.5 feet high. 16. The equipment shed is approximately 12 feet by 28 feet. 17. The code requires fifteen feet of landscaping plus fencing to surround the facility. Staff had the following comments: "However, due to the facility's proximity to residential property,there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole that cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing." AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 7 18. The CC zone to the north of 30th contains a Texaco station, a single family home, a 7-11 store and a realty company. East of I-405 is additional CC zoning that contains additional cellular facilities. Two monopoles are east of I-405. The Texaco sign, northeast of the subject site is approximately 70 feet tall and was permitted when that property was in King County. 19. Single family homes are located south of the subject site. As noted,there is also a single family home on the CC zoned parcel west of the subject site. 20. Property east of I-405 is higher in elevation than the proposed location. 21. The subject site is approximately 64.25 feet wide and approximately 304 feet deep. 22. If approved,the facility would most likely be constructed during the Spring of 2001. It would take approximately three(3)weeks to build. 23. Staff and the applicant were not sure if the monopole would require a warning light due to its height and its location northeast of the airport. The FAA will make any decision on this issue. 24. The applicant has leased a 50 foot by 50 foot portion in the west central area of the subject site. The site would be approximately 175 feet from N 30th and approximately 75 feet from the main lot's south property line. It would abut the main lot's west property line. 25. The applicant proposed reducing the required 15 foot landscape buffer and proposes 5 feet of landscaping along the east and west and 9 feet north and south. The southerly 100 feet of the overall parcel would remain unoccupied and the reduced landscaping is intended to preserve access for the underlying owner. A wider landscaping buffer might block such access. Staff indicated that the 15 feet of landscaping serves well to screen ground level shed and equipment. The ERC recommended additional landscaping along the west boundary of the subject site and specifically recommended that the examiner not reduce the 15 foot landscaping buffer. 26. The ERC required covenants requiring the retention of trees along the northeast property line or that the trees be replaced with fast growing evergreens. They also required planting appropriate screening vegetation along the south property line and along the southerly 200 feet of the west property line. These protections were aimed at the R-8 property adjacent to those property lines. 27. There are larger conifer trees located off of the subject site. These trees cannot be counted on for continued screening since they are not on the subject site. 28. The subject site and immediate vicinity has approximately 2 percent slopes. The slopes become steeper a block south and west of the subject site. 29. The applicant's studies show that locating its equipment on the east side of I-405 causes technical problems. Its signals would overshoot its desired range and cause interference west of the City. The technical information shows that a site on the west side of the freeway would be better. The technical information shows that coverage would be improved, although the improvement might only be marginally better if the subject site is used. 30. The applicant used balloons to show the potential visual impacts. The studies are subject to AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30, 2000 Page 8 interpretation in this case. The balloon studies do not reflect the visual impact on the immediate neighboring property. Many of the visually buffering trees are not on the subject site and therefore, afford no permanent screening. In similar monopole cases,the screening trees were on the subject site and covenants required them to remain during the life of the monopole. 31. In addition,to the Texaco sign,the applicant noted that there are a variety of 40'power poles and wires in the vicinity of the subject site. The City does have an Ordinance that encourages underground utility lines. 32. The applicant indicated that they reviewed the existing monopole facilities east of I-405 and inquired of other property owners in the area and that the subject site was the best available for their purposes. There were frequency issues as well as directional problems on the existing poles. Either other properties were not available or they may have commanded too high a rent. 33. The following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to cellular facilities: Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks,reduced height,and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts(e.g.,visual,noise,odor, light)on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g., lighting,fences, landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design. 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. 34. The wireless regulations also include language that encourages reduction of visual impacts for all types of wireless facilities. The provision provides: "site location and development shall preserve the pre- existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses." (RMC section 4-4-140.F.2). CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit for a cellular facility is in the public interest and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section Section 4-9-030(I)which provides in part that: a. Height of the proposed tower. b. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries c. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties d. Surrounding topography e. Surrounding free coverage and foliage AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 9 f. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness g. Proposed ingress and egress h. Potential noise, light and glare impacts i. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures j. Compatibility with the general purpose, goals,objectives and standards of the Comprehensive. Plan,the Zoning Ordinances and any other plan,program,map or ordinance of the City. The code does provide for some flexibility in these criteria if it appears to serve the overriding principles of the Wireless Ordinance. It does appear that based on the main criteria that the Conditional Use Permit should be approved but approval should be conditioned to make the use more compatible with the neighborhood and the immediately abutting residentially zoned land. 2. There does not appear to be any reason to alter the main criteria. Nor is there a compelling reason to reduce the landscape screen required. Both the planning staff and the ERC recommended that the applicant meet the landscaping requirements stated in the code. While the site is zoned CC and permits commercial uses, it is immediately adjacent to residentially zoned land and residential uses. The property immediately west of the location chosen for the monopole is zoned R-8. The parcel south of the subject site is also zoned R-8. 3. The monopole would be 50 feet tall and the antenna would be affixed to the top and a lightening rod would be above that. Staff concluded that this tall structure would be visually intrusive and out of character. They concluded this even given the Texaco sign. That sign is part of a land use that was annexed to the City and does not meet current code limitations. The monopole would,therefore, introduce yet another tall, intrusive structure into this community. 4. In addition to the general neighborhood opposition to this intrusive monopole being erected in this gateway to the Kennydale neighborhood,the immediately adjacent western neighbor also objected. His property will be directly affected by the project. The monopole facility will be 25 feet from his residential property. There can be little question about the visual impacts of a 50 foot tall monopole topped by an three-sectored,triangular antenna array. The triangular faces are each approximately twelve feet(12')across. Ground screening,even the full 15 feet which the applicant suggests is not necessary, cannot visually screen the tower structure. There is additional residential property, again R- 8,both west of this neighboring site and south of the subject site. 5. The topography does not provide much relief as there is very little slope to the area until a viewer moves a block south or a block west of the area. Much of the tree cover in the area is provided offsite and cannot be guaranteed to provide any long term screening. Staff has,therefore, suggested that the applicant provide camouflaging to provide a more long term,durable solution for screening the monopole from immediately adjacent residential uses. Staff noted that camouflaging in the form of tree-like branches has been used to good affect in other locations including locations developed by this applicant. There is no reason that Renton and this residential community should not be similarly provided with a method that actually works well to hide a visually intrusive use. The fact that the AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 10 subject site is zoned CC does not diminish in the least the fact that adjacent property is zoned R-8,a single family zoning district and that single family homes are developed on adjacent properties. It would appear that developing a monopole immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property is situation that calls for this suitable measure. Staff noted that the solution is not necessarily a cheap measure but, again, it appears that the applicant has provided it in other jurisdictions. 6. The tower is not only 50 feet tall but it will have a triangular array that is approximately twelve feet (12') on each side at that fifty foot level. This will not diminish its impact but accentuate its intrusiveness. The camouflage suggested by staff should visually diminish the visual impact. 7. The full complement of landscaping around its base shed also appears necessary to screen what will be a utilitarian shed that, again, is adjacent to residentially zoned property. The applicant chose the subject site and chose the lease dimensions. To now claim that it cannot meet the landscaping requirements to screen the facility is unacceptable. The City is not required by its ordinances to provide the applicant with perfect site specifications. The City does provide some reasonable provisions to make sure that the facility is well-screened in order to reduce its impacts on neighboring property. The City's Comprehensive Plan is designed to forge a well-designed community,to protect single family amenities and to provide an aesthetic backdrop for developing its residential housing base. Therefore,reducing the required landscaping on a property the applicant chose is not appropriate. The property immediately west of the proposed monopole site is zoned residential. It needs to be screened or the neighboring property's value for residential purposes will be diminished. 8. The ingress and egress should not create any undue issues regarding access to the facility nor should the infrequent access affect adjoining properties. 9. The operation of a monopole is not anticipated to generate substantial noise although their is supporting equipment. Unless the FAA requires a light to warn air traffic,the facility should not have intrusive lighting or glare. 10. It appears from the record that the applicant did attempt to find or use other already appropriately developed sites. Those locations were either not available or unsuitable. 11. As noted,the Comprehensive Plan has policies that suggest that unless this proposed monopole is appropriately screened,that it is not a suitable project for property immediately adjacent to single family zoned and developed properties. The Zoning Code specifically requires this proposal to undergo conditional use review due to the proximity of residential zoning and uses. There is an occasional need to remind applicants that a Conditional Use is not permitted in an area outright. The use has to meet certain criteria,and conditions may be imposed that will allow it to meet those criteria-that is why it is a conditional use. In this case,not only has the applicant sought to place a conditional use in this location but it has sought to reduce the normally mandated fifteen feet of landscape buffering. So rather then what is required by code the applicant seeks to do less. Staff and the ERC have suggested that the monopole have the full complement of ground level screening landscaping and be camouflaged- an operation that is now occurring in more and more situations. In this case,those conditions appear reasonable. 12. In conclusion,the proposed use is appropriate but only if it meets the conditions recommended by the ERC and staff. AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30,2000 Page 11 DECISION: The AT&T monopole is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. In order to reduce visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood,the applicant shall redesign the monopole to be camouflaged as a tree. Final design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The location of the equipment shelter shall be reconfigured to meet all zoning setback and landscape requirements. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) requirements prior to building permit approval. ORDERED THIS 30th day of October,2000. FRED J.KAUF N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 30th day of October,2000 to the parties of record: Steve Taylor Ian Hopkins Tony Chee 1055 S Grady Way 617 Eastlake Ave,4th Fl 13028 NE 32nd P1 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA.98106 Bellevue,WA 98005 Laurie Chase Paul Miller Patricia Rosburg Pacific Telecom 3623 Lincoln Ave NE 1402 N 26th St 425 Pontius Ave N,#202 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98109 Kim Browne,President Kennydale Neighborhood Assoc. 1003 North 28th P1 Renton,WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 30th day of October, 2000 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. AT&T Wireless. AT&T Monopole File No.: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF October 30, 2000 Page 12 Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev. Administrator Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,November 13,2000. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. -__ • . . . • , .., 37p 36 I)1134 1 3311 31 1 301 23 10811 27-1-2! 717 . ....,0: .•37. li 0 : t : [0:.: 1.1. I ,.•. tr4) I 1 i ..r CIPIMIll JO. blic: : .--4"' : - -' 3IST. ST. f ....i: '... tl 58 ,,. _ .,... • -..,„zs! - ,js, s. • i • - • • 31 1 F,: T F4 : ',.>-••.: •:. .59 ... ct ir'yp i c:i illg i . 12 . ,i. .e A: — •-; . i• ...... --ii Z.1... ZS _....5..L . —CD • 55,7: :f'•''4•14 II: L9 : ,1/4,...4•PT I' 1;2 ' '..1 I 'EU EN ...14441 ik. g r. :: :,!. 4,9- ;? v.335 A t i. OCT . ..... i. .t1 . . 1 § k_ 1. tZ0 10 A -•4 --- .,•- ----—- - N. 30TH a ST. :... ;.•-...•..:•.......,2310mlem,:.,,•,:...f.r.,::;*7 soTH s T 3 /3 ff. , •• e 10 ILI eo 30• 57 m .4 ,s, •33.3 414 •.01...„ 1 .I, .1 Tit 1CP Ei IA i Zlif.;1 tO > . a t < : : ; --- ... • Zt. 310 ."?' • —T" li•1 .; • 2/ \'• sv-, ..,' ;14+tS a 17 18 il• 1 201:1 1 l'7. 23 24 23 CI ; •77%...R•i•-1. \ ' ' ILI. ', '.;: .4..; 4/ ..1' ' '''' • - ••r'=i- : 0 ... ;.. _ • .\ .. .: ..! 1 ‘ss_‘: .• ' b 1-34 3.1.,.34 3. it's.1 21•to 1 ty zi. • : .• :-.-cc,; s• . 5: • cc‘ -I..% 7•5(,, ' :dr'11111 I IvaEil . ' s\ r-f.' ' *co• : • •.. 1: ‘; - 6i. 1 • ': ,,,., • V Cr'''.• r 29TH Sr. 2 ----14 0 1 1 4?. 11 - . 91 : . , 1,4 ,33. • g 1 1 I •• • 10 il ci)n 0: ,,- ;ii;i t y •--L--12)--1 • .04-41...1.._ .. 1, . 1 !. 7 .4 •73 le 17 7.5 1../.21 . ' Ina 24 i • cc (.- 37 111 35 I 34 33 3,, 1 I 30T=.66;27 1 ::—.`770?...7 ";- •: e''._4 i s'pr-17:4---; ,. :, ?..., , 21 - 1::-• •s. 1 .. I . 1 . .61:. El ' • -p-,-q z; 1 _,„_•=112-.-----, 0;m il____ ., Sf 21.? : U ...4 rs)- , -. ../ tit, •• . r ---''',"--". I It . 28TH PL. : lid t : MI Riii ri 1- : 6 :: M En: ::I rt-11:. ,;,' *, . ': i No" • • . `..." T... , ; • 47 17 1451 13 Le I II i ZZ 231`04.4Z .54 !if/ "1 Ul i's :,,:' •••••:., :: : 1 5 r ' -•7-"—ST-.—•—•—•—•—•—g---*—.I. As ;s I i .-7ri •17i-,a -7*- —"-t-'4: •' (=• N. 8411---ST ar•—• 444 4.1 b t Li 3 r \I 2„\ 1• St?V( I,:S 44 I rrl r-Ti _ N JAMES l &MRS : • L4-*....+'`11-' ,1 g ,..:......., ...: I tt f• I 0 ....i .: d:r. _-•• SA•-•.' 1,.4.11.. . 2 r ' . ' .A.k 4;4 _-..----•.-.-_.----- _ --- -,___:.i-.i:------ —/ / .1 i 'L _ _R_._ir 4_.._ ._I _ .. -,_ _. ]_._.,I I_. _ ' _ _e_... . ... ..• • i - i7 _ _ _ _ ::7 _ _ _ 1 8 .l_.--- --. -7----- -• I J E- : 1 1 1-1-. Lpci__ .. .-- .. _ .._ . .___ ____ __ ___ _., .--,=- 1 ., 117-N1 -1,0[6th 51771 1 . 1 ... ---k I 1 -r)j_ I 1 I I I • 1 I I ' ---T.---i . ! n • / • -: 8-f --- IN'rip-5-1Tit -R--f-a- =-1.--- 71 — Fii . -.-. . - • m I i. r-- I I I . I I I --_-_--1....__ .....;_p___.______ ni-- --**4•---, `--T i 16 i 11 _IR i 1 is u --/----- - _._-:,„,.. --,71 1, - ---1 41r-hT1Str. - 17 / , 1 ; --N--31 tlil--Sti- 1 , . 1 1 ______/ Al aviilliltrki II - 1 1 HI li. _ R ..T. _ , , .. . .___J_,._. 11:117p i_ L_ _._ -17:7- • - - I I 1 I I i I 7 tkri 916 N 313 i 1 -N-48 - ----,------i to _ .• . .11._ 1_______1 - ___ • - i 14:J8- -I 1 4- h 1 . c ,1 1 I I I .,,H 1 .-fEii ----:-L-R-7 -11---- i .-1-; R-18" _ .i.: 1 • ...i....) I I 1.. I tJUndi 0 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------,-----11 1--- (1) R781 1 ; 1 i 1 • Illill ,• . F-- ty IR 181 . - . _ 1 111 .111ici isi_11 1 r -(3 - NI je-1- np' -t. ! i. . 1 • „ - - Yll- -- • i---,----l'- • IR bi 1 opR-81 iii H ill 1 i i ! 1 r I , . T i [ . 11111 • " I "CO-i R48 1 I lii Olill II RFP -------il „ -1 , , , ' 1 1 1 R-10 I " ' ii• it'l L)u " " 1 7.______8:1--- C4 i 1 13-0 .i 1 , „ , i ii , l , nhii:ini I IP IR-Idl C C 1 . 1111 1 • -11t,°- rno p-oti-I-T-- t , h,,-r-,-- 1 • i i , , , , 1 , : , ! ,N-110 1 CC 1 . -ali R 8, nILLoi 1 i 1 i li : li 1 , i „ , , Pb...4 CCU --1-' • * . d-i•1- -R-r- -' -r-N .-12t-h-i-gt-i-",--n, , fx 1 R 0 1 ii• W ! ; 11 iii11 - 1R-iPi 0 cc i R 8-.. ,,,, Q I IWIII : I: 111• 1 I : I ' I._L I . IN-Ns I k ! ' i, L ' 1 . /i • i 1 I I i Ili ' 20 LIII IF1 i 1 1 1 ' 1 ----- R -41 81 ,---1 , Rt8 iii , iHn1 iRrOi ..._._.1 ,----11-7_,Ii I--- . ! 1 i •„ 1 \ . ii iiilli R.+8 ', 1111 1 . N 218th1 .8r1 .....„---F ... : _„.._,_ _L_,...J.......1._-_.1.___:.._1..J.. _i______..._.1:7 -E--_-_------IL__1.1 14 1 i I 1 I i I , .--- -- ; ---.0%....;.;_11.....„..;----7. ......., I- 1 \ \ R -IT 8 i i , . ..„......._ _____ _vi__ __T_ __.., - \ ; , , i ., .... D4 . 5 TZ3N ILST W 1/2 . ?.... 31L.) C 'SY ZONING 0 1:4800 41 . + AR + P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES . • 32 T241 . 12/02/99 • : • -NI • • • • . • •• • . • • • Nu MANIC a GENERAL NOTES: am Q I. PERMITS,FEES,AND TESTING SHALL BE PAID FOR .grair.K itivii•a 2. BY ATLI. CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS ON u N WITH REDLINES SHOVING•AS-BUILT•CONDITION ,II, 3. TO ATLI, 4 4¢o I' ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE INI I 4. WITH THE UBC.1997 EDITION. :m • IFWND MONUMENT IN • j 7btl• �� PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE APPROVED BY �jj THE VASXINGTON STATE LABOR L INDUSTRY,AND 1 20 t0 • CASE(6/5/OO • S. CERTIFIED VITH 7HE GOLD SEAL PER RCV 43-22-455. 1�1 ._.J NBs,02.3B•V j N 30TH Y�j 3t6.25' „,„:„.-/,,,,,,, , __ N8,�0�'3B'V1 PER THE RULE CR-103,PREFABRICATED WIRELESS F 'a832.6vRbY—'—""- 6, SHELTERS ARE EXEMPT FROM INSULATION ¢ 832.53'MEAS u FOUND MONUMENT IN REOUIREMCNTS OF THE VASHINGTON ENERGY CODE. sI �j �� CASE(6/5/OW Y¢ ASNTRACTOR REQUIREED TTOPALLOVE CLEARING AND FOR INSTALLATION UOFING `IA — • ':Div: ��• a- P A___P : -� (-_•-•''• ^ APPROACH AND COMPOUND. T777t1 . Pv:` 6T:7'.7 7� FOUND REB L CAP •1..56.7'• ' SMT .6C.)s'y .'.�' :••t'•• ,4 _LSI_6/ a b•IB'S6' I O 19 9 9112 3 0 0 0a1+), I,Ft. . I 2b ;t42 Sri'+ •(•av4,?,;.... I. SUMMIT LEE.SIG 2 1• 1 1 II K•!ir( .,..409e yv''':rA t•P TOP.2y8.5• / ' /f1 ( /• GFNfiRAPMIL I OCATION • !;11 if `••'I'JO' •.p.t, 1 / ' PROPOSED SITE I9iii7 HOUSE _4P [=r`. .�••'••.'•";,' :'I�) 3-(12-I6•)P TOP.25t.0' NAO 27 NAO 93 irti RIDE ,:�+.:0:4 iC G LAT. t1.56.0177IO'OIA70' EL•228.0' r;.l y;�i.1 I LONG. 122'IV56./1�'I2'00.93Y t.,3;{li ELEV..2082'(NGVD 29) VS.216'1(BELLEVUE SOUTH I a '�r S•��' MERIDIAN V.SP.C.S.NORTH ZONE NAB 83. •+'y!4 CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT 1'A `\_ ::R R!.-4 BLDG .,gy11321 p.: CITY LIBJ6. A:!�',••. j• : •i _ VFRTIEAI DMIDi \ • I • L P•24 NAVD BB p . ••A11'7 TOP.231.2 •-B•ALD.•S `- ,L 'rr. ':C; 20't HIG P�N[H MARK IS TIE COORDINATES (TYP•) VASHtNGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM • GRADUALLY REMOVE CROWN LEANING .. '''•;�-L NORTH ZONE NAD 83 IN ACCESS ROAD TO BLEND I CdNC `T.'•.. )• INTO EXISTING CONCRETE i u ELEPHONE BOO- EITY or RFNTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT IA PARKING LOT %'%'C� CENTERLINE -TOP INTERSECTION STEEL ROD SET IN CONCRETE NONU3 PROPOSED GRAVEL ACCESS 2�ti YjP ,jT>' CENTERLINE IN7ERSCCiION PARK AVE.NORTH AND N.J ROAD TO TIE INTO E%I$TIN I ELEV•20126'(NAVOBB) CONCRETE PARKING LOT. pp��,,..�� 4I�D� REFER TO C-1LL F r Q TBM 3• 6•FIR TOP•2p5.• �� �sPC O % A Nr. CONTROL CAP(JEP-2)RIAO Yi " 4~�P PO P / ELEV•213.1' FOUND REBAR L . 1P0'4.J1�{, y�� LEGEND EXTENT OF LEASED i, N !."'i. ..'Pt�'L~�") j/ %3tL6PDT ELEV AREA (i ar' OSs,?�Ob �.�� PP f/Ic POWER POLE V/UNDERGROUND CONDUITS I J —OVERHEAD POWER ® I P PIN FLAG (A I�;� LS \ D CB-CATCH BASIN u __ C��aL,.V� ■ •IN FLAG 10•PINES T0P=242.2' H2O/AI2g10 TS-TELEPHONE STUB GROUP OF COTTONWOOD ,.�•+• �`� 0-3Z LS-LIGHT STANDARD I F- TOP-27711 \ P I\ lb • FH-FIRE HYDRANT V)T9 PIN FLA i2 • �• TREE LINE -, PIN FLAG TRIAD REBAR V/RED —.—FENCE LINE I CO 'ROPOSED 50'-0•STEEL I , CONTROL CAP �' D/V DRIVEWAY CUT E MONOPOLE C/V NEV 1, •�(• 125'-2• 21t �9, 1--•O Cr, ANTENNAS .,��1 •I CEP-2) 0 DECIDUOUS TREES Z co 11'-0' �-_, ELEV=213.1' M-MAPLE ,L AP-APPLE TREE It •q! iiC/704 1:T �, i 4.2< 11 CONIFER TREES I—3 12'AP TOP=231.:' ` ,o•1• YI F-FIR Z ly y �LANDSCAPED AREA, 2 P-PINE _SED 11'- ;,�BRICATEDANDREV PIN FLAG _ GRAVEL RP COMPOUPIN FLAG ASPHALTCHAINLINKFENCE, ' GROUP TREES TOP.315.7'L TD COMPOUND n 36•FIR TOP..73.5' CONCRETET ON A-2.1 : ^ I y SITE•PLAN FOUND 3/4.P'E ' ••..., ••••. DID i I 2�o UNDERLYING IEGAL DESCRIPTION PER FIRST AMFRIFAN TITIF ORDER W.,� B�•x�q • • �RTB93B-[1 a. Mevoa•se+. !al!' ( n LMA(E LANE OF THE VEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D. • \ HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN or EDEN ADDITION TO 7♦i. SEATTLE NO.1,ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME II or oo7o-Me ooio-oe 5.0'CLENC IN CONE FTG PLATS AT PAGES)63,IN KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON. «xa •m 11 ,A!ram JOIN I!Zeo SITE PLAN 1�0'B O . A - 2 • ANTENNAE REFER TO nrvs�ww �ELEVANON FOIL TYPE • (ilk I !L jr-FEMALE TERMINATION . <>.-- —l'i"‘111113 WEATHERPROOF KIT ZO 51 N � 8 to N-MATE ft-PDMDM-S,1/1•SVPERRF%O'-0'1 • GAMMA—FACE 45' t�g1]y 1' V-3 N-MALE QpC 1 t V g • 11111S WEATHERPROOF KIT Cy � FVNREANIENNAS • 3+0 A eIII >. IJPDFAC 14'FEMAIE CONNECTIONS YI • :::: AN NTt 1 \_�TE` ANTENNAS ALl1YP.OM / $ v 1T11S WEATHERPROOF KIT 1 S NA Y R M989-11 GROUNDING K. / LOCATED NEAR TOP OF MONOPOLE g¢ to ui '¢ ALPHA—FACE MIME;;'E""A a N Q Q 140' 111 ICCm3 gO V' 19156e HOISTING GRIP ` 011191 m m IDF3-50A TR•CO- 1 3 • PLAN VIEW OF STANDARD ANTENNA FSI-sDe-In•SwERFUN POSITIONS&ID ENT IFI CAT ION O • (FRONDED BY ERJ6 )SON) - :N�TREEroeE NTS I m 11'6••le'-0•PREFABRICATED Z Q p WPM N-MALE ANDREW SHELTER 0 M Q GENElA100. ^ • RECEPTACLE FRONDED Z 12111I WEATHERPROOF KIT Jff4 HVAC NIT WITH SHELTER 0 O SUPPLIED WITH ®® lar Z}..- SHELTER 1 SHELTER(IYP.OF 21 H-FRAME • ri O N W ]d9139.11 GROUNDING MT. /�/� I LOCATED NEAR IKITTOMOF FUPDMN-MALE U< F V�/ �� _ _ I g v MONOPOLE / .- '.`• RI • � R r w TOWER ELEVATION, �L5PDF-RC NFEMALE 3? P} q-x4 �. a �-y I d _ rt k na RANTE OVA`NAND E "`TA B! .',.' It T' r�•l�lY:s 'fa,1 .". a '1 , •C'. ANTENNA DETAILS S-fi t';�d•F Ili. n ,;•?% K ' A- TA77". ,AB 1'r' . fR�L :.!,,.5+'i I #.„I t 4l-:i .�ka :. 71 it yp .A • •c" .•:Y . y Mwvo mm�Tam WAVEGVIDE SCHEMATIC 7/8"COAX O EAST ELEVATION 0 N A-3 n T • • • GENERAL NOTES: • OV.01 MN III P.M I. PERMITS,FEES,AND TESTING SHALL BE PAID FOR BY ATV. 2. N CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS ! WITH REDLINES SHOVING'AS-BUILT'CONDITION 3. TO ATLT. • ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE ! 4. WITH THE UBC,1997 EDITION. • - • PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR I.INDUSTRY.AND 5. CERTIFIED VITH THE GOLD SEAL PER RCV. { 43-22-455. i / /' LEASED AREA PER THE RULE CR-I03,PREFABRICATED WIRELESS 1 SHELTERS ARE EXEMPT FROM INSULATION € GRAVEL ACCESS RBQO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON ENERGY CODE. Q 1 co6'-0' �` • C- SWING �'•'•Y'•' /7------ •••••0••••J••••••••••�•I••••••••••••• GATES ♦•••• • ......... ..... • 2a•-0' rh\ \rgrg- :. ,;. ,g,... ••••• :••••*.••• WASHED CRUSHED STONE .••1:3�.f 'S iSi.:+{:^ram.?+ �• ••••••••• COXPDUNO AREA Sl0PE0 AT m ♦ .S'`:A;:,_'M,Ag'vS-Cri may'i'.S,H�_ ,��•'.••' -DRAINAGEDVIDE POSITIVE ♦ ..Sti.yr:.. A•:t.,r 17, e 50'-0•MONOPOLE REFAer ER rn..iiC-+ T.'-<3.-.r-, ANTENNA BOOM. REFER 'f iF ,�r , TO A-3 FOR ANTENNA ��' • 7'-0'CHAINLINK '/ \ ` '// QCOMPOUNO FENCE C/• a q.,...[] ' ► DETAILS '�,� •I kb BARBED WIRE • • . �0 ♦ UNDERGROUND ANTENNA I d'r %.• 2 •�-N" CABLE DUCT BANK f' • oa � �STOO' yeH-FRAME 44/CANOPY B'-B I/2. ~•••SUPPLIED WITH 11111. � •••• SHELTER �, _, 111 I , Q 1'-0' 1:1:::* tit n l., /,-4. r 1 !'i i. Pa r' p APCLTO L-1 II to i �, IA pp IF-6.M 2 -� ••EFAIIRICA E. AND.V 1 \` i ri % (' 1111111)1II _' I•`\\. HVAC r L \ 1\\� WITHLIED 4 SEISMIC EQUAL I" HELTER 1 �-ip. RES fRA1NT T7P. FFF �, OF\ c P.OF 2) ~ �\ _. .. 16 TIP !IF ___ _.. _ ip••• Z F7 �► • 16 t 1 p•+pp••iiiii�i, ►!c`•iiit*IPA iiii•i•�• • a .... ► OC _•tee•.�•_ z EXISTING APPLE w.vINs TM. • TREE COMPOUND LAYOUT A 6-0' A rr rw a.r i RP. R.IX • 0070-002J 0070'C COMPOUND LAYOUT 1 ,� all 11 t 1 YN I . • ..,..„::*-,_-.„-./..-t s _y- • ' , i .,. .„.....:,... _ ....,.. ,,,,,4, . i 1 ¢} _`• r �» » �. * s ► + • x f 't i .+r A t +fi • a 'P kr' 'd r a 4' T rt � . '4}is "ri _.. �,. h `..h .fie p.r ��qA - -. `.-''.::•1.-8t. " f''-''''Ct:-.'"E,Allina-.'4.",ie-:. '-: . .. . . .:, ,_,, . . : --" .'- ' .....- ' : . i ' '-4.. ', : IX'• '.... ..„,-,-,-.•••At';•40-i-..b.te,th:-.,.,--, , Igt gyp.. Y. .>S`ht .. .. ' a s.i-fsr$, YZz• �� .i," a st t- } � t'r8�'-- _ � *ro+•s' +�y .t •^c ler • -`.y,;► / _s y .`,"�a r>s, z 'i ti _•_•�4i i s%g;� JO r j •; r 4 -q ,.,�.......,::-..: :'-,-401.4?.. :-.•.,.1.4---."--4..,-.%7A2::. .it.••=',',..wr.. .• ':".1*-" ?"',.".*-74,"-,V, t.,:,-....,--: 1 t ' •',:k:-..0'.., - 77."..'f .4-4.- '-'-'41:',: ,�. . .," ��, it f' Vow - yf : - 3 • ./ - eJ 'S tF4z .b i`x4 i `� R / } t '.Y. .y t Fb i/ey, ,_ ¢_ r1 k Jf . / ""S t `t T e4'; { C ° kv. +O a Y - ;- � " 's• Y fa ` ` ';,• St. Y 'Sa l 4 lot , t1 A , , :. t. .� ` , f ,$t , # d i • ,...,.., „, 1 :iiPP:0-'4',-' F. , , I i: • ,,5 r• .• .r:. / i k '1r : z � MA N �, ` �� r .;, • n`�¢,� . 4 .. _ , j_�ay . _f 3 l /o •,1f. `.. CS :V. 4 urn. .n; •tf °w: -tMlkt ,fi k, F • ei ri r a' ` I* r 'r • er Iv • •yam` e ey'i • A ;sh ra y. +fi i. - yyy• *4•E- ,, r i<.•.y,, f .. CAS 3 s r+�i, 4'' 3 4 Ak • r _1 T ti ak ka • ' ., 4111 pry`- " s. 33 t_'a444.; ,-. .,ter. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION . Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL ENVIRONMENTALION R VIEW COMMITTEE 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee Non- a dailynewspaper seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a le al has issued a Determinationated or off published9 Signifi-cance-Mitigated for the following newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six project under the authority of the Renton months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the Municipal Code. AT&TEnglish language continuallyas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, MONOPOLE 9 LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal Environmental review to erect a newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King monopole with antenna and equipment County. shelter at the base e of the pole. Location: 1321 North 30th The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South Appeals of the environmental determi- County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to nation must be filed in writing on for the subscribers duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice, a before 5:00 PM October 2, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee AT & T Monopole with: Hearing Exa-miner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA as published on: 9/18/00 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal infor- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of Code Section 4 g the. Additional s 9 g 9 mation regarding the appeal process $60.38, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Legal Number 8190 Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Cham- bers on October 10, 2000 at 9:00 AM to • d4 consider the Conditional Use Permit. If �j � the E -mental Determination is appealed, the appeal will heard as Legal Clerk, South CountyJournal part of this public toheatien Interestedhe parties are invited attend the public hearing. Published in the South County Journal Subscribed and swom before me on this r I "day of , 2000 September 18,2000.8190 ```�19co^U2 4,f `v,..•. St0IU A•y!i, .-..-- i ih. L4e_Ci_itL '°U�Llt o:' a Notary Public of the State of Washington o . c, residing in Renton King County, Washington '"":11:i:i 1110\\\ :..:CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 10, 2000 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: AT&T Monopole PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit to site a wireless communication facility within 100 feet of property zoned residential. The project would erect a 50-foot monopole with a three-sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28-foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit, the project required Environmental (SEPA) Review. Location: 1321 North 30th Street. PROJECT NAME: Dykeman Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-101,PP,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located in the north end of the City at the corner of Union Avenue NE and NE 25th Place. The proposal would subdivide an approximately 1.4 acre parcel into 11 lots intended for single-family residences. Proposed lots range in size from 4,500-sf to 8,205-sf. The property is zoned Residential - (R-8) which allows a maximum density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The proposal has a net density of 7.86 du/ac. The lots would be accessed from both Union Avenue NE and NE 25th Place via private easements and pipestems. The existing home located on the site will be removed prior to development. The project will require the extension of the existing 12-inch water main in Union Avenue NE. Location: Union Avenue NE and NE 25th Place. PROJECT NAME: 1:30 PM Vectra P-1 Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-099,ECF,R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject proposal is the rezoning of a small 0.7acre site along Monster Road and Grady Way, from Public Use (P-1)Zone, to the Industrial Medium (IM)Zone. Because this is a private rezone no P-Suffix designation is proposed. This rezone is part of a series of approximately 12 private P-1 rezones of the former Public Use (P-1) Zone. This zone is being phased out pursuant to Council's 1994 direction to do so. No change of use is anticipated as a consequence of this proposed rezone. Under the IM zoning the existing Schober facility would be allowed to expand to the east. This is a non-project action and no changes are proposed within the park as a result of this rezone. Location: 1400 Monster Road SW. hexagenda PUBLIC City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: October 10, 2000 Project Name: AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point Applicant/ AT&T Wireless Address: 617 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle,WA 98109 Owner/ Paul Miller Address: 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 File Number: LUA-00-104, CU-H, ECF Project Manager: Steve Taylor • Project Summary: The applicant is seeking a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit to site a wireless communication facility within 100 feet of property zoned residential. The project would erect a 50-foot monopole with a three-sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28-foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would . occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit, the project required Environmental (SEPA) Review. Project Location: 1321 North 30th Street ]7/l 36 I a u ill J3 I]I i]a z?I I 'r ---- -- �to - --- ;•- - - ,+- -- ---F-- r0:; — ------- -. -- — -- r(��y] I Io I -v ;• -�s,uace i : c` 38' 3 • • •• 58 `, 31ST. ST. - _ �'11 .`I ,• ; :._CD 1I 120!21 2'• :J I a zs --_L.L_•t______'n _--_-_'ti ... � +��•-�SSM1•• i SejRC •1• :.:,I. ,i I�'�qJ� S2 i i I �._?I ;. 3:1,]' ry 1 is Z. '5n1 b _.S7I` i.$ _ 1, L'] ���� � h "F'<<'ii ll5 $(4y.I I b-' t7o 1p N. 30TH 10 w . ST. n 9 = ' ' Q Z. _ 30TH,t STs s---Q � - - 00 .ta, u,.s \ i •o j t� _ _14•I•IS 16 IS 1� I.I 23 24 25 L,_ „. � 35 ]q ], 3t 3 I 7e•zo I t7 rzLe a;i I Sj1\,. ; .�. Er;Ii t 1 10t'l• I I _ 11 rr�' • 6 • 29TH ST. -' a 1 _� ,_a �ll,_ S`1Z.1 0 6 E ,L$J, t Y3 ,o, un ,. , --I H w t S. j�d �d ,e q ©� I?' �zl l� 2a I �.. � � S "�, �b.-� yn' '_ 1 yr a II A � �rd��1� 11 L�J Ll 3 II :.� �e8 ` 37 10 I 13e 30 73 I 30•27 a6 27 ........ 1J'- '�S- ;,k. 1 11;,r�-i»' �'' _ • CI �',� ® a ;tS•t3 _tom -•_. --t_a = III Ei ,I y 28TH PL. _ �` .A. +; I II ilt-------� ' t R P.FK. �O • ,,. .nu,•,o • I _`U - ii.> ti b iI I 1 I r ,, i • 1� I I a I I • I s 11 (mil I , ,; 2, „�� I Iu:15" 16 I7! I Il Ln 1 11 122 12l i'L�„2 �o Ifv 11 uS 4:i,1 `• 5 ,�! I -•r •—S-E—---•—•—•-•—:-6s'— a, u i S •—Iry ''oit •;7F• —.�. — ` N. $TH---ST.-54—• 22 - - 2,794 H2.S e0 ""h Im_J 10 ( S� _ ' J - t •►� r Sr: "` 1 JAMES L b MRS $ I ,�= � .• . 1:-•�: r W Q Ei o° !/J f V 1 / _AND MARENAKOS iTiP ----- - 4r1Jc �� . --'-. - I. - - ---'- - - -I- - ---- - City of Renton P/B/PW Department .-.t.minary Report to the Hearing Examiner AT&T MONOPOLE,COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104, CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10,2000 Page 2 of 9 B. EXHIBIT LIST: The following exhibits were entered into the record: 1. Yellow-Master Application File, containing application, proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to this request. 2. Vicinity map. 3. Set of Plans and Details (26 pages), received July 31, 2000. 4. Location Siting Process and Map, received September 7, 2000. 5. Map and Photosimulations of view from two locations on N 30th Street, received July 31, 2000. 6. Letter from AT&T regarding Radio Frequency(RF)coverage needs received September 7, 2000. 7. Map and Balloon Test Photos and simulations of views from three locations on N 28th Street, received September 7, 2000. 8. Inventory of the five existing AT&T Cellular Facilities located in Renton, received September 7, 2000. 9. Propagation Map showing coverage area of the 5 existing cellular facilities without the proposed N 30th site, received September 7, 2000. 10. Propagation Map showing coverage area of the proposed N 30th site, received September 7, 2000. 11. Propagation Map showing coverage area of the proposed N 30th site in conjunction with the 5 existing cellular facilities, received September 7, 2000. 12. Letter from Pacific Telecom Services dated 9/11/00, detailing attempt to locate facility on WSDOT property adjacent to 1-405/N 30th 13. Brochure Packet from Larson Utility Camouflage Company 14. Zoning Map C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Paul Miller 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 2. Zoning Designation: Convenience Commercial (CC) 3. Comprehensive Plan Convenience Commercial (CC) Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Electrical Contractor Offices 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: The first 130-feet abutting the north side of NE 30th Street from 1-405 to Park Avenue North is zoned Convenience Commercial (CC)and developed with a Texaco Station, a single-family residence, a 7-11 convenience store and a reality company. East: Convenience Commercial (CC), developed with a Chevron Station South: Residential, (R-8)zone West: The abutting proper to the west is a split zone. The first 120 feet on the south side of NE 30 from 1-405 to Park Avenue North is zoned Convenience Commercial (CC)and developed with a single-family residence, two commercial businesses and a Park& Ride lot. 6. Access: Via NE 30th Street 7. Site Area: Lease area: 2,500 sq.ft. of a 19,564 sq.ft. (.45 acre) parcel Hexreport.doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department ._ rminary Report to the Hearing Examiner AT&T MONOPOLE, COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10, 2000 Page 3 of 9 8. Project Data: area Existing Building Area: N/A New Building Area: N/A Total Building Area: 322 sq.ft. C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Zoning N/A 4404 06/07/93 Comprehensive Plan N/A 4498 02/20/95 Annexation N/A 2531 12/22/69 D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 -Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-0701: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-080A: Zoning Conditions—Use Related Section 4-2-120A: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations 2. Chapter 4-Property Development Standards Section 4-4-140: Wireless Communication Facilities 3. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-0301: Conditional Use Permits—Special Decision Criteria for Wireless Communication Facilities in Lieu of Standard Criteria 4. Chapter 11 - Definitions E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Utilities Element F. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The project would erect a 50-foot monopole I, wireless communication facility, with a three-sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28-foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 square foot parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). Project construction is anticipated to begin in March or April of 2001 and would be completed in approximately three weeks, assuming all necessary permits are obtained. The applicant is also requesting to modify the 15-foot landscape buffer requirement to 5-feet of enhanced landscaping on the east and west sides and 9-feet on the north and south sides of the leased area. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on September 12, 2000 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance, Mitigated. The appeal period for the SEPA threshold determination ended on October 2, 2000. No appeals were received. The applicant will be required to comply with the adopted mitigation measures. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Hexreport.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department - , ,,,,:minary Report to the Hearing Examiner AT&T MONOPOLE,COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104, CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10,2000 Page 4 of 9 Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated (DNS, M): 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained within the July 17, 2000 Geotechnical Report, prepared by ADaPT Engineering, Inc., with regard to the disturbance, preparation, and construction of the site. 2. Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line(as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal) be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence. 3. The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200'of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. 4. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. 5. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee equal to$.52 per square foot of the building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to building permit approval. 6. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall verify to the City's satisfaction by testing and/or documentation that the wireless telecommunication system proposed to be installed at this site can be operated without creating radio transmission interference in the 800 MHz public safety radio system operated by the Renton Police and Fire Departments. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Section 4-9-030.1 lists 10 factors that the governing authority shall consider in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit(although the governing authority may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if the governing authority, concludes that the goals of RMC 4- 4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities, are better served thereby). The 10 factors are as follows: 1. Height of the proposed tower. The Wireless Communications Ordinance(Ord. 4689)permits monopole I support structures (poles less than 60 feet in height) in commercial zones, provided the structure is in compliance with Airport zoning regulations. Antenna equal to or less than 15-feet are permitted on monopole I structures, allowing a total height of the pole and antenna to reach approximately 75-feet. The proposal includes one three-sectored array antenna that extends approximately 21A-feet above the top of the monopole structure. Drawings also show a lighting rod extending approximately 9-feet above the height of the pole. 2. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries: The site of the proposed facility is located within the Convenience Commercial (CC)zoning designation. Monopole I structures are an allowed use within this zone provided that the facility has a minimum setback of 100-feet from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel. Monopole I Hexreport.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department . ,s,minary Report to the Hearing Examiner AT&T MONOPOLE,COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10,2000 Page 5 of 9 structures may also be allowed if setbacks are less than 100-feet from residentially zoned parcels subject to a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. The monopole would be set back approximately 110 feet from property zoned Residential (R-8) on the south. However, the two parcels to the west of the site contain split zoning, with portions being Commercial (CC)and portions zoned Residential (R-8). Due to the split zoning, the pole would be located approximately 25-feet from the residentially zoned property to the west and therefore is subject to Hearing Examiner approval. The monopole is situated approximately 125- feet from the existing rental residence,which is actually located on the commercial portion of the abutting property to the west. Current regulations require fencing and 15-feet of landscaping in order to provide a visual buffer of the equipment shelters and the base of the monopole from adjacent properties. However, due to the facility's proximity to residential property, there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole that cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing. Although the Texaco sign located adjacent to 1-405 on the north side of N 30th is approximately 70-feet in height, the monopole structure would be out of character with the height of existing development, especially throughout the adjacent residential neighborhood. Even though the proposed fencing and landscaping could screen the base of the facility, the monopole would be a dominant vertical element as demonstrated by the applicant's photosimulations. Residents of the area have expressed concerns regarding the aesthetic impacts and have emphasized the necessity of exploring alternative sites and options utilizing existing structures as alternatives to the proposed location. The applicant has provided material regarding their review of alternative sites, including collocation with the wireless facilities on the east side of 1-405 (see exhibit#4, 6, & 12). The applicant contends that due to frequency interference co-location was not possible and coverage objectives required a location on the west side of 1-405. The applicant states they approached all property owners with commercial zoning in the immediate area and that the proposed location was the only feasible option. The applicant has not however, submitted documentation substantiating those negotiations. 3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties: The subject site is presently developed with a structure containing the offices of an electrical contractor. Most of the abutting property is developed with commercial uses. A Texaco station with an approximate 70-foot sign, 7-11 convenience store and Real Estate offices are located on the north side of N 30th Street between 1-405 and Park Avenue. A Chevron station, a lawnmower repair shop, a computer business and a Park& Ride lot are located on the South side of N 30th between 1-405 and Park Avenue. One single-family residence is located on commercially designated property next to the Texaco station and another on the parcel west of the subject site. Single family residences are located to the south of the site. Interstate 405 is also located just east of the site. The proposed facility would occupy a(50'X50'),2,500 square foot lease area on the property. Although the site is commercially zoned, the conditional use criteria for wireless facilities requires a thorough evaluation of potential impacts to surrounding properties, specifically residential uses. When considering the proximity of the site to adjacent residential uses, the site would have a definite visual impact to the immediate neighborhood. 4. Surrounding topography: The project site is relatively flat with less than a 2% slope. Surrounding properties to the south and west are of a similar topography, sloping gently downward, before dropping off more steeply one block either direction. Properties to the north and east are slightly higher; rising to the freeway overpass located approximately 300'to the east. 5. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage: Under the project proposal, only minor grading would occur for the foundation and building pad, no filling is anticipated. One fruit tree would need to be removed. There are groups of large conifer and deciduous trees south of the property, as well as scattered around the subject parcel, which are higher than and would provide screening for the monopole(see exhibits 3, 5 and 7). Hexreport.doc ' • I City of Renton P/B/PW Department : .°.::urinary Report to the Hearing Examiner AT&T MONOPOLE,COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10,2000 Page 6 of 9 There are also several large conifers and a row of 20-foot high alder trees along the eastern property line adjacent to the Chevron station. The applicant is proposing to modify the landscaping requirement of 15-feet of site obscuring screening on all sides of the compound to 5-feet on the east and west sides and 9-feet on the north and south sides. They propose utilizing drought tolerant trees and shrubs of various types and sizes to completely screen the base of the pole and equipment shed. The applicant contends there are constraints on the property that do not allow for the full 15'of landscaping around the compound. The subject property is long and narrow(64'X 304'), and providing the full buffer width would leave only a small portion or the 50'X 50' leased area to place the equipment shelter and leave only a small swath of land by which the owner could access the rear portion of the property. The applicant also wants to maximize the potential for collocation of additional carriers on the site. The applicant maintains the modification will conform to the intent and purpose of the code,will not be injurious to, or create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity, and will meet objectives for safety,function, appearance and environmental protection. The Environmental Review Committee was concerned regarding the visual impacts of the project and required painting the monopole, additional plantings of fast growing evergreen trees along the south and west property line as well as a covenant to restrict removing existing vegetation along the east property line. The Committee also recommended that the Examiner deny the modification of landscape requirements. They felt that it was possible for the applicant to redesign the site layout and still meet the 15' landscape minimum. Staff concurs with the ERC recommendation for denial of the requested landscape modification as the project is presently proposed. Should the applicant chose additional concealment measures as proposed below, staff would support an applicant request to re-open SEPA to modify the required mitigating measures. 6. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness: The applicant is proposing a 50'slim-line galvanized steel monopole with a three-sectored array antenna. To reduce impacts to the surrounding area,AT&T lowered the tower to the minimum height reasonable for its effectiveness. Although the proposed fencing and landscaping could screen the base of the facility,the monopole itself would be a dominant vertical element when viewed from various points in the neighborhood as demonstrated by the applicant's photosimulations. Even though various trees in the vicinity provide some screening, most of these trees are located on adjacent properties not under control of the applicant. Whether they remain to provide a visual buffer depends on how these properties are developed in the future. As proposed the monopole support structure would result in an adverse visual impact to adjacent residential uses. However recent technology has introduced a way to reduce the visual impacts of telecommunication towers by camouflaging. These utility camouflaging methods offer a number of concealment solutions including artificial trees resembling pines and firs. In fact AT&T has utilized these methods in several locations throughout the United States. Several companies provide these types of camouflage services at an estimated cost of$750-1000/foot of height. A sample brochure from one of these businesses is provided in exhibit#13. Staff considers camouflaging the monopole (as a tree or other feature)or relocating the facility to be the only way to effectively eliminate the structure's visual obtrusiveness on adjacent residential uses. Staff is also sympathetic to the additional cost that concealment measures would add to the project. If the applicant chooses to pursue this option, staff would recommend that the monopole be allowed to a height of less than 60-feet(monopoles greater than 60-feet are defined as monopole II's) in order to provide more flexibility for collocation of additional purveyors,which would allow the applicant to recover the additional cost. 7. Proposed ingress and egress: Hexreport.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department urinary Report to the Hearing Examiner AT&T MONOPOLE,COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10,2000 Page 7 of 9 The applicant's lease agreement with the property owners would need to establish access and parking rights to the property for purposes of maintenance without restrictions on time. The City's review of the proposed lease agreement would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. Potential noise, light and glare impacts: The facility would contain small equipment cooling fans that only turn on when it is necessary to cool the equipment. The amount of noise generated by the fans would not be substantial. If approved, the facility would be located near 1-405 and the noise from the cabinets is not likely to be heard over the ambient noise in this location. No lighting of the tower is proposed, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant would be required to provide a copy of the FAA Notice of Proposed Construction prior to the issuance of building permits. No external lighting of the equipment cabinets is proposed. If external lighting is proposed at a later date, RMC section 4-4-140.F.6, requires lighting to be down cast and shielded to prevent glare to adjacent properties. 9. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures: The intersection of N 30th and 1-405 has long been investigated by various telecommunication purveyors due to its proximity to 1-405, existing commercial zoning and engineering considerations. There are three purveyors, (GTE, US West and VoiceStream)located on two 50'- 55' monopoles located on the eastside of 1-405 at approximately 2900 NE 30th Street. The applicant seriously considered the possibility of collocation at this site but due to technical issues with the radio frequencies and coverage objectives it was deemed unsuitable. The AT&T also pursued locating on the existing Texaco sign but was turned down. The applicant states they approached all property owners with commercial zoning in the immediate area and concluded that the proposed site would be the only feasible location for the desired coverage and engineering criteria. Based on the information provided with the application, it appears as though alternative locations, especially existing structures in the vicinity,were adequately considered before being abandoned as options. 10. Compatibility with the general purpose,goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinances and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City: (a) Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies The subject site is designated as Convenience Commercial (CC) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The following are applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies: Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g., visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses. Polity LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g., lighting, fences, landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design. 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. The subject site is located adjacent to property currently developed with residences. For this reason, substantial consideration must be made for the proposal's compatibility with the adjacent uses. The existing and proposed screening for the proposal would adequately screen the base of the facility. However, as previously discussed, the impacts from the full height of the monopole Hexreport.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department ..,.minary Report to the Hearing Examiner • AT&T MONOPOLE,COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10, 2000 Page 8 of 9 structure could not be reasonably alleviated without utilizing camouflage technology or requiring the siting of the facility elsewhere. (b) Zoning Code The site is located within the Convenience Commercial (CC) zoning designation. The CC zone permits monopole I facilities with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit if located greater than 100-feet from residentially zoned property and with a Hearing Examiner CUP if located less than 100'. A monopole I structure is permitted at a maximum height of less than 60 feet regardless of the height limitations of the zone provided it is in compliance with the Airport zoning regulations. The proposed equipment cabinet would have a 200'+ setback from the front (north) property line, and an 11-foot setback from the side (west) property line. The west side yard setback is less that the required 15'foot and must be reconfigured to meet the minimum requirement. The monopole structure itself would have an approximate 195-foot setback and a 25-foot setback from the front and west side property lines, respectively. Both, the monopole and equipment cabinets, would have setbacks of greater than 90 feet from the rear (south) property line. The proposed facility, in addition to the existing building, would arrive at a lot coverage by buildings of less than 10%. With the exception of the conditional use criteria and the side yard set back for the equipment shed, the proposal appears to comply with the applicable development standards established in the CC zone. (c) Ordinance 4689—Wireless Communications Facilities The proposal is regulated by the City's Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ord. 4689). Monopole I facilities are permitted at a maximum height of less than 60 feet and can support attached antennas 15 feet above the height of the monopole. According to the definitions established by this ordinance, the proposed facility would be defined as a monopole I support structure with an attached micro-facility. The proposed monopole would have a total height of 50 feet with the attached three-sectored antenna approximately 2%feet above the full height of the structure. Monopole I-structures located within 100 feet of residentially zoned property must satisfy the conditional use criteria for wireless communications facilities (RMC section 4-4-140.G). As discussed throughout the criteria contained in this report, the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the approval of the proposed facility in this location especially when considering the impacts to adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the wireless regulations contain provisions that require collocation, including reasonable efforts in evaluating existing support structures. Specifically, RMC section 4-4-140H states that "no new wireless communications support structure shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the governing authority that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna." The wireless regulations also include the reduction of visual impacts in the standards and requirements for all types of wireless facilities (RMC section 4-4-140.F.2). The provision states, "site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses." As proposed, the facility would negatively impact the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood and must be redesigned to conceal the pole or relocated to another site. G. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the AT&T Monopole—Coleman Point, Project File No. LUA-00-104, H- CU, ECF subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. Hexreport.doc Pir City of Renton P/B/PW Department ; ,.minary Report to the Hearing Examiner AT&T MONOPOLE,COLEMAN POINT FILE NO.LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 10,2000 Page 9 of 9 (2) In order to reduce visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, the applicant shall redesign the monopole to be camouflaged as a tree. Final design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. (3) The location of the equipment shelter shall be reconfigured to meet all zoning setback requirements. (4) Cellular tower and antennas shall not exceed the height of the Texaco sign at the intersection of N 30th Street and 1-405. (5) The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) requirements prior to building permit approval. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit: Two (2)years from the final approval (signature) date. Hexreport.doc • TM PESPIEC VI COMIGKEES Ye IS PC GENERAL NOTES: Ina PPM,or Be SUM PUP USE SI ITC L PERMITS,FEES,AND TESTING SHALL BE PAID FOR ,�EPICS BY ATLT. "'';u 2. CS CONT VITA REDLINES SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS •0 E u N WITH REDLINES SHOVING'AS-BUILT'CONDITION 3. TO AT6T. 4 k o ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE ::m 4. WITH THE UBC,1997 EDITION. jQ°Y' �°' PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE APPROVED BYINDUSTRY,FOUND MONUMENT IN THE VASMINGTON STATE LABOR 6 INDUSTRY,AND 0 10 20 40 I CASE(MONUM) • /�j 5. CERTIFIED VITH THE GOLD SEAL PER RCV 0 -J, NB9'04.38'V / N.3=TH v 43-22-455. o a i r 3�6.25' `. ,_ ,_N89_01'3B'V________-� PER THE RULE CR-103,PREFABRICATED WIRELESS F t a 832.6a'ROS (-' 6 SHELTERS ARE EXEMPT FROM INSULATION 832.53'MEAS iS=w t �PP V/ // FOUND MONUMENT 1N REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON ENERGY CODE. • tl Q I u%j �? M1/ CASE(6/5/00) tl ��7 CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE CLEARING AND GRUBBING 111 III AS REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION or � • APPROACH AND COMPOUND. _ y=rr.• • FOUND REB 6 CAP > =1'01'03.7• SMT REC.•r,' ♦'' :••1. "•)' _LSI 64 =� b=18'S6' Qr +y`p�G •:•I • J`3� /#4.99.1,,„„9,„t2. 2° a;t ,;:.„.1?,;._ 1. SUMMIT ELEC.SIG v./.. • 1 yI `:.FP:.N'1 •••6, Q?•.'n''• at)1•P TOP=2 8.5' IS i. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION �S• - .."'=V`1 .'. ,b PROPOSED SITE 19 1/i v�4..= "''' .'LAY. �';qy HOUSE •rho--49,.N`.. • • .'ig`3-(12-16•)P TOP=254.0' - PAD P7 BIBIL91 ili 1, RIDGE `+•{.,, 1l 1 LAT. 4I'S6.4 7l'I2'OD070' EL=228.0' $:,.'5 'U _•;' • / LONG. 122.11'S(NGVT 2'00.931' 4= �1,'�{;'.w : / ELEV=2082'(NGVO 29) VS.216't(BELLEVUE SOUTH I - '"(a'iy'(' ry ry MERIDIAN:V.SIS RI ARINS.NORTH ZONE NAD 83. wF\��, r; '•e, CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT N'S, ii �':i..•_ BLDG p: 266 I.1036. ~ (!ll�ttt---- .+"', « 81321 VFRTIFAL DATUM •j OP=24 NAVD BB �?(I m TOP=2312 -B'ALD S u • ,Z �=-"�' I - 20'z HIG BASIS OF COORDINATE[ LEANING $^ ' (TYP) WASHINORTHN20NE NADT83PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM • GRADUALLY REMOVE CROWN GARAGE I C�NC ', ,' �_ • IN ACCESS ROAD TO BLEND ,.�I ,'.�.1' ( BENCH MARK INTO EXISTING CONCRETE i .` _ lore 2 TELEPHONE BOO'• CITY OF RFNTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT PARKING LOTN341-TOP 5/8'STEEL ROD SET IN CONCRETE MONUM PROPOSED GRAVEL ACCESS Q>Q' _.�� _ • CENTERLINE INTERSECTION PARK AVE.NORTH AND N.3 ROAD TO TIE INTO EXISTIN 1 •�::::.' 1 ELEV=201.26'(NPV➢BB) CONCRETE PARKING LOT. y�,'tiy' REFER TO C-I /�,(� O'P •IBM 6•FIR TOP=2 5.• ''' 7 1 P�S(F O % AS N/: 1/2'REBAR V/RED TRIAD �y Ly Vpq. ,`� / CONTROL CAP(JEP-2) I( I Y� o-(~♦ P`P� �.P 1� ELEV=213.1' II��V FOUND REBAR•6 Q"T") of LSe 6434 ( (,'Y"",•p4 % D _ O P b /4 31L O0T ELEV EXTENT OF LEASED =, ;;, �.r~�"'' w /3 POWER POLE V/UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AREA ' A "I J0 O4. -OVERHEAD POWER ® 1 F.- PIN RAG �_';� W. LS . CO-CATCH BASIN GROUP OF COTTONWOOD ,t; C_:7 .6 � •1 I FLAG 10'PINES TOP=242.2' H2O/AI(_Q10 ® TS-TELEPHONE STUB u 0-0 LS-LIGHT STANDARD F- TOP=277.8' I b o• � ,` P FH-FIRE HYDRANT V)__ • PIN FLA _ ."� - 1/2'REBAR V/RED T. /v TREE LINE p -REPOSE➢50'-0•STEEL //' A.A ;PIN FLAG TRIAD -•-FENCE LINE 2 co D/V DRIVEWAY CUT F- MONOPOLE C/V NEV 1, jr 25._2•�14 CONTROL CAP �Z� �.C7 01 CEP-2) O DECIDUOUS TREES Z 0 ANTENNAS 11'-0' ELEV=213.1' M-MAPLE `%"_,'.m.J1 f AP-APPLE TREE p= •„� a1,kC'G=l•.�I;( '�, CONIFER TREES F- 214 iii `.,:.. 1. �I �� 12•AP TOP=23Ir ` ' W YI F-FIR IX 2 Z P LANDSCAPED AREA. T5Q' P-PINER a 0 Z /iR REFER TO L-1 _ O PROPOSED 11'-6'•28'-0'I "+vti' La F- V ALL OF TR S PIN FLAG GRAVEL w In J Z WALL FT PREFABRICATED AN➢REW "F,,;:� (L PI "4'TER o AO W 2�> PROPOSED 32'-0• % VT C.).--,IX 40'-0'COMPOUND C/V , PIN FLAG i jj/ ASPHALT 7'-0•CHAINI_INK FENCE. y GROUP TREES TOP=315.7't �„ )1R4. REFER TO COMPOUND H 36'FIR TOP-73.5' CONCRETE LAYOUT ON A-2.l I 1 SITE•PLAN n . IFOUND 3/4'P'E wM,n. w.•�n. 212 ' I Z, UNDfWIftp F RLYYIING BA, LEGAL DFSFRIPTION PER FIRST AMFRICAN TITIE OROFR RP. A Rer0(•ae w a.0s• F OF THE VEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D. CPT MPMACE n • HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO '• Z461 SEATTLE NO.I,ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME II OF 0O7e-0RAD 00)0-00 • 5.0'CLFNC IN CONC FTG PLATS AT PAGES)63,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. AS(IITEB JIB((9 no SITE PLAN O • • I A - 2 • :::: GENERAL NOTES: M CIAO me ITS 1/111.1.411 I. PERMITS,FEES,AND TESTING SHALL BE PAID FORV.:7`Mr 01 Iiir Or _ ' BY ATOT. 2. N CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS uc wv WITH REDLINES SHOVING'AS-BUILT•CONDITION ill 3. TO AT6T. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE I 4. WITH THE UDC,1997 EDITION. • • PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR I INDUSTRY,AND 5. CERTIFIED WITH THE GOLD SEAL PER REV. 50'-0• 43-22-455. / LEASED AREA / PER THE RULE CR-103,PREFABRICATED WIRELESS SHELTERS ARE EXEMPT FROM INSULATION GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON ENERGY CODE. \\ Y` 1 °21 6•-0• I CO C- SWING �Y'•'•Y' 44+ ••••J••••••••••••I••♦ •••••••••1 GATES ••••• • teat.4'.•.14•44`eir 11161 a 11-11k. ItAirsolk, Al' Kt;N. gliq O••pp ♦••♦ ••.►•• NIP ' \ SS.i •••►•• � 3 • ! i �iit►•ii 11E��i 20'-0• �+�; �.ryr ^^���ti_C•+•s��� ••4•• CASHED CRUSHED STONE /��',' , Y._5..:•- 'A'-'•ILF s.l `yS v '••40: — 2%MTOUPR AREA SLOPED AT i / ui'Mi .^+;:;S:G.u'�"14 D%TO PROVIDE POSITIVE • _�y:;4 �o '1y:_ S,w L� DRAINAGE a p, //1' S0'-0•MONOPOLE REFER '��r�';Ci�^i�.'''C'c''�III \!\\�` ANTENNA BOOM. REFER �;_'_'.„�; 1 /II ,•F % C' COMPOUND FENCE c/r TO A-3 FOR ANTENNA i1 DETAILS �.�1` BARBED WIRE A % TI UNDERGROUND ANTENNA• 0,.Atj u A09 2 CABLE DUCT BANK fly • ��I� �STO eH-FRAME 11 m % 4., 4.-0.1, II CANOPY0 1%/ /0 SUPPLIED VITH r B'-8 1/2' .•►•••• SHELTER 3 ••►•• PI LI PI ` / 1' ro w Pro420,•: LANDSCAPE BUFFER. REFER00 f 110) Ail ,' Ili 6•x 2B'-0•PR FABRIC ED ANDREV AN. i • 1411 11 / P. 01. +n 11\\� SUPPLIED U� % _ %'' SEISMIC ITH �. EQUAL j, /I\ VHELTER =co ` /-III Q RESTRAINT TYP. F' ,a1,1,!.:,...,::;.:. \ �� / Pfltt TYP DF _ \•♦ P.OF 2) z O 16 1 I IIi:C+ . a_i , ::*::.:::8::.-:-4" -...."44. A .44:1,,....,.,,,:::÷„,:„.:::,,, .:r.i ... ,.................. ...,......••.....,::,..:::.::::::;,::: ,. _,.,., ,_ x....__ ................x.v,„.,,„.:.:.................,.............,,.... . ,. t..,„ In....J(TI Z EXISTING APPLE m.wc. • TREE COMPOUND ' LAYOUT / 6 0' ,. 2B-0• '✓ 6'-0. / 01.00 n. °,..n. PP. AIR • • COMPOUND LAYOUT °°'°-�2.1 °°'99Dp AS NOTED JOH 19 201 ANTENNAS REFER TO ELEVATION FOP.TYPE to pH l !s $-FEMALE TERMINATION '— 231215 WEATHERPROOF MT 1 o N •E 11.1 \v/11,,,,—FO Mn —_y e Ft-PDMDM-L 1/2•51/RERFLEXOr-0l GAMMA-FACE 6 45' �"-MALE V-3 221213 WEATHERPROOF KIT 1' F1mFREANNrIAs � LSPDF-RC 4FEMALE CONNECTIONS r :::: 1., NAf 221213 WEATHERPROOF KIT (TYP.OFW LOCATED GROUNDING O �j..C...;:j W..R—LIDCATED NEARTOR OF MONOPOLE �¢ AI \ WT L u o '¢ ALPHA-FACE /n MT OF ANTENNA lir 50,STEEEE`¢ 140• I ". r V-1 19256 8 HOISTING GRIP m ��lllm3g f�F33DA2/9•COAX V m PLAN VIEW OF STANDARD ANTENNA Fv-3DB,v2•SUPERFLEL POSITIONS&IDENTIFICATION O (PKOV DED BY ERC ON)1 N p TREE TO BE „ NO . \ • o 1. TI•a•.21.-O•PREFABRICATED Z• p O` F{PDM N-MATE ANDREW SHELTER O M Q GENE0.A100. ^ _ • RECEPTAQEPROVIDED Q 0 z; IIR13WEA1HE0.P0.00F YJT n "VAC NIT WITH SMELTER c 0 O SHELTER / SVPP LIED MIN SHELTER(TY OF21 ®®H-FRAME G v z.,Z 2OCAT9-22 GROUNDING KIT, /I - (�` I I( A, / g 8,722 LOCATED NEAR BOTTOM OF �NPDM N-MALE (1 �V\V! 1`` /311 I /// MONOPOLE RIB • ti I 1 1 nut... TOWE0.ELEVATION. D L3PDF-RCN FEMALE E��, c.:; �S: a ii L" A"',p4 i"Z"N(,i rT t"�e il'L�, ANTEWAVENNA VI DE, r_ • '•• :'' iS TT, i C �i i 4". ,SV+:,,., 1XR Lwrn wav n. y'', !. 4 ,.yam.'.... YS: .SY t'ry���u uM '}ti �;...a+` Yy'"Wj} uoru rrorto rn WAVEGVIDE SCHEMATIC 7/8"COAX O EAST ELEVATION 0 E • • • • 0,19.14Vri Pe Si Ilt 93Li MOM,0-De PLO RP Lai 11 1.1. V..NO OS PT11.1.11il .1 01.11P110 MOAN II( DI BIB.REMOVE ALL STRINGS, STAKING L GUYING REQ.]]ON ,,,��',�„"'i",• TWINE L SYNTHETIC WRAP. w FOLD NATURAL BURLAP • TREES NrK onra UNDER OR REMOVE 5'L TALLER, (2)BVC LEGEND LODGEPOLE o a COMPACT ALL BACKFILL B STAKES(HIGGINS CORP.- OIOUANT.BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS HAND METHODS AND VAT (453-836-4643) INSTALL Illk TO REMOVE ALL VOIDS VERTICAL Ali"' e w 8EAWESTD BEROR➢ AT • BRAYQSTO 2'ABOVE FINISH ACER RUBRUN'ARMSTRONG' 2'CAL.,IO'-12'LNTF,ORMLY BRANCHED SPELIMENSI ';;;•;??•:i••••••••`••• �'•':::':•::•':�•••GR4OECHARABRD(RIEI�'RIMIER • „ ARMSTRONG MAPLE BLH BRANCHED BETWEEN 5'-6' /��� ��� �,.,.,•, NATURAL SPREAD 1 DISTRIBUTION •1• •1 1• CUPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAN011 BIB FULL AND DENSE,UNIFORMLY }'}.•••:a := '�''ys?�/IIII� -:�:.:..:': LEYLANO CYPRESS BRANCHED 70 BASE _ ...Y:, 'tl i 2'DEPTH MULCH �' ^I•• ;;Ey� IR ",.•sy'.roi,,•,' o MYRICA CALIFORNICA/ 5 GAL.CONT, FULL AND DENSE,UNIFORMLY ��:' ,A L'F FINISH REATE WATER BASIN j� CALIFORNIA BAY LAUREL BRANCHED TO BASE j� +*U-. +�;rw.7,"4.r�V 94 GRADE ��j� 'k,�,i?; PLANTING PIT BACKFILL pO COTONEASTER PARNEYN 5 GAL.CONT. FULL AND DENSE % --.1b• 1 u PARNEY COTONEASTER .%_,} /�''' ). In .4, COTONEASTER'LOVFAST' 4•CONT. FULL,24.O.C. TRIANG.SPACING �//�"4 C_ %/ LOVFAST COTONEASTER /j j EXCAVATE PIT 12'DEEPER I TWICE ., ;;v: THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL OR TOPSOIL NOTES ' '.. allV.��� �,'•:i::;:, ROOT SPREAD.SCARIFY SIDES AND 1OVEREXCAVATE SUBGRADE AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR 6'COMPACTED DEPTH IMPOF -� �{ > BOTTOM OF PIT BY SHOVEL CUTTING TOPSOIL AND 2'COMPACTED DEPTH MULCH SCARIFY OR ROTOTILL SUBGRA➢E TO A MI •%/r T {{B{�''� ANGLE SIDES,VERTICAL SIDES NOT • 4'DEPTH. REMOVE DEBRIS L STONE LARGER THAN 3/4'1N ANY DIMENSION REMAININ( !qi \\�`, ON THE SURFACE AFTER TILLING. ACCEPTABLE % ,\• 7F WATER ENCOUNTERED,RATS 2 PLACE IMPORTED SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL!N TVCI LIFTS.(U PLACE MIN q'DEPTH ����!! BOTTOM OF PIT ABOVE WATER COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL TOPSOIL AND ROTOTILL TO A DEPTH OF 8 INCHES TO INCORPORATE 44�( 11 1 LEVEL. AT SURFACE,FEATHER MOUND TO SUPPORT TREE NEV TOPSOIL WITH SUBSOIL.(2)FOLLOWING TILLING,PLACE MIN.2-INCH DEPTH TOP; 5 1 !, N MOUND INTO SURROUNDING GRADE AND COMPACT. p S!p • PLANT STANDARDS %'� 1� \\ BIil TYP,TREE PLANTING-DECIDUOUS I CONFORM TO FOR GTON STATE DEPT.OF AGRICULTURE(VSDA)'VASHINGTON STATE % �� �� • , BJ}pi STANDARDS NURSERY STOCK,ORDER NO.(ANSI). % C• ;,�„ NTS 1 2 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE(ANSI).ANSI-Z 60.1-19136 AMERICAN STAND! �.tiv: .� 11//�•��)) R•1 /i•► i FOR NURSERY STOCK � •Q • �/��1-�Z•:•'•:"^•. •F�� 3 AMERICAN JOINT COMMITTEE OF HORTICULTURE NOMENCLATURE.STANDARD PLANT NAME: • fj :•::•}•,'•••' ••'7,•,,0:;4 1..e�.t.RAIlr.}•{.yam.} CURRENT EDITION / � •%'•_.'•.•}:••,•i:.••� Ilri BIB.REMOVE ALL STRINGS DELIVERY,STORAGE,AND HANDLING 1Int• TVINE L WRAP PLANT SO THAT ROOT MASS PROTECT PLANT FROM HARM AND DAMAGE AT ALL TIMES, PROTECT TREES DURING _ IS AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE TRANSPORT BY TYING IN BRANCHES AND COVERING ALL EXPOSED BRANCHES. EXISTING IV DIA APPLE COMPACT ALL BACKFILL BY FINISH GRADE, SPREAD ROOTS E[ HAND METHODS AND WATER FOR NATURAL SPREAD L JOB CONDITIONS TO REMOVE ALL VOIDS DISTRIBUTION PLANT DURING PERIODS NORMAL FOR OPTIMUM GROWTH,AS DETERMINED BY SEASON, WEATHER CONDITIONS,AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE. PLANTING OPERATIONS MAY BE • 2'DEPTH MULCH,REDUCE CONDUCTED UNDER UNSEASONABLE CONDITIONS BY ACCEPTING FULL RESPONSIBILITY LANDSCAPE PLAN DEPTH AT FOILAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT,RESULTING LOSSES. • UNDERGROUND CONDITIONS S° CREATE WATER BASIN BE FAMILIAR WITH UTILITY,MECHANICAL,AND ELECTRICAL PLANS SO THAT DIGGING 1/8'=l'-0' OPERATIONS➢O NOT DAMAGE LINES FINISH GRADE. )a R ' •REPARED PLANTING BED WARRANTY • to •• 1tie 1 WARRANT ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR HEALTHY.THRIVING CONDITIONS FOR ONE YEAR T Mull - I%{�\ =L:1 FOLLOWING PLANT INSTALLATION. 111 Id t. '..aT 0�1- 'CANTING PIT BACKFILL 2 DURING GUARANTEE PERIOD,IMMEDIATELY REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL DEAD. . B,r._O 111I t P l y EXCAVATE HOLE 3'DEEPER I DISEASED,DYING,BROKEN OR DISAPPEARED PLANT MATERIALS(DUE TO ANY CAUSE, III 14� y FUl IIIII33 TIMES THE DIAMETER OF EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW). USE SPECIFIED PLANTS AND PERFORM AT NO 'II:le1 typ�J,..P O 1' THE ROOT MASS.SCARIFY ADDITIONAL COST TO THE D.THE 'I�II�' • L IB FT 11=LItl O8$0 SIDES OF PIT BY SHOVEL 3 DURING GUARANTEE PERIOD,THE GUARANTOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING R LI) IP)I.I LO H PLANTS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED BY VANDALISM,ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY OTHERS, CUTTING OR ACTS OF GOO. SHRUBS 4'L TALLER,PLANT COMPACT NATIVE SOIL UNDER PLANT DUALITY AS PER TYP.TREE PLANTING PLANT TO AVOID SETTLING 1 PLANTS SHALL BE FRESH.WELL FOLIAGED,IN PRIME CONDITION WHEN IN LEAF.AND - • OFDISEASE. EXHIBITING NORMAL HABIT OF GROWTH. ALL LEADERS AND BUDS INTACT,FREE OF DI INJURY,AND ANY SIGN OF INSECTS.FREE OF SEEDS,WEED ROOTS AND C CONTAMINANTS. TYP. CONT./B&B SHRUB PLANTING° 2 PLANTS ARE TO BE NURSERY GROWN. u 3PLANTS TO BE ACCLIMATED TO THE PROJECT SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. NO NTS 2 COLD STORAGE PLANTS. 4 BALL AND BURLAPPED(BIB)STOCK IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A ROOT STRUCTURE SUFFICIENT TO INSURE SURVIVAL AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ~'I) 5 CONTAINER GROWN MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT ROOT TO HOLD THI i In BIB.REMOVE ALL STRINGS, THE EARTH INTACT WHEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTAINERS BUT NOT BE ROOT BOUND. CD TWINE L SYNTHETIC WRAP, STAKING I =GUYING REO'D ON TREES co FOLD NATURAL BURLAP 5'I TALLER. (2)BVC LODGEPOLE FERTILIZER UNDER OR REMOVE STAKES(HIGGINS CORP.- 'FORMULA 4-2-2'TRANSPLANTER'AS MANUFACTURED BY PACIFIC AGRO CO., 1—CD (453-836-4643) INSTALL VERTICAL APPLY AT RATE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S PRINTED INSTRUCTIONS. Z(h COMPACT ALL BACKFILL BY :. •SECURE TREE TRUNK TO STAKES 2 AGRIFORM TABLETS.21-GRAM SIZE,AS MANUFACTURED BY AGRIFORM INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS, HAND METHODS AND WATE':2?. WITH CHAINLOCK 62 BY LISTER CHEMICALS,INC.20-10-5 ANALYSIS. APPLY AT RATE OF. TO REMOVE ALL VOIDS SHRUBS.1 TABLETBLTS d{—3 PLANT WITH ROOT CROWN AT • OR UP TO 2'ABOVE FINISH MULCH ZCe GRADE. SPREAD ROOTS FOR STEERCO,GROCO,OR OTHER APPROVED COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE FERTILE MULCH. ¢ Z NATURAL SPREAD L DISTRIBUTION COMPACT ALL BACKFILL BY PLANT SO THAT AT LEAST • _ f Z I- �':::`$'r.::iE.l PLANT INSTALLATION HAND METHODS AND 2/3 OF ROOT MASS IS IN W I-- 2'DEPTH MULCH I EXCAVATE PLANTING HOLE. WATER TO REMOVE ALL SPREAD ROOTS PLANTING BED. .�+ U7 J N Z 2 PLACE PLANT IN UPRIGHT POSITION 1N CENTER OF PIT,REMOVE ANY ROOT COVERING VOIDS SPREAD FOR �_ ( AS DETAILED AND SPREAD ROOTS TO HAVE A NATURAL SPREAD AND DISTRIBUTION. a A 0 LI FINISH .':r:.:.... /---CREATE WATER BASIN 3 BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL. TAKE CARE NOT TO INJURE ROOT SYSTEM. NATURAL DISTRIBUTION AI GRADE '" / THOROUGHLY PACK AND PUDDLE SOIL AROUND ROOTS. 2'DEPTH MULCH,REDUCE • 1 Ord I PLANTING PIT BACKFILL 4 FERTILIZE AS SPECIFIED. DEPTH AT ROOT COLLAR wwc ti --Li�L: ii.1� AIly n-_ 5 STAKE AND GUY AS SPECIFIED LANDSCAPE ' II'1 ' 14 6 AREA IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION OF ALL PLANTING,THOROUGHLYT WATER PLANTING 1'' II 'u■ AREA THEN MUCH ALL PLANTING AREA TO A MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH OF 2 INCHES REPAREO PLANTING BED PLAN tt �. AND AS DETAILED EXCAVATE PIT 12'DEEPER L TWICE FINISH GRA .` > I THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL OR Fes• �) ��5 Du.n^ anv P. II. MAINTENANCE v ...•. .i °Il=tl=�iil ROOT SPREAD.SCARIFY SIDES AND 1 MAINTAIN PLANTING AREA FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR UNTIL THE END OF THE :.. 1.....,.... AP. BOTTOM OF PIT BY SHOVEL CUTTING. WARRANTY PERIOD. ANGLE SIDES,VERTICAL SIDES NOT 2 WATER PLANTINGS AREAS BY THOROUGH SPRINKLING. PROVIDE AS NEEDED TO KEEP y:0 .:"i'`-e,- uo r- rmin w IF WATER ENCOUNTERED,RATS= ACCEPTABLE GROUND HOIST AND PLANTS HEALTHY. PREVENT SOIL EROSION. ^a= '•15 -`�'<�`ntit :•+,' aOTa-OBLI 0070-08 3 PRUNE.CULTIVATE,FERTILIZE,SPRAY AND PERFORM OTHER NECESSARY OPERATIONS. •• .• BOTTOM OF PIT ABOVE WATER COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL 0.L:=6wl�;ytl4G&_=C" Y):151A.€F�:1}I:I� LEVEL. AT SURFACE,FEATHER MOUND TO SUPPORT TREE —"'�""��'�•""__'""' yrt MOUND INTO SURROUNDING GRADE AS NOTED JUN IX 200 TYP, TREE PLANTING-C❑NIFER TYP, 4" P❑T/SPRIG PLANTING NT•S • O NTS O L - 1 . - / 18 :: I 1 1 ! 1 1 I i _ -..-. .-._ii: V �. -t_._IL1T �(_ ,It_ __ , Tx--. fiy:211 •Y" f/ I r/ Lr l- ! I 1-11--t-i--1-iiii I • I,� - ri i i IL=ui/ . , 8 —CPS-, --- 5 —R±L8J j_,_,_L_Lj____L_Lj_ ,---±-....R.......,_8___________ , ---, . ,_ 1 a ; 1 p 1 1 I 1 ----1. i --7----f---- -th4th; S � 1 ,__i__ __-_- _ I I : 1 1 1 1 i 1 -N 3 t�- — voli 1 I ! IIjcT W#H .I,-1_ i — i -- i._.__ R ( -� I I I �Iv j � • !8 1111 , 1 I ! I i III 'i - --L_ r,°,-- —� — o D f,At ..: R-�8 2 R78, I I I�i , . I ! I 1 1 I -- 1. I r — IR 18 , II ; ! • j N;-3 n4I1 : I, R81 1 Ii1111 ! I IRS ---- ' ! � ! 1 1 ' 11 3�`��f i�� I 1 ! 8 • R8li IIR-BI 1 , I U �-- - - -• 1 IC�8 1 1 i t ! I 1 � 1 1 1 1 ! I 1 1 ------1 I J��G I l i ! R-l8 I C C R!81 ,1 - rI �t! rzIiT -;�- 1 I 1 „ 'I11 ! it 10 CC 1 1 To R-8 R 1 f ' ' 1! I i I ! II : 11 '10 CC' I f 11[3-01 ii. 1 1 : ! 1 1 , 111 - 1R-iEci 1 i /' b. C ' 1 f I t l ? I l i � 1 1 ! I. c I � � ' /I i._L R 8 - 0_8 1 • 1 I I ; ! I i ; I - - - I I •ii14114,,, I R -8 1 I i I 1 iN ' i ; ! 1-i 1P11 . Ri-8 I ' -- I' 81 1 ! ' R-8 I i N 218thi �1. '1,,.. L. V\ fli\ \ R 'i-- 8 I, .,.i 1 1 ./..x.,,,_ _ ..._ ..__. \s„ 1 , • , \ , , -/-7 ' ..- . -. —7 • H- D45T23NR$EWi/2 . 4 RQo 1`SY 0 . G n 4' ZONING 1:4e00 PM/PP/ TECHNICAL SERVICES • N �N.t0 • 2 TZ. 3 4 CITY OF RENTON Ke+-' .s"yc�cl.7,P✓ 1, 3 pwl 1211 N 28th Place P . • a. N CT 4 Renton, WA 98056 • RECEIVED www.kennydale.org +J� ac A t�'w CITY CLERK'S OFFICE L5 U October 3, 2000 I U Page 1 111 5lf ARING EXAMINER Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 RE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point Conditional Use Permit Project No. LUA-00-104, CU-H, ECF Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: On behalf of the members of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association (KNA), the KNA Board of Directors has taken a position opposing siting of the AT&T monopole at 1321 N 30th Street. We ask the Hearing Examiner to deny the requested Conditional Use Permit. This letter explains our position. Aesthetics The monopole is located at the primary entrance to the Kennydale neighborhood. As evident by Attachment A-1,2,3, the monopole would be visible from N 30th Street. The pole would become an eyesore and a distraction because of its unusual distance inside the neighbor- hood. People are accustomed to seeing cell towers adjacent to freeways or within an indus- trial area, not within small-scale commercial development and adjacent to residential areas as proposed. In addition, Kennydale has two existing cell towers on the east side of 1-405 near the Arco Station off NE 27th Street. Co-location at this location should be a top priority. Aesthetics at the entrance to our neighborhood is very important because it is where visitors and residents make first impressions about the quality of Kennydale. KNA is making this area a top priority for neighborhood beautification including installation of new landscaping and an entrance sign at the corner of N 30th Street and 1-405 southbound exit ramp 6. It would be a shame for our community if a proposal that would diminish the aesthetic quality were ap- proved, "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit." 11)/G1 Ei 1211 N 28th Place OP_ � F N7L�i wwkennydale.org c c d-vw • Page 2 Consistency with intent of Current Zoning and Highest and Best Use The City has an obligation to communities to ensure that development proposals are consis- tent with the intent of the established zoning. We believe that any use approved for the prop- erty in question should be consistent with the zone and provide services that the zone in- tended. A cell tower is not consistent with the purported use of Convenience Commercial zoned properties. According to the City Comprehensive Plan: "Objective LU-FF: Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel" (Renton Comprehensive Plan, Convenience Commercial). The proposed use of the property in question for a cell tower would preclude future uses that would meet the intent of the current zoning and provide valuable services to our community. There is limited available property at the heart of Kennydale (N 30th Street area) for non- residential development. From a community perspective, the property in question could pro- vide a higher and better use. Our community is experiencing and will continue to experience rapid growth in population over the years with the development of Port Quendall, Southport and completion of the Alexan and Bluffs Apartments. The demographic changes will con- tinue to increase the value of commercial properties on N 30th Street and the need to site community facilities such as a new fire station, community center and retail establishments. The City planned for our community's needs by establishing the current zoning. Installation of a cell tower is inconsistent with the intended use of the property and diminishes the property's value to the community. Placement of the tower on the east side of 405 near existing towers or close to the 405 right of way would not use property that has a high redevelopment potential. These are the best options for Kennydale. Setting a Bad Precedent KNA is very concerned that if approved, a bad precedent would be established and a poor situation would deteriorate further with the siting of additional cell towers on the proposed site or vicinity. The City has a policy of co-location for cell towers increasing the probability that this would occur. Our community has an established area for cell towers near Arco east of 1-405; the AT&T tower should be placed there. "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" KE.,VLNIyGZotte 1211 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 ��� �� N���o-rhood� www.kennydale.org 1 • '1! '1P A r,o-w ♦ Page 3 We have a number of questions concerning future demand for cell towers on this site or in the vicinity. If this site is approved, will Pandora's box be opened and our community's ability to limit cell tower placement be jeopardized? 1) If in the next 20 years the population of cell phone users doubles, will the need for cell towers also double? 2) Does the City establish limits to the number of cell towers that can be placed in a neigh- borhood? 3) What happens to established cell towers if technology makes their use obsolete? Does the City have a policy that the owners must dismantle them? Better Alternatives for Placement The proposal is especially unsettling given that better alternative sites exist that would meet the needs of AT&T without diminishing the quality of our neighborhood. These sites include Texaco, Chevron and Arco properties (see Attachment B). KNA believes that everything pos- sible should be done to site the AT&T tower with existing cell towers east of 1-405, near Arco. KNA is familiar with the siting process undertaken by AT&T, but is not convinced that due dili- gence occurred. Nor the City or KNA have been supplied with documentation verifying con- sultation with the aforementioned property owners or the reasons why AT&T's request for a lease was denied. Because this proposal significantly impacts our community, we ask that the City, Pacific Telecom Services and KNA work together to find a better solution. Perhaps in partnership and with the possibility of revealing the implications to Kennydale from the cur- rent proposal, the property owners of the potential sites would be more willing to cooperate. Timing is another consideration. KNA spoke to a representative from Chevron who stated that Chevron Corporate out of California are currently evaluating and forming a policy as to whether Chevron wants to provide sites for cell towers on its properties. It is evident that there could still be a possibility that Chevron would approve a cell tower. Consequently, this siting should be delayed until an official policy is adopted by Chevron and further negotiations are undertaken. KNA requests additional information regarding the coverage that could be provided from the Arco site on the east side of 1-405. This location is preferential because it provides for co- location of cell towers in our community. We also request the names of the owners of the two existing towers and information about the coverage provided by them. Evidently, locating on the east side of the freeway works for these cell providers and raises questions about the suitability for AT&T. "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" Ke.sewvyci-a-I 1211 N 28th Place ' N y�� Renton, WA 98056 www.kennydale.org 497110• / A i vi, • Page 4 The August 18 memo from AT&T Radio Frequency Engineer, Ian Hopkins (submitted as At- tachment C) states that "If the antennae were located on the east side of the interstate they would have to be orientated pointing back to the lake. ...thus reducing the capacity of our network." We have a few questions regarding this analysis. 1) What is meant by "network" —the proposed new coverage area? 2) What would be the coverage if sited east of the freeway? Show a coverage map and pre- sent proportional changes in coverage. For example, "east siting would result in 90% cov- erage compared to 100% intended coverage with the current proposal." Only marginal deviations wouldn't justify placement in a sub-adequate site on the west side of 1-405. KNA must insist that all available technology is explored to make the east side of 1-405 work for AT&T. We want to protect the visual quality of our neighborhood and co-location meets this objective. Consistency with RMC 4-4-140 Goal 3 According to the Renton Municipal Code regarding placement of wireless communications fa- cilities Goal 3: "Encourage users of towers and antennas to locate them, to the extent possi- ble, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal." As this letter describes, there will be a more than minimal negative impact on our community. The proposal is inconsistent with the City code and therefore should not be allowed. Marginal Benefit vs. Community Cost According to the propagation maps provided by AT&T, the proposed cell tower would provide very limited additional geographic coverage and only a small increase in service area that would be upgraded from green "minimal building and auto coverage " to red "optimal cover- age". This new red area extends approximately from N 32nd Street to the north, Park Avenue to the west, Jones Ave NE (if extended north) to the east and NE 24th Street to the south (see Attachment C). It is apparent that the current "green" service areas would experience most of the service up- grade from the proposed tower. It is also apparent from studying the existing coverage maps that "green" coverage is not unprecedented in the south I-405/Renton area. There doesn't seem to be adequate need for hasty, poor placement of an AT&T cell tower in Kennydale. Current coverage is in line with current AT&T coverage standards for the area. "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" 7(e.1,LVlyacttPi 1211 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 www.kennydale.org r�1 N.1'• 1 j� A �,o-so Page 5 We question whether the marginal benefit to AT&T customers is sufficient to warrant signifi- cant public costs to our community. We must insist that the Conditional Use Permit for the proposal be denied and that additional siting effort takes place. It is clear that the need is not critical and that there is time to make a better decision. Final Remarks AT&T is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to site its monopole in our community. By City definition conditional uses are "Uses with special characteristics that would not generally be appropriate within a zone district but may be permitted subject to review by the Hearing Examiner to establish conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare." The proposal is not appropriate within our community's valuable Convenience Commercial zoned area. No mitigation measures could appropriately mitigate this proposal's impact on the welfare of our community. Please deny the Conditional Use Permit request. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Kim Browne, President Kennydale Neighborhood Association C.C. Mayor Jesse Tanner Renton City Council Ms. Lori Chase/Pacific Telecom Services Mr. Paul Miller/Owner "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" Vy"'Ctily I, \ , - ® � Strv�1� 0 '• ,„ • -.. as• 1aa is I u is z,"�Q' ,7 e' / ••�{ \� it,.I•.1.•� ' I fa�,i! I fe I li 12e h,1,ez zs - _ + 1L1';,1. W I 1 G 9 3 s6 1 13".3.41 "]t 10311 1e[291;ry11 27 ] z.- e. v l `�' I ° I L I .IPI . - --- -If,� i, r�^a ` P .• I3j )- CC 162 i .'. . 33RD ST. --- - �, e1 u4 IF1, NI 3 :.; Ir; V �IL IJ 4r 5'•,•14 le 19v, ...44.11 L _ .• N. 'ND ' J STr 2-7 ':: �•[' Z . \ r,- i ii4is-f' -3_ 1—ri� .._. �F= ,' oo ! m•,� a •., I lo, E� '•1 ` L;F:. 1 C ;/ 3! 311 37T e 3 3t/.`3 i 131 `0 r ze z7I z6 se . 1 N " 1 mg,1 �i "r,-, 'I z1i. \\• \ 9 : _-- 11 il .: :, 4: e P41% oN...E1fi���, .... •... am, ---3/1 35. _.. _ _ _ ..,,...,,,,.... i36-:, ies 60 ^.o e 33 3e 37@@ 36 a3 34I 33 31 I Je 36 2.7 viLERIET _6{. Fa a, fi \ . -. ,O.� - - iI1 ass r ^�' :Cr..:. 3IST. Si s ' _ 38�^ a 37 :'1 '. 4 58 {.I..• :, 4.:i.±.2. Idle . zc i 21 zz J i a12s '-•L--- _,___- n', �-H .•T—t tTf i L _ � _t_-rt-- !£Rx I ®° fi ‘0o? 1' 2 '. 1 \ J?3? kip IL�� 3 ];i 13 j I I ia��11 L! ' S�trj �' _•sr� _ I1 : ; ;F N. 30TH ST. s .. �.]/__t , ;''• 30TH a STs r , z , . • •. rYll'!. 10:0 I ..OtE j .>D b.•St 1, • ` •., C 1j0 UJ ^� /�� iG ss7 N. M�' • u '. I I I t{I h } IeC1L t0 I '1 LJ 21..25 V p';4.j , 3 T o' 1C 1 33 3a 1.7 34 36.•3t 33 12�3 I!1 A 26 1 t7 ze / -1 ~:.' ' • • - �� , \ 29TH 5T. 140 a . 1 4 A i 1L1 I / e I ,2 13 16 17 Ie ZS' �ztl� [C' •• i 1 ro 9il I E Elala 'O 39 3e 37! 33 34'33 Sl I 30 i'J~2e;27 -: 111 --�./��"^' ' ,' - -- ` �'� a0 q �® , ! y.. \ '7-----' 1�;it �--' ":ID i I t 1 0 C �7 ••f' ® .. 'aa ep9 --n- 1_—r=y.-- I I( : ° r z ky' 'I IFL --' e, w. 28TH PL. x 1 MI �ef17 1' 0 1?r,!y�t' 50 1\f. No(.�e I I I 1,... ti so i i n l i o f I i i e L,, p1Y1A A ' • hf• L17 I 11 12 1�. i riT 16 �7 I 1 I)1 to l zi l 22 23 iYV 2z)• �° '!nr fa to u rjfl?:i a:"�,• t 5 r ..._S`�..�..�..—.—.—.—:--1' .'a. iar'Tii i • `"+.-..oie ;3F" ---7'N. 8•TFf-rST,�'5i: ' !�-—72— s77.7. nr.s to 1 .,1 . ^ , k_. Ie_1 I_J 1: f I .. •. 1 ' III r ly, o tj JAMES L 6 MRS v I , `' Lej 1 • ; 1 ( „_ I11 E.1 Y.rI / LELAND F� MARENAROS "- •• .. �,%- --__ o.rr.c tI:• ,� I PETERSON •w sFPee,,. 7.t,rl tl.ii n.o 4resi c:fp' $'a ' 2 Al ti 1 at rt.a 'd �. s 1 in . . e w s ^ ata4'� .ar t •. ... r. r p N . Y E.D VRIDE, �. xi, 27ls ' nio '" . 2F7z 7t rJ • ii41r' 7'7.c -, , F . t i -• i' Lilt. G t.Lot 13 < _- ti2T N.F.2, H MN ELAND F. PETERSON.:a.7 .. t071.. /sztt. iIC? •II �•• ' },� 00 AC. 'tJer•1.9 it., • ( tir'_'��'}I , z�o3 , • .. 3 2 I 31 31 _ 30 a.' ttz ., ,..-„,..-„Tv,-, �. I� a ITo ld:: •r III, VI- ..."-1 -:.,- rIa .•'t,`-- `• '1--l\ •• --.ii p/.7 7711 z' _2�°'i' y1ci �,,�� _ �-15 arstro o'ra% reO Cr. ,Q•)ni of .a . III r1,.J entli 29 -a N. . 26TH _ sT, a it' ,`'+--�'J•:\ 41.•/ ro 9l01 ta• � _ £ill' ' I. 2,; 'Qt M ®e a ,-1 fZ 1 , au ..m I W : >4 • AZ- g. _ 7.. _ '' Iq °:.., 24 RI I. a ' v - .rb 0 4 AI COLEMAN POINT • "J, 'ire 16 '.*• .ij . • - •.. . armJr'�• 1 e • i ....:• „. (II i '-rf ff(rff .v4.fi , : ,. .. - .- •:..„t-:-..1.T, v'4- i, „a % - n .,_: .,,�m�ro u:.i.:i...1.rtiw 7 :.i'- ro • • l+.:s :. Looking SW to Site from N. 30th St./Freeway Entrance Off Ramp cu61c06,„,„Ail- 1k — -- COLEMAN POINT 4 F , - • • is 1.17. - , : iF - / r 1 I.- ♦• i. . • A w. . t -.-. ...., �1 M 1 ��' ` i1.;y� +1. 3 'i�L'3�l a��'E.��J.y �'4�'►..45(�iyi Looking SE to Site from Corner of N. 30th St&Park Ave • l l l l • 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 t l ICI sz?I i i I � III ' 1I1 1 1 t1 � 1 1 1 1 � 11 • 1t1 i � l l 1I � I I IiI I • i l l � l i lil li i• l l i + 1 1 i 1 1 i f i 1 i I t � t i i t + t I 1 i t 1 i t t t i t i t ' t t I I I I f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 js'' I l t i 1 1 I t I I {III I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I III I 1 III I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 ::: t i i I I III l l l l l l l III l I I I I 1 III I III I III I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l i l i t i l l i l if I I 1 i 1 I 1 1 I i I I I I I I �I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 C ! I I I ill i 1 1 I ( I I I I III I III I I i I 1 I 1 I I i l ! I 1 1 1 1 I I I C I I I I I I I I I I l i I i I I 1 I I I I 1 I i I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I III I 1 I I I I I ; I i i I I I I I t 1 1 1 1 II i III I I I C I f I I I 1 I i 1 II I III ! III 1 1 t i t i C I l l i i I I I I I In. i t i l l l III l l l l l Ill I I I I III l l l l l l l l l l ! I I f l l III l l /r I I III I i I I I I I I pal I I I I I I I II I III I I I I i I I I I t I I I I I I III 1 III I I I I 1 I I :., t...a 1111111I1ilI1R II-�,I il , III �J11II11111fIIlIII11111II 1111IIl1lit1111lliIIII1111ti1111111I1 III 1-iI1 11111 IIII CD I I 1 1 1 1 11 1�_%?I I I �'� ! C �+ 11 1 I i I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I i I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 11 1 1 I I , I 1 1 I C I 1 1 I I I I I It I I I I 11 I I 1C 1I1 1I t I I I I I I I 11I I 1II I t IIt I IQ I 11 1 1 I I ( I I I I ! I I I I t i I I I I i i f f I I I I , I l i l l l l I l l l l l l l l l i l l 1 , f l l I f l l l f ; l I I I I I I I I �I I I t I I 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I l i I i I 1 1 ( J� I I I 0 , IUD 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1WII 1 I I 1 1 I i 11 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I t l t l l , l I I II I F-•I 1 I 1 i II I II III i if 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I i C I i I I t I I I I I I I i l i f i l l I I l I I I I I I 1 1 1 t 1 111 . I I111111I i ; l I II i11 �III I III III t l l i � i I ill I ! II 1 11 t l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 i I I III I III I 1 I 1 I ! 1 1 f I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I { i i I 1 I . I I I LW : l I t 1 i I i'` I 1 1 1 { I l l i l l f l l ! ! I I I I I I C I II I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I II ( IIIIIIII1I1111 1 11IIIIII1IIfiIIIIII I �iIIClll llt111{ , I I• t 1 1 1 ! ! I ! ! 1 ! C y l i l l I i i 11 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 ! 1 t t 1 { 1 ! ! ' �� I l l l l III f l l •l l l i f i l l l 1 „till 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ,. — (n `�__ I I I I i l 11 l l l l l I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i l l l l l l l l l l l 1 . .. .0 © � I l l i l l l l l l i l l 1 I I C I i i I 1 1 I I i I II I ill I it t le- as , b ♦.4\►--�� I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 t 11 I 1 1 f 1 I I II 1 I I i I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 11 �Is " + g■ n' R!'b '� s„ 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 t i l l l l l l l I I 0+ u! L•� till c �-4...., 1 I I 1 I I I I I ! I l l i i i l I ! I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 ■■ Milli +i I I I I I I i l l l..• �■ "" ado.. l l I I I I I I l l l l l l l l t I � �� � 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I i ll I I I' f l l l l i l l l l l ■ _ , �■ ..■� ■■ m � I I I I I I I I i t I I I I l l l l l t l ! III " - ry\kc44iie. �.c .■� s� '`� i I I I t 1 1 ( ( 1 1 I I i ! t I I t I , I ■ = ,■ -. ■■ ■■ ■a I • I I I I 11 .1 1 1 I I I I I I , I �� •--- ( -- /: Le ■ml a� gm,,E • 1 j l i( ' I 1 I f I f I ! I I I I tt � i l l ! I .I I I I 3 - �s r c� ■ ■�■� I I I I • I I I i l l l l l I ( ��I I I I I I I I .�� } act■ + wic7c �' 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 , 1 I�� ■ ^ ■: DIEiE'�� 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1■ -� pi �' "�� E F� ��■�� , it 11 1 1 I I - : �7 !i A+ ■� ■�■ E ,i 1 I I I i I hI I 1 \�SoM oy .iiio1 ��I. - LIZ h� i� all . 11 911211� Nill '•� \joAbU• .M: •, _I _ - 7■ c, In am -- ■a, 7r ' /� i ��I_ -ll� r.:t' s'r.� �% !ill is ' . a P C. . ‘00P-) ON: I�� _ e. �� ■ram 11 tI1■■ ■■�■■■ t_ Kati 1 _ . LahrIV la k .�11t! _R■�i■e :�11u i - - �. _,4•A 1 Prf-41111 . j 1 ' `� 1d^ rJ11111E i S ;Air.IIII■= ■;IIII■ ! I _ ■l■■ ..�/�; /■1•■ ii■���■ v�tii1W�7J;7, a L1a� 077,■ -'�. `a oP��� nes e E MINIMir INS= �inck,r `f.■u11 mR�ii . ,� '� o I .,,{r,x E!n■ ewi11■■ �I ■i/�j�i I sulkopea Cif IL I zrib L n !IA,e_____on �waU■ �. t � i■■11 u.0 ®pi■.'i/■nne J1 — L. !•i■■h■1►�iIII- , ■ In. N I In .♦ Aberdeen /G�Con "���/'lira ��■■■■■ ■1 �i1'11■; :i v' Aberdeen Ave. NEr NI11 ,,,\ 'a .11111. �' ■ -{,f1 4rOir-Kve. Nrr 11 al ♦ t ��I _ No ■■ golumnomon ■ z `I�j : i _��a _' . I� ■!!,*u■■■ ■ ■ •■ .■ I m� , II ■11 ra. ram, ( p ' o -.--_ it, ■■ C ■■n■►sim 1■■111 i■ mu ______�■ ■� �� ;7'1- IWO it) ({it] mt. i ,1 '— , Imillhiiiim s� : a iII# ■ .___ ■/ � Ji rIL I ► - "■ iuuiiiui� ■ /� ■' to Ave SE 1112 N.. ■ ow r_il .:. al apirlworgi mum N r".:4er ......_ .. --��� / , , 7 / �,1 J[ 1 �I St IaUth :Htt1utiiitl - - -- - �iIIII� I 1 t [ / w in _e - - - - - - p - i St l —� r NE 40th St - - � � ,4f4-4 MI iv/ AIN-4; . • LIKE1111111111, 7 1111111Iiiiiill 1_, Ill IVY AMIN Nomm - - - = I ��, . i �= IItrL'!!�w■raw ■�ii= �7 36th -_' ■1 gr+ila xi - - - - - - - , � I 11111161C�+1l■c 1�1 i 1 , `1—W [ .I�■/ ■IIIIIMINS1■1M111■ o Z r tin I ■11911 S s1s■■YCL'sUl ifll� , /� Itl■■11l111!■71■ of a �/ St, U ,w/4 ®■1■■usii�lt IIiI$ea -N---¢111 tl 1 , i�'m'', al iGss1A1111l111.11■■I1 I 1 I — 1 ',. ,;Q II:IIIIYi�i'16'J■II■■ha N 3 ird S All ■�i1111■■.!1■Ar11mIi1 , Q - I 1 47 AMU 1II Ullr IC II'l1H!! li■ul N-r3�ri,i �t f 1 i ©'SZI1 s �ItUL'�ILellllnti' _Ll Jri _ t Q ,*s1 i REM ■11■sll■IIIIRAII■1■ NE 31st St y ■Y1:119i1 1111111t1111111iic111111■ — m _. - VA t 1�' '10311/fr fit 1' Tin r1 �`� , �'�6 ion, \1■■■ 11■■1■111M11101I■111 Z I, -,e_I I /\\ ; ■111■■1111.1Y11■■■sN s I" ,NiY 1 L "' !19�i, ■1■IIIII�IIr1I1■/ �1 I.�i� ��■i� tr Illi ■ Ak S. illy '� , pi! :Ill .::w��::iImmmeer � - '� a•� t .,I. up ill:, \TIII*Ite 1 '' liartinti— riailifini II I ._ __ .....:, mg ti OMR ,ta on- c EM - ro r ragil lei L -I trh hi::: lit4 L._ I _j II. z _ llii o i — �ld J—j �� ■�■ rc I d 23r I ( _ ADo -1 d -- _ �_ -{ IIIIl [ '� ' rS��1 —� NE 20t1 TT1TTf NM allow -Fle- rAll gi 1 W in No '' - ! 'I!cLI socior :I is gin 1.11 i co . li wisp ••••. : 'Nos ± „ a ali! 6 17 C .1 mig • I p :� :Hi:!! i 116t�- LBNAI :■ :I� .4 ■ �■a - r■„a , ///t. MCKN ._. _ _ _. _ _ .. .. __ _ ___ _ ._ _ _ _400, 1 A, i/ofr, '\ Iwiii av J i riaMIMIMN 7!'! • . �� —� 1 i 1' r M. 0 4 CIT OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department c. Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator October 3, 2000 Ms. Lori Chase Pacific Telecom Services 425 Pontius Avenue No. #202 Seattle,WA 98109 SUBJECT: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point Project No. LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF Dear Ms. Chase: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on October 10, 2000, at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Al& G(/ Y Steve Taylor Project Manager cc: Mr. Paul Miller/Owner AT&T Wireless FINAL 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 CITY:OF RENTOfU CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDA.UIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING.:... ....:.. ..... On the Z_`s'+ day of 000� , 2000, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing lie rt f -ice i &documents. This information was sent to: fx' Name Representing K,lt BI'0(� do e. t jkb v1iced 145.soc. til - ne (V ndi st(LAD i-oV t 4 C � i.,t hL ._TTet e ctrvv, se"t C e$ rv1 t l(ke.' T T i �Ire_lc_ss (Signature of Sender) Sandra. V- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ��C• r.cl-V'c, -Qp o� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the sand purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: (0cJ - J , zed No ary Public in n for the State of Washing 64 KAMCHEFFNotary (Print) NOTARY PUBLIC Myappointment KANo A STATE OF WASHINGTON ` COMMISSION EXPIRES ` iA„e'JNE 20, 2003 . -r- n O t�l or o(e. Project Number: oh 0 0 ._ 104 C(.I -ft , EG� NOTARY2.DOC NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: AT&T MONOPOLE COLEMAN POINT PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF The project would erect a 50-foot monopole with a three-sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28-toot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft.parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. Location: 1321 North 30 Street. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) 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 2,2000. 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 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-6510 A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting In the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on October 10,2000,at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination Is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. 1 7 i�'I•'di•''I T. l 'il l'�'I.�uPR�d��"A g - ..iz e g lI ''t ' ,ti 33RD sT. 1, Al..'I. 2 t �.�II� Y K ... ; d19 Irl` • . ' ' 'r3aN. 31. •f • • r� .QtD 334. ST ..... fir, re[ /1 .� y . \, 1 N N. 30.. ST.- l•, U f e• y , !' 4 eV agQ : 11 .V WaOe` zeTN ;'i)r 1 ter � / f sr ,51 ws � ail .. i,n:. � .0 f' ANON ,Na-, >:\. \'vle:';r!5.0 '=tom,'-*A-E. Fill t^— I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION LPlease include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. CERTIFICATION I, Attl d✓c e DfRA,t4,4..) , hereby certify that ' copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 5,p f -. \4k, 2 o ao • i Signed: <�l ,o � � ATTEST: Subcribed an om before me, a Nortary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing n y�„N , on the -3/L,� day of (C . 2. -cj . MARILYN KAMCHEFF --��/, //1 „ ( NOTARY PUBLICU STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES MARILYN KAMCHEFF _ JUNE 29, 2003 MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-294X3 CITY ' F. RENTON ..tl . Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 14,2000.: - • Washington State • Department of Ecology Environmental.Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA' 98504-7703 - Subject : Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)on September 12,2000: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED AT&T MONOPOLE COLEMAN POINT LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF,' . The project would erect a 50-foot monopole with a three-sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28=foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy.approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560sq.ftparcel:zoned.Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant • is also requesting to modify-landscape buffer,requirements.;Location: 1321 North 30th Street. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 2, 2000. 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 98055.=Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained 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, • (,fJ Steve Taylor, Project Manager cc: - King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher; Department of Fisheries , David F: Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office • Rod Malcom, Fisheries Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) US Army Corp.of Engineers • • agencyltr\ •1055 South Grady Way-Renton;Washington 98055 4y ,T CITY F RENTON ,.IL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 14, 2000 Ms. Lori Chase Pacific Telecom Services 425 Pontius Avenue No.#202 Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point Project No. LUA-00-1Q4,CU-H,ECF Dear Ms. Chase: . This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on September 12, 2000, issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 2, 2000. 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 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.'Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing_Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on October 10, 2000, at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. 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 you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Steve Taylor Project Manager cc: Mr. Paul Miller/Owner AT&T Wireless Enclosure dnsmletter . 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 rti;�..�..e,r,,..t�t�c sn i rer.,riorl mntnrinl 9n i nnet rune.imnr , • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE- (MITIGATED) • MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-104,ECF,CU-H APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless PROJECT NAME: AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point DESCRIPTIONOF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy.approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1321 North 30th Street • MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained within the July 17, 2000 Geotechnical Report, prepared by ADaPT Engineering, I,nc., with, regard to the disturbance, preparation, and construction of the site. 2. Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall-record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line (as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal) be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence. 3. The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. 4.. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. 5. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to building permit approval. 6. 'Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall verify to the City's satisfaction by testing and/or documentation that the wireless telecommunication system proposed to be installed at this site can be operated without creating radio transmission interference in the 800 MHz public safety radio system operated by the Renton Police and Fire Departments. - mitmeasures CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE • (MITIGATED) • ADVISORY NOTES • APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-104,ECF,CU-H APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless PROJECT NAME: AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28 foot equipment.shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1321 North 30th Street • 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. .:. ERC 1. The ERC is'recommending that the requested modification to reduce the landscape requirements be denied. ' FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 1500GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and one additional hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum of 20 feet in width, paved,with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 3. Fire Department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. AIRPORT 1. Cellular tower and antennas must not exceed the height of the Texaco sign at the intersection of NE 30t Street and 1-405. • CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1. Building and Electrical permits are required. 0 • advisorynotes CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-104,ECF,CU-H APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless PROJECT NAME: AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1321 North 30th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 2, 2000. 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 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)- 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: September 18,2000 DATE OF DECISION: September 12, 2000 SIGNATURES: A G ,04 j /2-/OQ Gregg Zimhi rman dministrator DATE r Department f,P.4 ning/Building/Public Works - , cliP(Od Shepherd, dm'iiistrator DATE �►mm nity S�s ` ' // - f / 'Le , e"ler, Fire Chi DATE Renton Fire Department eresignature CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-104,ECF,CU-H APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless PROJECT NAME: AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1321 North 30th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained within the July 17, 2000 Geotechnical Report, prepared by ADaPT Engineering, Inc., with regard to the disturbance, preparation, and construction of the site. 2. Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line (as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal) be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence. 3. The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. 4. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. 5. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to building permit approval. 6. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall verify to the City's satisfaction by testing and/or documentation that the wireless telecommunication system proposed to be installed at this site can be operated without creating radio transmission interference in the 800 MHz public safety radio system operated by the Renton Police and Fire Departments. mitmeasures CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-104,ECF,CU-H APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless PROJECT NAME: AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1321 North 30th Street 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. ERC 1. The ERC is recommending that the requested modification to reduce the landscape requirements be denied. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 1500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and one additional hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum of 20 feet in width, paved,with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 3. Fire Department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. AIRPORT 1. Cellular tower and antennas must not exceed the height of the Texaco sign at the intersection of NE 30t Street and 1-405. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1. Building and Electrical permits are required. advisorynotes NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. AT&T MONOPOLE LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF Environmental review to erect a 50-foot monopole with antenna and equipment shelter at the base of the pole. Location: 1321 North 30th St. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 2, 2000. 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 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on October 10, 2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. • Publication Date: September 18,2000 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot rzi . NsTIOE• ; _ . _, .. • • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: AT&T MONOPOLE COLEMAN POINT PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF . The project would erect a 50-foot monopole with a three-sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28-foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. Location: . 1321 North 30th Street. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) 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 2, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: ' Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510 A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council • Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on October 10,2000, at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. 11.9.1 -^I..�u!..in,e.:.,�NIea,:'n' a. :...r "m': : i. i t Il i . „••A.•„�N'31 m trl 411,, - .. 3 _ -. .�' • W `` 33RD -411 .r ST. ,!s -`[ '•+ 1 1Efi: ''i�' ' i li •IV., )- 1: .6 �y . �rr w .3e ,A,r}. , a ,S v • N �� 32N0" ,ST,y. a.:. AA o, y� ,y, II ® ',1 a 1:'r: , FT �lil �O.F?ENE ' ' ' aE Ii I �I� Ti %1.. ,! 32ND, ST. x .A„.---J-- [[''gg]7 �- ^ !�7l1. y�7 a a v :._---_-- 35 ` -: ° iu 60 `'^``•u` . 31ST. ST. - �- 38_ E„3/7 58 ` P q•+�EIN brl!'Ru x I;J ' 7gr 7g �]' JN .?. L• ( N. 30TH t ST. 4 7 r L > m - .. ..E.., ..:,,,,• 3OTh ST. _.qp _ .. I '..4!'i01� :141 0Lcll. \ : :s. yFz =:y" . 29TH 3F. 1- --•- a -. ,,,,;1 „©I...„ .10 mIlia 1-- 40-- • .I ,„.__ y 1 [ ., f..„4.1 rar.,,'` u n MUNIRR@ ,a l3„ !,vi �� 4 ( k a C ICY,( pR�� �AWa w-.,y,® a g �!'' ((;;��'�[[t3I' it xF 1 a :, .111 b;Iiii 2 -:, ,,,. �/ ,,L,'4P' OtIl,.ILI,rIG!''i tl'r �r� ii ,,,,,.,.`• ' — - 50 ._: _SF.._._._._._._Y[--l:.,,1,..!1: y: .. ';:1w ;•--''' . 5 1 l,y JAME!'Lr6 Nq! ' ..w I �(1 4 It]Q^ g''" -- -t l ' . STN•r-r.• - LELPND*\F� MAq(xANO$ `�' , - T r PETEglOx •` ,,AM'F. i,: , ,b file ._' ,I �':©• I i A A 7 r ram, [D S'gIDE '' n4% • r'ELAND F.PETE S0N'elf Q'Z.LotISF,n [ vi,' ire:' '.1. 'y, YhW�� ' [ OOAc. ,i 4ua. / 7 r _'' ���i�,N�Z 32 3 31 _ 30 ,:,x e 4,As- ___.- f••�° I�y�'' •.l\".I.2. , .\\. \�``,,\e...�a•4,1i,e-" ?i ilg_+J'.l- -5 F NH 1.7F'— I 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. • ., At - - STAFF City of Renton • REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND . ERC MEETING DATE: September 12, 2000 Project Name: AT&T Monopole, Coleman Point Project Number: LUA-00-104, CU-H, ECF Project Manager: Steve Taylor Project Description: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. • . Project Location: 1321 North 30th Street Total Bldg.Area gsf.• 322 sq. ft. Lease Area: 2,500 square feet RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 32 N D ST. 3 :.,os I- L a : f Ii .\ .x`` 1 . . . .1117;II '2"au til.01! 01 ... zim c--;. 34 35 LL,..; ll \\37 36 ;S 3433 31 3a 2? z7 6 ,,, r,1 Is, Ii � • `. //EP 4'y 511 1 p I®I®�® I �[ CIS` 184 L! ;. . ::�:: t 31ST. ST. �a - 38, `, �, 37 .1 58 n, a 1a :IS+�C: ,16 1201 21 21 2J I a ZS _-- - --:__- _L__ I M. o r'7 11 .A; x SS . �i„e N. 30TH . ST. '� 5 j 7:.:.: 30TH ST, ---1, _ ,, — r- - .t ,t. .w.4Lij i e ti]1TSq 33 �1�J I 27•2e 1.27 L6 I it 5` � ; ts' •. 29TH 5T. ,40 •'I i 4 Ott 1FI[W s._ .t • » 03 .c r_'L_i_.. a •Jo�i„o7J_- Is,: S I�.Z'� r e O S t S �\''1�t....\ n, 1 ,--••-- - •GX f j a Ia 16 q le O mill IN 2alififfr a ram, Iy1, ti 9w _ -�o , II ` A a-- 3 .gg l '_` 4 2 ' .148 —►2 37 l 33 34 33 3 I 30•27 Zi 27 CL. _.—t'. _: 1 1 -cry i .n a I al � , 1 U� i.. , ). t 28TH PL. i ,... s�• x 11 °s N b i 1130 1_ .� , H 50 ,,,, ; • ,Y Jlk1tl 1 r '' I\I,,f1 i '�1"1 I k II lll���••',,��LLL111'. I,�Ii,,1, , I. : f0Ry6R/ I1Q I IT _�t TI I13 Ln I ZI I ZZ 123 IF2S4 so �+ r p 1 3:i J: ✓ 5 r •--_S`r•• —2—�• A -•, —•—•—•—•—• .,�.,. .,!;;;�—;�� •—I,o opt •� —•rt• �.: — N. $rH-=sr.-�••�'—• ,ff JAMES L b MRS .'. I „a, ,.,- grtJt r i71 I i�, a I _AND MARENA KOS orrar. •- tr:• „.. PERSON i/Ro `ii iisi' art.;s. �� ti r .y 1I " z i,to /ta0 /�' /i:r o�: i :•. 2 i I i L3 z'a - 2 .t Y E 0 S"RIOE-,�."� ••1• z IS,71 z 1Q . I • tie... 4P.0 1 F . Ir .., �/ � Si illl' 1./,r. GQ`.t.Lot:I f < ' '/2� j� --�i,-4J .i�_- N.E cT.s I .A No F.PETERSON 2t.7 ,d'nn ._ .6 to2.ta. Lsl.e. i, , 1 2d115r:.` I,t5, =/„,1 •'•, .•Ss 9 City of Renton P/B/PW Department Env, rental Review Committee Staff Report AT&T MONOPOLE, COLMANPOINT LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12,2000 Page 2 of 5 B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained within the July 17, 2000 Geotechnical Report, prepared by ADaPT Engineering, Inc.,with regard to the disturbance, preparation, and construction of the site. 2. Prior to building permit approval, the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line (as shown on the July 31,2000 submittal) be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence. 3. The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. 4. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. 5. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee equal to$.52 per square foot of the building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to building permit approval. 6. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall verify to the City's satisfaction by testing and/or documentation that the wireless telecommunication system proposed to be installed at this site can be operated without creating radio transmission interference in the 800 MHz public safety radio system operated by the Renton Police and Fire Departments. 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. ERC 1. The ERC is recommending that the requested modification to reduce the landscape requirements be denied. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 1500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and one additional hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum of 20 feet in width, paved,with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 3. Fire Department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. ERC REPORT.doc { City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envi _ ental Review Committee Staff Report AT&T MONOPOLE, COLMAN POINT LUA-00-I04, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12,2000 Page 3 of 5 Airport • 1. Cellular tower and antennas must not exceed the height of the Texaco sign at the intersection of NE 30th Street and 1-405. Construction Services 1. Building and Electrical permits are required. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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 site is generally flat with less than 2%slope. Minor grading would occur for the foundation and building pad, no filling is anticipated. Total construction time is projected to be 2-3 weeks. One fruit tree would need to be removed. A geotechnical report prepared by AdaPT Engineering, Inc. indicates that the surface soils consist of grass and topsoil over loose, moist, brown silty fine sand with gravel. At 4-feet below ground surface, the soil was logged as medium dense, moist, brown fine to coarse sand with silt, which became more dense as the boring continued to 30-feet in depth. The report indicated that soils exhibited unusual odors and showed significant response on the photoionization detector. Subsequent testing for common industrial volatile and petroleum hydrocarbons did not identify any common chemicals at the project location. The report recommended that the tower be supported by a mat foundation to avoid disturbing any possible contaminated soils below the 10- foot level. Potential erosion impacts that could occur during site preparation and construction would largely be mitigated by City Code requirements for a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP)and a Construction Mitigation Plan. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained within the July 17, 2000 Geotechnical Report, prepared by ADaPT Engineering, Inc., with regard to the disturbance, preparation, and construction of the site. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) 2. Air Impacts: Adverse impacts to air quality during the construction phase of the project would be limited to fugitive dust during the time that grading would expose the surface soils, and to exhaust emitted from construction vehicles. Fugitive dust can be controlled by sprinkling the site as required during construction. Air quality impacts from construction vehicles would be temporary in nature and is already regulated by state and federal standards. Mitigation Measures: None required Nexus: NA 3. Water Impacts: The project site is located on a 50 X 50-foot leased area. The proposal would add a concrete slab of for the equipment cabinet that is approximately 322 sq.ft. in size. The applicant contends that any storm water runoff from this impervious area will be able to infiltrate into the ground. City code does not require detention of stormwater quality facilities for this amount of new impervious surface. Mitigation Measures: None required Nexus: NA ERC REPORT.doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department . , Env rental Review Committee Staff Report AT&T MONOPOLE,COLMAN POINT - LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12,.2000 Page 4 of S 4. Aesthetics Impacts: The proposal would result in the installation of a 50-foot tall monopole on a parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). Free standing wireless support structures less than 60-feet in height are defined as a monopole I. Policies in the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan require that siting and location of telecommunication facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses (Policy U-100). The policies also require that cellular communications 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-101). The applicant has stated that this location was selected after several alternative locations meeting the siting requirements were considered, including the adjacent Chevron site to the east, the Texaco site on the north side of North 30th Street as well as several other appropriately zoned parcels near this location. Collocation on the existing monopoles on the Arco site on the east side of 1-405 was considered and abandoned because of frequency and coverage limitations. Documentation of the site selection and photo-simulation of the pole from five surrounding view points were submitted with the application. The applicant states the subject site was selected because the coverage objective could be met with a tower height of just 50-feet and the pole could be set back at least 100-feet from the residentially zoned property to the south. The property is zoned Convenience Commercial, properties to the north, east and northwest are also commercially zoned and the site is fairly well screened by existing on and off-site vegetation to diminish visual impacts. Property to the south and directly west is zoned R-8. Due to split zoning on the parcel located to the west,the applicant is unable to provide a 100-foot setback for the structure from the CC/R-8 zone and therefore is subject to Hearing Examiner conditional use approval. The applicant is proposing to fence and landscape the leased area. Due to the shape of the parcel and to accommodate future providers, the applicant has requested to modify the 15-foot landscape requirement to 5- feet of enhanced landscaping on the east and west sides and 9-feet on the north and south. The applicant maintains the building area will be fully screened from view and still allow for future collocation. The applicant has indicated a willingness to paint the pole black or brown to further reduce visual impacts to the neighborhood. Mitigation Measures: In order to diminish the aesthetic impact of the proposed telecommunications facility on the adjacent residential neighborhood, and to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Policies U-100 and U- 101, the applicant shall be required to: 1. Prior to building permit approval,the owner shall record a covenant on the property that requires the tree row along the NE property line (as shown on the July 31, 2000 submittal) be retained or replaced with fast growing evergreen trees so that this visual buffer remains as long as the communication facility is in existence. 2. The applicant shall be required to plant fast growing evergreen trees, or other species meeting the approval of the Department of Development Services, along the south property line and south 200' of the west property line to create an additional visual buffer for the facility. The additional plantings shall be incorporated into the landscape plan and submitted for review with the building permit. 3. Prior to building permit approval,the applicant shall work with the adjacent neighborhood to select a paint color that would reduce the visual impact of the monopole. The applicant shall maintain the painted surface throughout the service life of the facility. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, SEPA 5. Fire Services Impacts: The proposal site is located within the Renton Fire Department service area. City Fire Department standards require a fire hydrant capable of 1500 GPM fire flow within 150 feet of the structure and one additional hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. The proposal would add new construction to the City and would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee is applied to all new construction to fund the additional service requirements. ERC REPORT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department En mental Review Committee Staff Report AT&T MONOPOLE,COLMAN POINT LUA-00-104, CU-H,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12,2000 Page S of 5 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to recording the subdivision. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting ordinance, Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) 6. Health & Safety Impacts:The Renton Police Department is experiencing a worsening problem associated with the proliferation of wireless telecommunication facilities around the city and the region. The problem is that the public safety radio system used by the Police and Fire Department and ValleyCom is a 800 MHz system that suffers from transmission interference from some of the powerful wireless communication systems being put on line. Interference can cause dead zones where emergency communications can be disabled. The proposal could effect health and safety services if it contributes to radio interference. Mitigation Measures: Prior to building permit approval the applicant shall verify to the City's satisfaction by testing and/or documentation that the proposed wireless telecommunication system proposed to be installed at this site can be operated without creating radio transmission interference in the 800 MHz public safety radio system operated by the Renton Police and Fire Departments. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, SEPA E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X 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 PM on October 2,2000 (14 days from the date of publication). 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 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERC REPORT.doc SEP-11-2000 MUN U4:Ub 111 rin NU. CUOdU0001. F. 1.11/UC }Mme;vial" 0,t1 ) ry E LEC' . .. E YFi RV CES, INC. 425 Pontius Avenue N,#202 Seattle,WA 98109 Phone: (206) 342-9000 Fax: (206)903-6513 FAX TRANSMISSION To: Steve Taylor From: Lori Chase Fax: (425) 430-7300 Pages: 2 Phone: Date: 9.11.00 Re: AT&T Facility on N 30th CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Reply ® As Requested , SEP-11-2000 M0N U4:Ub l'M 1-115 rHn Nu, cunauccol3 r, uc.'uc September 11,2000 Mr. Steve Taylor City of Renton Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA. 98055 RE: AT&T Monopole at 1321 North 30th Project No. LUA-00-104, CU-H, ECF Dear Steve The Department of Transportation was contacted in late November about the possibility of a site off.of I-405 on the west side of the freeway. The AT&T site acquisitionist began working with Mr.Terry Maloney of the DOT on the application process and the particulars of the leasing area. A DOT and AT&T representative conducted a site walk and preliminary review of the site. Unfortunately around the middle of December Mr.Maloney,the DOT representative stated that it was extremely unlikely that AT&T would gain approval from the transportation department at the DOT. The curb cut and access point is at a major intersection. It is imperative to the transportation department that access to the site must be safe. AT&T technicians would therefore not be able to gain safe access to the site and the deal was killed. If you have any questions or need any other information,please let me know. Sincerely, Lori Chase Pacific Telecom Services • s_. OITYOFREY7,c T,.,.........._,A R E 9C wo D SEP 0 7 2000 a September 6,2000 BUILDING DIVISION j Mr. Steve Taylor City of Renton Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA. 98055 RE: AT&T Monopole at 1321 North 30th Project No. LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF Dear Steve Thank you again for meeting me last week to review the issues at hand with our proposed Coleman Point site. In response to those items you had addressed in the meeting,I have enclosed some information for • your review. I hope that this information helps to further our case for a much needed site in the Kennydale area. The following are the items that you requested: • Three(3)copies of"balloon test"photos along with the matching photo simulations showing proposed monopole. • Three(3) copies of various propagation maps. One showing just the proposed site coverage area,one showing the coverage objectives in conjunction with 5 other sites in the surrounding area and the last propagation map showing coverage as it stands now without our proposed site. • Three(3) copies a letter from the RF Engineer describing the need for coverage and why the site is necessary in the location proposed. The RF engineer tried to best phrase the language so that everyone might be able to understand the need for the site. • Two(2) full size drawings giving a visual of the properties in which we conducted our search. Attached is a narrative on the process that we went through to get to this site. • Additionally AT&T Wireless is more than amiable to paint the pole a brown or black color to reduce any visual impact the proposed site may have. I greatly appreciate your frankness at the meeting and hope this information proves helpful. I am also now in the process of contacting property owners in the area in an effort to best answer any concerns they have regarding the proposed project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you are in need of any further information. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely, Lori Chase Pacific Telecom Services • AT&T Sitting Process AT&T Wireless has been in need of a site in this area for some time to fill in a hole along I-405. In September of 1999 AT&T began its search for a site that would meet the coverage objectives while staying in a commercial area. Despite the limited space in the Arco Service Station, AT&T pursued collocation options on the east side of I-405 in early October 1999. Coverage concerns, space issues for equipment, and pole height were among the top issues that had to be resolved. After much analysis by the RF engineer and a gallant effort to make the site work and meet coverage objectives on the east side of the freeway it was determined that we must move to the west side of the freeway. The locations in which we were denied due to Radio Frequency problems are depicted as blue on the enlarged Kroll map. Since the wireless system uses"line of site"it is crucial that we locate our facility on the West • side of the freeway so that the antennas are directed east towards I-405. Interference from other sites and water do not bode well for AT&T's system, in fact they make a site impossible to achieve coverage objectives. With this in mind it was necessary to keep the antennas from pointing in the westerly direction across the water which would have been the case if we located on the east side of the freeway. We then moved across the freeway and continued on with our search now on the west side of I- 405. This was a tricky area too because of its proximity to the residential community. We chose to pursue only commercial properties to keep with the commercial use character and to diminish disturbance to the residents. The gas stations for obvious reasons were the first priority. The very tall existing Texaco sign was our first choice. From the naked eye the sign appears to be over 50' tall and a perfect location. If not the Texaco station then the Chevron station on the opposite side. We spent the next several months negotiating with both Chevron and Texaco and much too our disappointment were turned down and told to move on. With our options dwindling we moved on to other commercial property owners down N. 30th Street. All properties in which we were denied are shown in red on the enlarged Kroll Map. In the end we did indeed find a willing commercial property owner that would allow the site. This site(the proposed location) is depicted as yellow on the Kroll map. With this property the coverage objective could be met with a tower height of just 50',the property was zoned convenience commercial, the site was very well screened to diminish visual impacts, and could be set back at least 100' from the southern property line and residential area—a great solution. Furthermore the properties to the north, east and northwest are all commercially zoned. , "Micfrb s:iryl IA atIwk ‘. , . ut 1,--c, lt Call DY1 ... :04 75:i.-4-7 .. cti;;,,,;••.4• .. 3,!____i ' • • . ; I 7.4••,:.,:t. rfi lie..;;.! I 03 rr,-;/.,4,,,,,:zz Ili,..--; '-z-t s,......._ 4: fiat.? f .itE.---- , --` ' -- .. Pri, 1 , i •1 - "--- 3 ' _,Li__,32 I g a .;....."..,5 lry .34 .1S`-.1413..3:-32 1 3L11 30 291 241 27• HZ ; 0-1 :-• .3 gi3.;C, •1'.1 ;•• 1:•'• ij 1 4.-‘ ____ ..„, 1, a ..,-.' r . i. 4'jr- I >. Cr i 62 /\ 33RD ST. , -',---•-*.er- 1 . 00.-11 WIN": Aid0 1'1] tiLthdX/46 N !i41;:s-,i,141, -.-WI• 1.11. It1 ligir- .‘' :,.:7':. :..::' ;1/43 I N:Wii: < , ; „IL.; 'vl.. ",,..111;•k.. M'ali''" .1 I.:1, . I 0 \., .. . .1; , sz 'Ioo ST.I• 3-", `6.7 i , ''',1 ',',. 11;i- '. :.:. C,:f..*: \ 7 . •;,,.. 211 : 1 1\ -:.; g N. • 32ND', :. lo ..413A,3,-ra 35-94, 33,r3,3,lid L., F:r1' ZS 27 26..So a Idii, ; till I . 1 . ic&I . ,. if7-11!IPIPIfil 1_1 ,13 • i 3. rcu , -- %, ;. Et] ;I 0 :ff:.• ....'..'::: -.* :1-. A vi• • .- -^Jur"- -...-It •i 32ND , ST. 3 1:11 A.. :',. ''.:.; 'il: . /.: :::: :•:: ', z \ •••.x..... \., ..2 •••0''.... itIg., I..' 05tICAES.W.12" ;D.L_C__ SI • Ntl: .., :;., .-5.:-, !. --.. c •••,! `,....-9?.... g., 1, 14 475 17 I_ 101 21, .---.. - ----- - - - -03. cc-."-.. , ;: •us ": 60 '-`,0 .... jot 3?•-315 rt/36 1.7...-14 I 33142.11 31 I 301 29 Irat 1 274.2.§ 1.1 ';.: LIC(3).. .: i. .• . ..... ftli431 ''-f. 1 0- i . .ill[j. IT ItERVI :1'0 P .44.L.JIC," : .--o" s• ....I.... ..... .. .. ..: 1 ;.. : 58 `, 1 3IST., ST. : - -PT -0 38', , 3f ... .,.. SO I W,712SI 50 I ' , • - MI ----j"-----, •;i: 2.1!..: 1- _ ; ''.)•••,::. 59 70. r, Liclilif±p.im . 01 I ti. zp. 2: ii 0, 1 14..p,7:4_:•••±2..._i izo,21 22 23.3.... 23 ?____,_ 1 _ •'' .. _ i-4-i-L_.„. ,., 1 RV ,tre.i. 1: . ‘V :b mi 335 .• ,._.,... ; , .55 !A • ?3,1, ci.,41 :6).t.:1:73.1 31ini.14_11 130 ai 29 14116 :pjlf,A,:,,r) ,,r,lt, •,,, ii:WI ,t, ic ;.' ,I, • 1E..J. i 1 • I EA 1,. ...: , 1, . ,.:Ji SO I SO 10.23 SO • I • I 1 ''.9)i ::: k g ,.: i tzl,z. 30 .z - ..... v 1 io.72,1":2S0 1 it 1: 1.3 I...• 1 " ;tit, c3 cc, ....1 •SO so 57 ff:51)(. :.....s......:,;so •..:,..•:• :Inri no":.. S...,:7 F 3(2 TH 5,ST,vs\i,:r...--------;.y . N. . 30TH 1 ST. 3.. v. . . 31 ' \ 1\ 1 ''', , !'Y I ,.' 41 '7;t: '-': • ti 3J'36 J.-7 29-3"..,•.34 1.7 -7;73, 1.51 25 20 I 27...26 ii CI : -: ^- - ; \ .''1-., -.::: .:•• I ' 0 -ci‘ ''‘... tl'-.4] 11. ,I,*a. - I I IF4 1 nql • '5 l' 3 ! • ..., :',-.1 .1 I ,:-. ,, ,-- 2 - .-0A4‘ -0..! 1 I I •....... 4R 111±-1;:•1 1 I - • 'a *-- '• l':' 1 :25 ' 3- • . 9 ' 1 N tfli M010 :INI 72 i .4it, 17 la ..;--11-t- It: '', - .. zi:I .: i' .1-, s i 1 1 :Li 7 ;`!: Le - c .13 381Z37 ::: 1 " ts •o i 1 s••••.,1 k 1 ! z, ....., .. 5,- 28TH PL. r.. 0 :, cli s ., , ..... -.:. :. 004.• 2€2] 4; „CI:,_.,_., ,..,_,,,,„,1 t:r.---,-;-1•Ac! ...',. .....: -.. „...,--},-j---r---g• .., . 50 • • • , t. 13." sd • , • - I • I • . so 6 r`• ,.. "3 ..iiit, ';/7 •••:.:•:,. SIr...'.. 1. 5 ,.!__.',7_.._..s-F-.-..__.__.__._.__,:2-4.117., .-z--;r--;-',--1144, .757 fr•qa. -• -- - ..:: -.... -' , N. am-_-s,--,,T.:47-r• JAMES L & MRS d22.3... do 1 "". la /..;;/ .b._ t_ ci f: A 40 i ..:: •••• t 111!.- oI :11 ' ‘&1•1 c:, t5,1 ' '•:: '.:. II"1 O.: ----. I MARENAKOS :IT It•9 '.?- - LELAND F"... I! 1 . PETERSON • ,..P'"'•,., 201 n guy* •,..m."•,.. al• • -v. . 1190 ,, /70 II 1711 .•.', '.:.: III , . 0 ''' .• Z g ,/,'. E 0 S-RIOE ." ' ;VII(' ''rps., ' • :,: : c ° .5. - „,,,, ., N.E.,,,,,, ..... 43,,,.4, c.o..t 4e, -, sl 13) ,•'' ' 9',.e ft' • 4 v4c. Gotit.Lot I ! ; , ,0 , . N.F.2, H cm ELAND F. PETERSON 7.t 7 I:M., 4 . tP7 '2';‘,., 9 •o5229i.9 r e.f , /a ,.,,,,,,, -F=•-r=---.:- LI; 1: AT". :.• ..,: '.'• ,, 7 i IS. RI ;','.....1 -2.7 ; ° ts . , . ' • /.':',-- • '''' I./(..4 11--ai ?!..°1`.:-.J.s.4°": , el.."", " .4..„..... . 'lisc,;54,",.,7C. ; A cl'°-.1'... '1-1-4.-;,'' 5Y.' 0 ILLI-1; ;.0.71.. E.2e 4 P-1)- ". 7-1-5-' :I:', 'f• 5r 3340 09 13 11 (D1 .,i''"1.• . ,0;""sk. fs:. - I. s s,i , ri JO, .'.° ,... --:,r--:---..11- ,,,Wr '51. :;: ::. 1 (01 /sS / r.$) tOS 999 11.1 . ' •• 29 •-•z N. ., 2 6,T,H , ST. 4 feo ...%.. 1::) 4/ v. t. ,.1; _ 1 cz qr.-72T- • .;d '1.07, 7 • ss..4,,, " "7, .);• ';:-b,--.,•:, -P',,,,,/ 3„ ,,.„ , • , , , _„cc, , 1 t.s.: :,,,, 2 are MI- , ,7\ - ...-- ' 7 Hi ' .. . 24 Fi.s. . 2 ..---1- '2 _-___-- '• ..' -r;j:,- .-. Balloon Test for Proposed AT&T site 1321 North 30th Street View from "A" 1 li ^ ,rL 4} s i�=• , itip r , f t .f • _- fr+^ fix t'pp,,��-. • y '_7r f_. tikSi' xk . .. .y., i. r_•.. f It ` - Looking Northeast to proposed AT&T site Looking Northeast z'�, • lirr �� r • ) - 1 iS OS ii �' i /;, E Phi' i ,. .... ,. _ t If ilk -- r . • y i • fit. Balloon Test for Proposed AT&T site 1321 North 30th Street View from "B" ""1"1111 . _ ....% , • -.',...: ' - ''''' • ' . .- .. •-!.. ..• ,, . • , . •.,..,• - -, . / •e • .,.. ;.3;:ks.,.•„ „, . . . •.• , . . ... .., ..,• .--- , . . 7:•ck:,,,..A., J.,,,,„, 1 , , t. ..., i :* •• ' .. * • 1'IF' '4. ,s, , ri? wit . ..;.--*74., - •. •4G.to, 1_%,,.i ...4. .-. • ,..-- . , -...,,,-_lir..., .• • . .. ,r,...,.1,•;,.. , .--1...,.&*• 0 •--.. . 0, S.-A*. I.'. . -- -1‘."..'Al.-, ,i ,--,-.., :.:--:).).i „i;--•-f-t".- - --,... . :c.,. ... . ---4_ . 1 ...-:, _..7 4::,-.i• .,...4.-,.'. ..:: 4 *, , ...ET, . , [_ ...... ,4, . „ • II- -'.. .. .. • ... .. ' . -...— .-- - - , . . .„. , - -. • - - _ - - - - - • ....._:..,:,,;....?.:.4 ........., . .... • ... _,. ..... ... I Looking directly North to proposed AT&T site Looking North 4 ar t fill St.L.,_litria z// 46 r. t aM �i i '° .� ,�y0 mayµ Balloon Test for Proposed AT&T site 1321 North 30fh Street View from "C" 1 .� ". _`C <5• Corr 4` Ire- \ �, } Yam°.;`. 'ht K - . ma .y` .:�t1. y • Sift • •.' 1 e ) r.l\- - B -4, , N__.- 7 'iii '` ' s , 4, 41.1 .n Looking Northwest to proposed AT&T site I ookitiv-. Northwest 1 •• • • • • • ‘4, • • 40,1, • 40. • 4, • rs' • 11LI ..-114• , - • 4010.1" • _ • • 51.41 * . A • City', 'n Department of Planning/Building/l . ,ks. ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW, SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 .3 e- APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU-4ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2000 Z C APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss 4 a PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR 17 ITI PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 .7 • < v c LOCATION: 1321 North 30thrStreet 0 Z a SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft.q• BUILDING AREA(gross): 322 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/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 Crj/ C, riZ . 72t162:Y'CAt_ /%0641 • • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS One r2D Gz fb /'7J, 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. ,Q 7 (/LJ Sign ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City41011 n Department of Planning/Building/Pits ' ENVIRONMENTAL & EVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:LCDop\AA L peUelopvvtev t COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU- ,ECF,i 1 DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2000 APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR '/ _ PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 RF�rFI 1�ED LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 322 sq.ft. AUG 0 2000 ECONOMIC UEvE� N EN SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antentr aura (ior %fop and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy dp196*T5 91-finf 4gtiare feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/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 4 .. ,4;t4-, ee-u- .„,;, ,,(4 '': • 217 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this applicatio 't articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas ere additional is needed to properly assess this proposal. _ gh6ROD Signature o D r ctor or Au zed Representative 'Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of tir .a Department of Planning/Building/Public ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Police COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU44,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2000 APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 322 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics ' Water Light/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 LIP G�I Plat Waal 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 a ditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 8-7 2/-O Signature of Director or orized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of . ;'n Department of Planning/Building/Publics Y F . .,.__Jks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH EET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fire f yeA 8--' COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU i,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AU r "lI ! r t i t r ■ i1 Ri1,_ C I V C APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss • PROJECT MANAGER: S ii9-rt� PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Mono sole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 787. 1 LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street MU I III AUG SITE AREA: 2,500 s..ft. BUILDING AREA •ross : - SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three s:•ctored afftElEMP4111fitiVylEttlhe to. and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would . ....... .- . - , .• :..re feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics ? Water Light/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 a t ad ac/5 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS a C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS . i„0"0„..xt • We have review-d this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ad,Jtional information is neede•�/properly assess this proposal. Ali ' I .,XP/;ia Signatur- . r,i -ct�oorAuthorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 • 1R + CITY OF RENTON 11,t• FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU NTC� MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 2000 TO: Steve Taylor, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fi Marshal SUBJECT: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point, 1321 N 30th St. MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. A fire mitigation fee of$167.44 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. . FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 1500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and one additional hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 foot in width, paved, with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 3. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. City oft;,._ an Department of Planning/Building/Public ___d�ks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: p` R-eUteu!( WaS -- COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU 14,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2000 OLTY OF RENTON CrlTY"oF'RENTON APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 AUG 1 1 2000 R IF" (�(� it f l to . LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street • SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft. IBUILDING AREA(gross): 322 sq.ft.BJ -- SUMMARY .v•�W v'-_• d�� �JVV OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/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 SS Ai C. 0 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 nee ed to properly assess this proposal. ) a 6/t Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Department of Planning/Building/PubliAlks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:ThUAs f rta-h i COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2009ITYOF RENTON, APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 G d-1 ' Li :,OOO LOCATION:. 1321 North 30th Street bUilLom aNu are v.‘.,1014 SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 322 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/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 N)p vip ret/Weal o1/1 c{ssoc,g1-e/ C (2, pc ✓Kill t A c) a4 -7LIo1/1 f-P. ✓e fpti✓ec. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 7pp/1C 1/14 pii0V/Cle if-evl71ze1 115/- d6 COWIIM.(�1 1 4,1-1oit5 �rlcl///IPA tv1 Re�l 0VI . Llsr 04RAI I�Id Qd/Iife5Se5 .re S1 (171 571067t e he:K V Wlovlo o12 51✓- uc tom . l I 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. / / /0 5(/;A Signature of Director or Authorized Representative bate Routing Rev.10/93 City of Ion Department of Planning/Building/Publil)rks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: S ce{ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU-1 ,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2000e APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR Oc• �I tit PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 Alic. LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street �? ®�) SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): 322 q.ft.r��''�� SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/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 IJO GOWlige 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. t arn Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of On Department of Planning/Building/Publiks ENVIRONMENTAL & . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I .o COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2000 • APPLICANT: AT&T Wireiss PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 322 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources t Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet ��� 14,000 Feet ✓ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS AW dila-dila ALIA • Co1 ai aidtUDA04 w Q &9 (tut-L ll *_ (.gut) 4tOt 4L iotattostiA40. 304 04 I -dos . C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have -viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas er addition:I t!formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signat .f Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 POLICY RELATED COMMENTS: The height restriction surrounding the airport to a distance of 10,000 feet from the centerline of the airport is 179 feet above sea level . The ground level at the proposed tower site is 211 feet above sea level , which exceeds the airport height restriction. The proposed tower is an additional 50 feet high, a total of 261 feet above sea level , plus radio antennas, height unknown. Trees do not constitute a shielding structure, for aviation purposes, as stated in FAA Form 7460-1. Structures of a permanent and substantial character or natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, which shield any object so that it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect air navigation. A cellular antenna was permitted to be constructed on the east side of I-405, with the restriction that it not exceed the height of the Texaco sign located on the west side of I-405. This height restriction must remain in effect for the AT&T cellular antenna. Arr - , f ,F���r J ',", •-• ul -J.�'� p '. . 1 I ' Mw ' j4v 1 1 it ip=11=3115 ar\-,-,=1z}„ 4 m ir:•••• _ 1 1 . it ' ill ' -;A, " IIMP 11 iiiiiumr, ..., - ..,, IA11 ii - _ - ~ Milt " ./ • ari �� r � Imo_ yi:i*S.'..:-.. :4,_,it, 'i I misii mg _ .....iff:Am I..-- to 4,, ri5 i 001,.."A,�� i. ‘ •■..,,, I L� o0 oe sol- o �� r k • kle COAlik de: '..:,: ) 1 *'' Att - op „........,....,,..,,,, ,____,, , 1,6,---4,)„,,,,, _. . , ,;4<::::, f._,,. ... ,,,,,,,, , _ „it_f 10,1 \r,f, 1 ,_. - ...Au-1.--E%i3B-'' , • •1441;k 011110) F °J°.‘ • i ii \, ,_, ,,,,, _. ./ „ ... . . i. ....„,- A ...3/401 a- . i' II:4 qP411:k '4' 'a t.7 P 1-14"wra`*ii ' . c---- '-' N....... it‘ 1 ' 1:f Lei '1111 ;tool ..,,, ._.4 .:____4‘._. ..t!,,, c a/ ;1113 BI R. gi) "s •;_. 84444 ' .7 . tt NI MI . 7- i VII FJ` a&anti , //PNI [14 - .-. Faiiil . I�a+�w`�. F himlik4_,--144----,*4....t. . ...,-�t ' a - . ' ' D` r - {q 1 n �� 1 ,/ AID 2,.: ,t Il II;: lY1Jaid ° il< 174L'e �Sll u_ �` = _ 1��i�a 1l:� ;:• rl.:. fire !NI�! rs 8 is a.. 4ull 4 �-j ' , EIS _ - �J.p W �u I4 ig✓ 2 Il.el L 1_�' (: �© itVq, 1 1 , a / QB� Y.II CID ED i hi ,__, Itl , V tlF � _7,... „,,,, ,,,D.:,.....u....,,,, , � flRfl��ll '�11 3 . , r... /p�/AID ��i�I. s� 0 ~ ff igii. 2 A, , 1 I ORE otuakj- i kiwi lb. ....; al ,�-, ,.� ill ._. -,�1 1� � � • ���,• � :=_=_=_=== -===========-=-_=_-__=_=�a��� D C irS1 41/1411g111- Ill -4-141 , : re -_,::::::::::::-E:E. ::_::-:::...:::::K::::::::::::::_.::::::_.:::::::::::_va.:::::::__:__ ,..._,.. yoll, 2E-r- -0,. IV' 112"1;i142 1 11 ng77T4' o .,„ 1• 1 „.• h+,-:-_-::::-K"--_-:-..*:---E- •••:.:::E=K-c_cf::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:::::.:E:E:::_ _.,i_.:.:;-,.,..-iiiiiiiii.... -7. ........., q ID Pt `` -- __J1 I ___ _ _____ _:__ __ ____ _-E! _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ �aa ` "' � ‘ �■ Teti 1112/ • \1YIJlYllllA _- __-_______.___ - _ _____:-_ 0 0 r !t„>; �� 1 I iz.t•.1{.� f I la„„. I re i li,/a h,�,zz�,: 2, zS _r 'y .I E'p+3 Q. [221 •+._�_{ I\ 1 1el�h q yam' - s-; S 1 eI JeJS"'J4"'!!''JtI)11)olz9!zve;27I-16 3 _ +Ls--'`(2 ,} 1 3 'L1- w 1 1 !g 1 . II1a1 j . IP . J' �` = 0 ; 4 33RD ;" -� 'y�;i 2 t'.a [' .:'• 1.. 'flay.' >- CC , 6 VSz,41i;ei r �IrI) tiN 3 a v UF\ .. Q (9y.1It s,,,l; 16 le -t: i I 32ND'` ' ST., zso'' Ie !! ]A !7 6 ]Y^Jl A JI OO 2e L7 to SO 100 - a ..... j �I� Icii , Sri ,I iei- ILIJ 32ND . ST. ]:, I" - - , .... --- ' EkNOI' 3 ie Ise 7I to�t1 ,t i 11 ,,'4T�, �4 35 Ir.i • `zes 60 ^\v iot]! y40)s I,3 ]a'JJ'�'a 1 J1 1 301 z? 1 2T'�"s nr ISI ,4 . te I 31 ST. ST. 38: 3; 1 58 w • r�l'st,•�ts:ts, se.ts'� so I - I - „ Z--- .v----1 = ,',�• - L Ii l�p��l di '�gy e � .• Of+: 1:t7^_16 1�n1 20 i 21 t: .3 I I�2S� ^-_ p f:^ `. �9 JY '!• JJ'. I o I �I 2p6 sii Y 4'e:r'1. i �si0o i 2 2 _F•t^I �- itilli I 1 1 - i� ,S s ,C33S T� N. 30TH Si-. ��' j LL )1' J • I • 220 30 '�.��•e� 4 rs'ts'SO J , • I • . l ,e w �w so• s t, 7>0' ��,= Si, - Q `t1 Ijai :% IQ ' ,� 0 fr.. Q E Nins s^ o gqi. •t7T ' S. . \ : c9r tilLirl I ©0 � 6 —1- . vI ' 'x' Ito; Z. a.to 10 1 It I j ,e .7 ,e n ' t� , Ai ' I e - = • ,Sr -� iw_=4_-1_J_yr-+•i4ç1 I' ;, SI 28TH PL. 4F2 x III''------+ R—J.or. ,'�wtfr,' a I SO R bI I1 O I_ 50�S� �yIyI I I ' I y 11 (!7 �yII I,II I�, r M MA, - ,t 1ti , 13 Le zI,22 27: 7 s* f r .. n ,I, - 5 tt 2r2.9J /t2.S b { a•. :iW lmJ w o u _ —�—N. �$Th `ST. 'J --• / I JAMES I. 6 MRS I• _ � I fj + . ,.n M 'I C,f MARENAKOS ruO Q2L< /� - 1T it r Q ]7 eo / EELANO ort•.. ..S , _ LETERSON • ��Rer 1•t.rt a2c.4 tt�.s.se,''' .% ."' I _ • u 1 ^ use rue f:cJ7 u.fit. �;ie ` �pP .: '�1 Z ,y7 t'_ , e " r 5 n .. E 0 SRIOE '= r.Ss.>. �� '.is 4. q9J ss•. -, a r' iT®�, 3•. ��r >r.rJ r. O ZLc Z �e PV?6 II/de. G. L.Lot 15 < c r •I '— - t EEANO F. PETERSON r.t.7 f <zrt.; rcia ' s ,2t. N.€?, H Cia " Z .eO AC. 'CJlrt.9 7lt.r f r ? 2'15,, _ , • .t�> 32 31 cillt- 30 /P:Tz ,,� E' = us I. ., ir.a aiti z _ E 5 r R1 • b f ct.. _„ (to gh ,77:, ; -s ae�v IDS ,\ oei >qu`,���',(/x�'2 '_j, I _... - 15 spashs -,... ^�I,,/,,'• o a r r p,,.l rtJs ". ( , • S, lore 151• R No Itf/ >OGrq \ `IY Nu bf �`� �� �/ 29 -s N. . 26TH ~ ST. � Jo W i, a f; r e `O' 7 v `' / Z aril MJe, 'iI /i _— .tsO N I t M ,® _ I n2 a •,.. ? is S ! z cJ !{ I:� .� w _ - of .. 4 _ ], � City of' n Department of Planning/Building/Publiks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:CtA c1 SeyvICP,o COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 23, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-104,CU-I1,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 9,2000 APPLICANT: AT&T Wirelss PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE TAYLOR VI Ill(OF RENTO14 PROJECT TITLE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point WORK ORDER NO: 78725 *Fe civi 11 LOCATION: 1321 North 30th Street • C1a .2000 SITE AREA: 2,500 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): 322 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectoredagartpay4tithlICIN and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/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 re ewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whladditional information is neede to properly assess this proposal. attire of Direct.r Authorized Representativ Date` Routing Rev.10/93 PACIFIC TELECOM SERVICES OpA A(' 'av IIVQ TRANSMITTAL % ,,e ®®® /irl,r DATE: August 14, 2000 TO: Steve Taylor FROM: Lori Chase City of Renton — Planning Pacific Telecom Services RE: AT&T Wireless Facility— SD51 Coleman Point 1321 North 30th Street Project#: LUA00-104 Hello Steve, Attached will find the letter requesting a modification to the landscaping. This is one is much better shape than the last! I'm more than happy to work with whomever reviews this request so if they have any question or comments send them my way. Also just so that I am not forgetting anything I owe you I have listed out the following items that I recall you had requested: • Inventory of existing AT&T sites that are within the City of Renton • Propagation maps and technical justification as to why we have selected the location we have for our facility. • Additional photo simulations to give the neighbors a better idea of what the proposed facility will look like. I image that the above information will probably take about a week to complete, if I'm really lucky even sooner. I should have this information to you by next Monday (8/21) at the latest. If you see anything missing please give me a call at (206) 696.3367 or in the office at (206) 342-9000 ext. 386 or via e-mail at Ichase@pacifictelecomservices.com. Thanks again for your help on this project, much appreciated! Sincerely, Lori Chase Page 1 of 1 Request for Modification of Landscape Requirement The city is requesting AT&T place 15' of landscape screening around the site for a visual buffer. We.respectfully request the City's review and approval of our proposed landscape modification. We have designed our site to best meet the needs of the community while striving to achieve the intent of the code. Unfortunately there are a few issues that do not allow for the full 15' of landscape screening and buffering required by the code. In the subsequent narrative I will try to best explain our site and the constraints we are facing with regard to the communications facility and the property in which it is located while considering the following decision criteria: A. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements,based upon sound engineering judgment; and B. Will not be injurious to the other property(s) in the vicinity; and C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and D. Can be shown to be justified and required fore the use and situation intended; and E. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) When choosing a location for a wireless communications facility visual screening and buffering of a site are at the forefront. AT&T's Coleman Point site located on N 30th street is a good example of the importance of choosing a site carefully. We searched for a location that would balance out our needs for coverage and capacity for our customers while using good natural visual buffers that would help to lessen the impact on the surrounding area. Fortunately the site has good natural vegetation that lends a hand to our mutual goals. A large outcrop of tall trees binds the southern, southeastern and southwestern property lines making for wonderful screening of the equipment compound and monopole. When viewing the site from N 30th Street the monopole is partially obscured by the existing building while the equipment compound is not visible at all. This is also the case from the Northwest portion of the property boundary. Additionally along the Northeast property line there is a row of shrubs approximately 20' in height that help to conceal the site. There are constraints of the property that do not allow for the full 15' of landscaping around the compound. The dimensions of the property are a major hindrance in our attempt to meet the code requirements. The subject property is one that is long and slender and only about 64 feet in width. The landowner has allowed AT&T the use of a 50' x 50' area in which to place our facility. The small amount of width makes it extremely difficult if not next to impossible to have 15' of landscaping done on the east and west side of the compounds. The AT&T—SD51 Coleman Point 1321 North 30`h Street Page 2 of 2 western side of the facility is abutting the property line. The east side has a small swath of land used for the landowner's access to the southern portion of their land. Without this access the back property will be land locked. On the north and south sides of the compound we have more room for play and conformity to the code. We were able to place a good portion of landscaping on these sides. In order to make the site visually balanced and proportional while using the space to the fullest extent possible we have placed five feet of creative landscaping on the east and west sides and will have nine feet on the north and south sides of the compounds. In addition to the dimension of the property we had to take into consideration the potential for additional carriers that may be interested in collocating on the site in the future. We must use the limited amount of space we have sparingly and work on future expansion of the compound. If we are to shrink the compound area down any further we jeopardize future carriers being able to use the space within the leased area. We have shrunk the compound area to the minimum size necessary to house our equipment while expanding the landscaping to the fullest amount possible within our confined area. We are striving to achieve the intent of the code while working with the property dimensions, landowner needs, future expansion and potential collocation issues. It is our goal to continue working on this issue and come to a resolution that works for the city, community,property owner and AT&T. If you have any comments or suggestions I would be more than happy to discuss them with the staff. AT&T—SD51 Coleman Point 1321 North 30`h Street • »CITY'>O> ...:_E.>' '<' <::::<`>>::::<:::<::::: ':`:: ;::::: >€>:`><>:::><'::::i€ :::: >:>:::::::> `><: ! ELSERVICES>'DI S d > : <> _:':. >_< ':`:'' . <::: ; SURROU .. fJ ( ... R PERTY::.0 V ► 5.....::. > :.<:i`t"'i>E:`3i ::fee aftt�...slab.ect #e<»i€<:``: >> <: »>:<_<> `>:>>::>'>» <<`" >`>''>> • • • i olnop tc 3o. 'I � . PROJECT NAME: AT sT — sb,5 i Cale mete Poi n-i-- APPLICATION NO: c-U 1 OCR • I04I C U-- 4 ler- The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER btrttal s.. 1 MILLER JONES PT- 411 CLA DR#A 334210-3215-04 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON i DEPT OF HWYS 0 1 334210-3236-09 TEXACO INC TAX DEPT PO BOX 7813 j 334210-3237-08 NOESS KEITH A 21210 4TH PL S 334210-3240-03 SIDEBOTHAM G A 1404 N 30TH ST 334210-3245-08 SOUTHLAND CORP 2711 N HASKELL AVE 711 334210-3248-05 MILLER JONES PT ! 411 CLA DR#A {334210-3250-00 SKI'INVESTMENT 1302 N 30TH ST 334210-3251-09 KOCH BRUCE W ' 2900 PARK AVE N 334210-3255-05 KENNYDALE UNITED METH CH ! 3005.PARK AVE N 01281 334210-3256-04 BROWNIE'S LAWNSHOP 1305 N 30TH ST j 334210-3257-03 HARDIE LARRY W 3808 OCEANSIDE DR f 334210-3260-08 CHEE WANT j 13028 NE 32ND PL • '334210-3270-06 CHEVRON USA INC PROPERTY 575 MARKET ST • 334210-3271-05-000 STATE OF WASHINGTON 0 1 334210.3276-00 LANE KIM W 11700 SE 78TH PL 334210-3280-04 LYONAIS LORETTA 2820 PARK AVE N 334210-3281-03 MCCORD CHARLES N 2802 PARK AVE N 334210-3282-02 1 HANAHAN VIOLET M G ! 2808 PARK AVE N . . i 334210-3283-01 SCOTT PHILLIP M 1402 N 28TH ST 334210-3289-05 STEVENS THOMAS L ' 1408 N 28TH ST 334210-3290-02 GRUNDHAUS WILLIA E • ' 7001 RIPLEY LN N 334210-3291-01 M •LAM VINH : 1422 N 28TH ST j 334210-3292-00 DENTON JAMES M 11504 SE 82ND ST 334210-3293-09 STEVENS THOMAS L 1 1408 N 28TH ST 334210-3294-08 JENSEN WILLIAM C 1432 N 28TH ST j 334210-3295-07 BRUNDAGE JAMES D 1440 N 28TH ST 1 334210-3296-06 MADAJ PAULA J&WARREN J : 1428 N 28TH ST 334210-3297-05 GIBBS WAYNE R/HW • 1444 N 28TH ST 334210-3298-04 I LENGYEL WILLIAM M 1436 N 28TH ST 334210-3299-03 • • • (Attach additional sheets, if necessary)' . I (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • y > //}yn� Applicant Certification i, cf�e,/a. Lod 2 lheih , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: RI/Title Company Records ❑ King County Assessors Records Signed��� Date 7-/2-O!? e , C ',O-� e • (APP cant) ,OP ..... '�S'�aol s s1ON��. Di' NOTARY e ,:q .1 . OTAR ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notarygublic, in and fpr tljetate-of.Wangngt¢n, residing at Seatl-ie on the 12 day of ,ILei, PORIAG : , 2pDO . • g ». a Signed �(Notary Public) �� � V)/A�•' = ................................... ... . ......... ..... CRT •.•l N... ....1VIA N. ..................................... ..... ... • ; >:•<::•• <:»::: I u L&Lu• t:«.:.: .: .. : :..:.:,hereb.,:;certif :<that;notices.of;thpr;.o•osed,a ,.lication were::;S;lailedto.:;.;:::::. :.:::. . • • Y Y ;::..;•:P .:p Pp eaC}7[::IESted.> r0 ert ::�Wfl.er.:.oFl.;.:..::... ;•...:.� ............. o a u c in an <for>the<State`a Was'ington esid n v:: :: i'5::. �ii:: .i':: '.:ii:4i:•i:::: ::iiii':4' : .::•;�.i'ii':.::.i:' ::vi:v:•i:h:::::%::L;,. :.,..<:# li. t;,;;!ts:13...E M! ii i::.iiiii:.iiii:.ii: : •>:•::.;:.:.: :'.:. .:.: ;:' ;::: .•: .;•::'<::<.;:.::.•;•>• ;:. II IL; listprop.doc REV 03i00 STATE OF WASHINGTON IVAM.YN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29.03 2 JUNE 29, 2003 ,SY 6 . \•ci le r'.,/v,v0 Proposed Mitigation Measures: NOTICE OF APPLICATION 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report,dated July 17,2000, prepared by ADaPT Engineering Inc.,regarding general earthwork and design criteria for the tower foundation. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS), MITIGATED , Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Mr.Steve Taylor,Project Manager.Development I Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 23,2000.This matter Is also scheduled for a public hearing on October 3,2000,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you are Interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services ' DATE: August 9,2000 Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive ' additional information by mail,please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will APPLICATION NAME: AT&T MONOPOLE-COLEMAN POINT automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array CONTACT PERSON: STEVE TAYLOR(425)430-7219 at the top and a 12 Inch x 28 loot equipment shelter at the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately . 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft.parcel zoned Convenience Commercial(CC). The applicant is also requesting to PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION modify landscape buffer requirements. • PROJECT LOCATION: 1321 North 30'Street ._._.. I:T{181.P•7.L.il,I..4,...,;.i"1m1 ,y ' , r. r`J'e w L. 3 OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON•SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M):As the Lead Agency,the City of , .try+."..n-u 1 v I.I,+:q;n��''��Lyyy...•""' '""-' -• e¢ o= .1...1 Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore, i ..4 III_ �1•I 7.ja I Il. .- CCC777"' ,..u..• I; ON• k •_ •Ts3;. Y CC ,6 �r as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a 33RD ST. _ • g f' I I - !-I • DNS-M Is likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single P�!!�� II441#,��ffd1(�� a�j1� rtt Or k ��c comment period.There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- I-i2:1, 141 Ib".i` 1 464< ""`SI-E ry ry� -� 3 roi', a Significance Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. 9-,, �-� = -FPS. -5'Y-L , ' N• 3.„ .• Si.• • ; PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 31,2000 L. -j, di t 166 •--•-4.:•g.^•- Ott 4 :"13 >s ---- -j•A- 'AI 32ND: ST. • ,' r r• f`'v•`cs4`. ' NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 9,2000 '. 1 F -0I59 C 1 t'1 r;;,,i .tults.l. •I' k] ..,`,, I I le- __3q 35 .•� ill 60 APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless Si,qo�x, d,.,rujvt,lmi®I®III„ 3 ,. .ti.. pti., •,,, o ((t 617 Eastlake Avenue East }yi.Lili; I.I i s�.( j.{Gj i Seattle,WA 98109 "}}��,rI 1131ST. ST. : ' .e, 38y 3i7 I. _ 58 • OWNER: Paul Miller ,rrt Ly .,91..G I i II hffz:...,___ .j N • $9 g 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE �"j�,n�^,I„I„I- ;' I��` ��"r Renton,WA98056 'Lc; 'Eb 4'„ Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review:Healing Examiner Conditional Use N. 30TH -ST." r• '•• 1 30iN r• >f FJeW- - Permit,Modification of Landscape Requirements in iQ 8OJiQ Q Imo-"a Tia b r_ �'1 Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permits l"' ,.>•'' I '•I ♦g`1� -• , r t ¢�i I mil'` n Ii„*.l(1/1" .,446oM 11 , It. I D . %..)f. Requested Studies: NA 29TH sr. . '-pa0 i T 42�' Pi 1 I i' �1-• ' Location where application may Al m 1 s: s-;••-- I ^l: tz1 I. 71 r• be reviewed: PlanningBuildinglPublicWnrks Division,Development Services Department, ,.�. ,.,� - �-1„ram La�.,.,. a,�33,,, - q p • _•.`�' yj 8 mr.—r 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 U t� pl I. Ci"•,I.r - �;t._-� — +� ij•r PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for October 3,2000,before the Renton Hearing 28TH Pr�LJ. , ,-, ;1 50 Examiner In Renton Council Chambers.Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th i r fib Ile.M i 1.Imp ,. III itt,, �•• floor of the new Renton CityHall located at 1055 Grad Way South. • _ s Y ryp � q,O' CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: .•ns,, "x,iirIl gy ." L ( _ ___ �9 r . ,9,. . ... Ali Land Use: The subject site is designated Convenience Commercial(CC).Hearing -r 9 ramr• � Examiner review is required because the monopole Is located less than 100-feet q F:J from residentially zoned property 1 W §-•,.07 II v. Environmental Documents that , t•)- �' ', 4-ir-- Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known 3z 3i ao �J i j.w_ ag,',•- �, to en Development Regulations _ i =-_ r- "_t�" Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the Citys SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Sensitive •'• 'Ca�^^ 'x9' l s �' Areas Ordinance,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire `''" 1 , �,. "+ . ,,y r"I V_-..;5 - Code,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. •_ __ - •' C• •r- .1. . � 29 r � r N. 26TH ,$r,.r „1 , -2 \. ZRR NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION �' / •'pia-• •W ° i` Ti • CERTIFICATION • • I, A Rd rep 0J2) a . ui , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me.in 3 conspicuous places-on or nearby the described property on . A,, J,4S¢, .10 00 • • Signed: p _ ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing ' o , on the 11 JUL, day of - 1 . ZO e o MARILYN KAMCHEFF c 777 ,, -- -r 45---/ NOTARY PUBLIC '1MARILYN -)�� yi STATE OF WASHINGTON MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:62900 COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 29, 2003 F A io2 Y 4. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS), MITIGATED ���✓ DATE: August 9,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: AT&T MONOPOLE—COLEMAN POINT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would erect a 50 foot monopole with a three sectored antenna array at the top and a 12 inch x 28 foot equipment shelter at,the base of the pole. The project would occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of a 19,560 sq.ft. parcel zoned Convenience Commercial (CC). The applicant is also requesting to modify landscape buffer requirements. PROJECT LOCATION: 1321 North 30`h Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): As the 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 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 31,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 9,2000 APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless 617 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle,WA 98109 OWNER: Paul Miller 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review;Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit,Modification of Landscape Requirements Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permits Requested Studies: NA Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for October 3,2000,before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Convenience Commercial(CC). Hearing Examiner review is required because the monopole is located less than 100-feet from residentially zoned property Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Sensitive Areas Ordinance,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code,and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION ' ' Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated July 17, 2000, prepared by ADaPT Engineering Inc.,regarding general earthwork and design criteria for the tower foundation. Comments on.the above application must be submitted in writing to Mr. Steve Taylor, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 23, 2000. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on October 3,2000,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division, (425) 430-7282, to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please 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: STEVE TAYLOR (425)430-7219 • PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • t},,{arnll.rl,l,liliire4J,,.ttlt:l=:l:�j y ,e. „Q�t„ ril / :a� —. v.{'L 3 13 S!I II], ), ,n'37']t 33gI 30;_„=r,27' f ® ] 1 y 7 L �_ I�"�.i47I I .ILFJI . 3 t ' =,, 11 Q � i. -1-63� > 62 33RD ST. • • �fz; �_..,-1 Ii1=il(� �: :i k1= c 1] a s '$ ' r� �*1 - N. .I. 32N0" -•ST . 2;.7 F 0 0 39 34 !71}6 3 J/ 73 31 0 t7 t6 LO " i00 h '0 I.•„,, i! 2B5•. \\. S_ 1 e 0 c��'v'rt'to � ' : $ ,�I i r p� LAJ 1:---: —, N '�� 21,r 1 11• ^ ..- 1 \\ max,\ ": I 32ND :• ST. s ° 3 : y f-, ,, • i CG,1 i' aJ'!O�I I4eJ tol•d Yt y.i,�t.,q� 34 3J` 1Y '-' :'tes1. 60 '�J.Fp� ,t'3, Ie31l,70 I as u 133f'tl�trtl 'i 301 79It2AII v�s `3 It/ m li ..: , ' ' - s� FI®®1®`[11 r, " ' ;a•. 4�1i.14�i . i. I I I LL I -7. fro: 38 37 �{{ `, 58 31 ST. SyT+.� • " ! - 11_. n 3, 'x„'-7'71 f"•nit2"' I' I,g� Z«-. a XM R. • ':}.: $9 - ,. ,4 . !,•4.: , e 120I 21 IL 2J tz 2, ____•L a___" _' :_ ^ J• J•,J7 1 l0 - �.- .=stt ;I'g ia.r.le I'� �` j'fro i33, a I1�•.t'J•J� I I �• r r:, LLLJJJ T I le I,r I• I • I I• I '' , 0p 9,c 1 220 30_ -. N. 30TH i ST. 9 _ ::...::.' 30TH ST,s qR , 1 • 1,J"S1.1t, 16 I7 1! t0 it. 23 Ier,25 T3% .' , s��}t _ +� t— � _j.}ram in : 1 w: I eS ]3 3tl iY 9 7 31 31I jtII_! I 1d�I. � Q•, �,• 29TH 5T. _ F----140 7 ''I 7' 4 • Vt F>+ I , 9tt t{ . . r ' i �. • till • I © �. I Y �_� '„�o'�- is 1 L 1t i 1 1s I,e n I,e T71 ttt� I<il:.‹. II. ' �.1 a y - I`I�'I I.: • "o { '0 3, 3D f37I 331 30 37�.i�-_,I -t.�`.6 n-26y d ',".433 •I„ � I 4 _ L� I '4B MI ---� _ :b • k l W rrx ��''' -I. I® I. i00 1.,mtf?. p -'�,_-.. ' r tn_'_s:w-i lgii !K. �ti/ • 28TH PL. ! r „° d'"'o i P. 50 DI \y'Y 12'I;i I. ,. , I . IC ' C LlC 1 11: =l p3yLr 12 I� TS' 1.. ,7 1 i 13 is.t,122 r3! F e ! a YI ' �/ 5 t d— -:,—:— •—Fri, •T — —=—N ?$TH- STrari -r•—' t --•-•-ST:•-•-•-•-•-•- ;rn�I ' Iv I �- ,ate, ,,: Il 21 „t9. „zs M I"' :a_ lm_1 41 1-r _ d", 1 13-'O! •U ' • JAMES L a MRS FM1 ,J�< t, E, t MARENANOS , LELAN n C.:7 ' iif�` n.,' -$'�'' :' i --o PETERSON •4 rr,e'ro ..r7 ref)' ro • j z' `' 1t3 Y' ., L r Ai 1L ED S"RIDE S r, �� ,11313" `t„0-� . ; ,e, / ci,.,. GO.Lot I l / =.�A+� 4 N.E. H C'r.T ELAND F.PETERSON tt 7 �b 4 Jo��.. J sties ', (�72t7�� •is " 2 0AC. wi.J., it., ,e I �7` y t :8 161 a 2 i s e 32 31 _ 30 p m ,:� tc l..,7l t o t no I rt.o. ----1Q `a I� 5 t s Y No , ie. Ells am :. , N, A "�.. L�pp •'' 2 j 5 $1NY ,<,, f _ -_1 sl e �+e '�a r rJ' 4. ' • •� .J „r r 1ra, ,,Nto a W 29 le-Z N. 26TH ST. ; .)!_.o-\/ .,JQI.J,/ D `d1O11.R'}, w_,. 1 .11 i _ �, `+ 1,' y _�- ®w CITY ,IF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor. Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • • August 9, 2000 • Ms: Lori Chase Pacific Telecom Services ` 425 Pontius Avenue North#202 , Seattle,WA.98109 • . SUBJECT: AT&T Monopole at NE 30th Project No. LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF: Dear Ms. Chase: 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 September 12, 2000... 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, Steve Taylor , Project Manager. cc: Mr. Paul,Miller/Owner AT&T Wireless • • • • • • • • arrap,wcoo: 1055 Sou th Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 � This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%cost consumer N SE CES IVI. r RBI[T ::::::: :::::: ::: :: ::::::::: ::::: ::: E`ER . APPLI� . . .. ............. . ..... . ..::::::.............:::....:::::.�:...............:.:.:.....::::::...........................(....1...................................... ::.::::::::::::::::.:::.:.::...R. . .EqT..i N FD R M ATI O .................... Note::':If:tl er,.e:ls more hart one::legal:;owne,plea.se:attach an adtfitionat:: rtotarizi3t3 MasterApclicatron;for:eaatt:o'wner ;... ..,;... PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: PALIL PSI LL�IZ ArTfT - SL> S I CO Lt 4P.t PO 11.tT, Pfld Lfi t tp tJ frt C(.k: _ MO JO PC c.a✓ PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 3623 LhJCoL-N Mi . 74E-. I3Z1 l021-1-4 CITY: p ZIP: Sb✓� KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 3 42 0 - 3Z 2 _u1-k TELEPHONE NUMBER: (42c) �Z2�- EXISTING LAND USE(S): � COMM eiAcL r>>;. .;.an`owner << >>>><< : � .n.;,.;. :. >;;;:):.:: . :.:. . . PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: fr- ' T 1 ' 1 c.onAM COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CC ADDRESS: . /� ��I I- E 'e, AVi✓ E PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): NA CITY: CS- Ls ZIP: cle ;cio, EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): :CO.NTA >T>:P RSO :: SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAd3E): NAME: 1?t coltscse Leciwe ftv Tteue-- Z, s-1=0 6 6LULbI f l c, A-a-et; 3 ZZ . M-. COMPANY(if applicable): l ,L l-LC L PROJECT VALUE: f��C�—�-�JiGes 150)b0u ADDRESS: 42_5 Pdy.jTl US Au },I. 4 2o2 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? y S Lo�� 2. CITY: S i-r ..e ZIP: G ta i 0 1 1 1 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY • SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER and E-MAIL ADDRESS: 2°tO• (d10.33 61 NO tbckaseerlc.oche-+-. , ei- • ::>:>:>: :>�G�!►L::>Cy►ESGRr ;>::::1 -_ _<:..�.�:::�1�0:::E .'�'�"�:>A c tt • ;<P;::t' ':,;`>';;;:'::;;r.,;.:;::s 2#:::::.:E':.:; <` { ' '< > '` ` f``" '5 `` ................................. ::>::::ikli:iliii.•0.C.Ri ii gi.it ``�.1 :':::.�Cft: .::.:staffWill : t :<; > ilitO<<;'::<i' >>>< iiiii> g i< —ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: • —COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ REZONE $ _ LOT'LINE ADJUSTMENT $ — — SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ • —TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ — SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION— MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ . SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ — EXEMPTION $No Charge — ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ — > > 1 f=1'Q : J)> ::>Q11VN RSHfP»`<'`:::: > :`::::: >i:>::: »« ::::: :: ::::>:>:::<:»':::::>::: `« :`' P 0-0 I, (Print Name) •G./r(4 (W.GLI. 1.1i clare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,_the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein ' contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliifilep A �t. ATTEST: Subscrib+: .6,4, tire me •• of r P�Dlic,in and for the State of,,:.,. , T * � � •r - (Name of net/Representative) � _ 4n e I d of �-" i 1- ,rio e_ --it .'. - a Liel arv«la. Jo Loy-sprr, Miler- 01;16_,, • �"' . ` •.1 (Signature of Owner/Representative) Y( (Signature o ! +�° ::com 1 t :::>b' >::.>it S of:r<<::::::::>::::::::i::::::::::<s:::<:<'>: <::<:::»::::::::::::::::>::»:«:::::>:.iii:::::::<::::>:: :::>:::::::::::::>::::::::>.::::>::::»::::»»::>:::<:....::>::::>::>::»::>::::>::::::::::,:::<:::>::::>::::::::>:::::<:::::::::<;:»»::>::>i:x::>' 'h>!s:::sectrot:i:i:,tc:: e.. . a:::: t ... .t �.................... :»::.....::::...... :::..1 :... mb r::::::>:>:::>::>.::>:::::.............;:::..............:: .A.;:;:.AAi?.....BSP:»:::CA ...5.....CA1 . :::.::.;CPA .. U .... t.:::.:::>EC:»»>: ':::<:><:€:;:>:>«::: .:- :W:•i ::::.: :ii i?i?i:...': }i:ii, v:. M. ..... �'M� ':::iiii .. r .:.n. :{:::i::: ................::::.M.HP::::>::::�E�(3D.:::)�p::pJ�.:R.::::.(3UM.p.;:.::;��:.A:; .aJ�..h#.....��.H>s�...A... S�:LpL;r-1:::<.:�.p SM.:::::�1VIt.::::,.:................................................... `� r <iiiiii ii<€>€'€'> >>iggi `i::> >: €i iiitt::TAVOO: T.;.. .............................. ...................... :::<:::>::>::::>�<:::>:::>::::;:>:<::::::>;>::>:>:::>:::::�:�:;:;:: �:��::<��� .... ...... ...`r`:t?T�L;:�:O >)E'AGI=..I�R ...tL�. ..�... .. MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 03/00 ,..,CIT;.:'.>.:, :::: > '':::M:: : >:: ::::::HiMi: »><'s::#:? :':::•:::<''<:>:<>:`i:i:<iini:<::<<< >"::•::Mi;>::»>:.....:::::>»:::::::::::::::::::::::......: >:::> :: :::::::'::::>:»> :'::::: :::: ::::::;:..w.::::::::>: . 't' .. i NTH t...... .. >:DE ELOPME:::: :: ` 1�.>:::_>::»<I::::::<:?< `' `<»> > > <''> iron ' > ' `i >iMig s>'`<: .........:....:..>....... ::.: :.::;.;:.::.:>:.;:.;:.:::.;:;.;:;;::.;:. :.;::.::.:::.::.;:::.:.;;::<::.:::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:.:.:.:.;:.;;:.:;.:;:.; ...:..:PM�NT>SERA/I��S..A..UIS3QN...........::::.::: : :... .:.:.::................................................:::.�:. . .....................'::0::............ te:::::If;she o...1 No :more tt?an::one;legal owners please a ch an adt itiona1: .'ntriax►zii MastlfrAppl(catlQn for:::0aclt.aWtit'a .... .....: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: • NAME: • PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: . CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): ::>;:<:.•<::»:>:>::>:: ::<'>':' > A..P ,UCA IT..(if other than awned ................... PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: • ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: . TELEPHONE NUMBER: • • PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): • ;;:. >>.:NTACT PER '> `: :€ii€::i•` :`:.::`:' > > :: •. `;s .. 'P' SITE AREA(SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: . '- CO ANY.(if applica~le): A 7• PROJECT VALUE: : ADDRESS: • IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? • CITY: ZIP: • IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? • TELEPHONE NUMBER and E-MAIL ADDRESS: ::::::::.;:::::; ::::::::::.: :..::::::::...::::.:::.;:::::::::.�::::::::::.:<.;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:::.::.::;>p.�V. . C)...MINT..��.... ... . . ...[�..........Q.N............... .................................... ...................:.::.::::.::::::::.:::: raotarfzetf N(aster;Appfrcatrora.for. aahWtrar,;...:. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: PAID L I`nl LLiet2. • }kTgT - sl• s i Cat-enAP-.i PC)1 M06J0 PO c..E PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION:' ADDRESS: .362.3 Li kt CoLN AVE 14 e, 132-1 e -11` sue_ CITY: v....eNtrom ZIP; Q b56 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): a .342Io— 321-2-v`� TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) •2-4- EXISTING LAND USE(S): Catit ............................:.... ::........................................................... ......................................... PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: IA • CDNl1AEi Prl .,: . . COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP:DESIGNATION: cG ADDRESS: 6,I /1 v� PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): I !'C ( ?( DEVELOPMENT PLANNING I`F f't CITY OF RENTON CITY: !J" -nL ZIP: ciet,;cocA EXISTING ZONING: JUL 3 1 2003 TELEPHONE NUMBER: r [-�,{ I PROPOSEDaa ZONING (if applicable): � �� Gn l ..........:: :::.::..... :.: .:.....:...: :. ....:................ . .......... ........ lr � � SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: Lip Ci•1y ; ' ``'e LQCAS�P�% bTYkl Z, sbc, 6U��DI�.Ic, A-R-Gr\ 3ZZ COMPANY (if applicable): t C.,-LE C. t LC LC ILA PROJECT VALUE: . I Soy 1)0 0 ADDRESS: 425 P01,m us AUK �,I J. 7' 2oz IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? �T y S ZO NV 2, CITY: ZIP: Gp (O c� IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER and E-MAIL ADDRESS: 20tO' L9 1041 bGkt sew coclna+.• ✓t&- �S.C. R.............. .O ....PE?{).�EE�T• �"...l�ttach s e a::.............................. ................. ........................................... .... a s.alr. . ............. A1c1 C tip ±•o ................................:...:::.::::::...........................................:::..::TY.P...::::....F.:�P.QI�.f..C.A�'.Q:N;.8c:.FEES:::.::..:.....:..::....:.::::.:.:::::::::::.:.::...::::::..::::::.:..:::::.::::::.::::::::;:.:: cat 1. `.:t: :f:w :„< , > > :>< '> >:>'::`;« ;<.>:<:s will . er... ....>::�: : :.........C.h...c.C::.ai..:a • ...... . �on..t.: ...s.. h ::. . .. ..... .. . ... of .. . ... .et...rr�..r�+ ...ees................................ _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ SPECIAL PERMIT $ • _ SHORT PLAT $ MPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ / OJ,pa PRELIMINARY PLAT $_ _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION $No Charge _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 6-0C).c� REVISION $ I, (Print Name) RI IA.I R. 1 A Dee,declare that I am (please check one) the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ®1t.N''•NAA tt {� ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to b$fore sti�� Notar biic,irt)and a a to I er for the State of WA residing at :ii. n1,9: l� (Name of Owner/Representative) St ( t., ,on thg ;.,.y o�.� e f bunt • 20w. iA • PUBUG (Signature of Owner/Representative) D'tke.'-9-eVj. CF (Signature of Notary Public) �o® WAS, ; : • <> 8 P :<.::^<:< ' `::^s :: ".''< °`.':_..'.'::><':':::;`'>>:: >» >u. e A/A ...... S .......CAP.S......CAEIl.....CPA..... .U..A..... {J.t-t. E LA ......R1fM. .::::.S :.A.:::::SA:: .:::::S.MP#^:.A..:::SHPL:. ::.:.SP:::.SM >:::;... :::»»u::a:.:...v..�....:v..t�....w •'':<. > > > ; >:: L .;,:>:,.>'. .:G.:`> ;: .,., ..,. ;:.: '<> > ' `> :: ::»::>:>.:::»:<:»::>::>::::;>;::»>:>.::<:>: T. .....L... .....$....... . ............................T(yTA .P.QSTA E..P.ROVI.D.E.D.....v�...................................... MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 03/00 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION ORDER NO. 810938-C1 THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN.ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO. 1, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 63, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. • DEVBI 0 D ,""r. P CITY OF fENTONUING JUL 3 8 209 Page 2 Justification for Conditional Use Permit Request The proposed AT&T project is compatible with the general purpose, goal, and objectives of the City of Renton codes, plans, etc. In an effort to maintain the character of the area while still being able to serve the neighboring area AT&T is locating in a predominately commercial area. The parcel we will be locating on is indeed a commercial use and adjacent to commercial uses and within the area of a major arterial. We can meet the objectives of our residential community with minimal disturbance. To reduce impact to the surrounding area AT&T lowered the tower to the minimum height reasonable for it's effectiveness. AT&T is eager to continue working on its seamless coverage and capacity issues while keeping up with the demands of their customers. It is AT&T's policy that whenever possible colocation will be done and in turn AT&T allows for colocation on their towers. With this in mind we have worked diligently at examining all options around the area. In an effort to not over concentrate the area AT&T looked very closely at colocating on existing towers in the area. After much review and analysis it was determined this would not meet the objectives of the technology. Since the technology is one of line of site it is imperative that we locate our tower at the proposed location so that we may cover the appropriate area. If we are to colocate, RF frequency will lose its effectiveness and not cover meet the coverage objectives. The proposed site was scrutinized carefully for its effect on adjacent properties. Location was imperative and subsequently the site was selected for its ideal screeing, as there is a good wall of trees between the parcel and the southern neighboring residences. All other property boundaries are commercial and predominately commercial in this area so as to have minimal adverse effects. c) l�GQ�Gc Z� �r Project Narrative: The proposed facility called Coleman Point will be located at 1321 North 30th Street, Renton,WA. 98056. AT&T would like to place a 50' monopole with three sectored top hat complete with a 12' x 28' equipment shelter at the base of the pole in the southern portion of the property. The total lease area for the site would be approximately 2,500 square feet with a building area of approximately 322 square feet. Various types and heights of trees surround the east, west, and south portions of the parcel. The predominately tall trees line the southeastern, southwestern and direct southern parcels. The eastern property line is lined with 20' high row of alder trees, several fruit trees and tall fir trees all complete making a nice visual buffer. Unfortunately one small fruit tree will need to be removed for construction of the proposed facility, all other trees will remain untouched. Currently the property is being used as an Electrical contacting office and is zoned CC (Convenience Commercial)as are the properties to the North, East and West. To the East is the Chevron gas station,to the North are businesses and a Texaco gas station and to the west is the park and ride lot. The parcels to the South are zoned R-8(Residential 8). With this in mind we will be siting the monopole 100'from the southern property line in compliance with the code and to minimize impacts to the neighboring property. The property is primarily flat with a sight dip in the middle where we plan on placing our facility. There are no wetland, bodies of water, steep slopes or other environmental concerns on the property. A geotechnical investigation has been done. The result were medium dense, brown, fine sand and gravel with good drainage conditions. A complete report is attached for review. The proposed site will be an unmanned wireless communications facility. Since it is unmanned there will be no need for water or sewer facilities hence there will be no necessity for off site improvements. There is a fire hydrant approximately 75'from the western property line. For access to the site AT&T plans to extend a 12'wide gravel road running approximately 65'from the existing concrete parking lot. There will be minimal grading and excavation for the foundation and building pad, no fill will be required. Actual construction of the site will take approximately 2— 3 weeks total and will take place during the normal business hours of operations. Construction cost and market value of this project are approximately$150,000. Fortunately there is great screening provided by an existing wall of tall fir trees on the southern portion of the property boundary along with several other trees dotted around the subject parcel and neighboring properties. Directly north of the site is the existing electrical contractor office, which obscures any view of the equipment shelter and compound from the right of way. In addition to this AT&T will be landscaping around the fenced compound area. AT&T is respectfully submitting a landscape plan for review and approval. There will also be six-foot high chain link fence will be erected around the equipment shelter and monopole. co Or JUL `,"l AT&T—SD51 Coleman Point State Environment Policy Act(SEPA) A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project,if applicable: AT&T-SD51 Coleman Point 2. Name of applicant: AT&T Wireless 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person Pacific Telecom Services for AT&T Wireless Lori Chase 425 Pontius Avenue North, Suite 202 Seattle, WA. 98109 �GPr�` t .j 1�G CM (206) 696.3367 DEV c1 (fir `-` 4. Date checklist prepared: 3,u� L 9 July 13, 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing,if applicable): March 2001—April 2001 7. Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion,or further activity related to or connected with this project? If yes,.explain. Additional antennas may be added in the future either by AT&T or another carrier colocation on the pole 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,or will be prepared,directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Investigation and Phase 1 report 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. Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit 11. Give brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the site of the project. AT&T is proposing construction of an unmanned wireless communication facility. This will include erection of a 50' steel monopole with a 3-sector antenna array at the top. A 12'x 28'equipment shelter will be placed at the base of the pole. The total building area will be approximately 322 square feet with a total lease area of 2,500 square feet. 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. The project is located at 1321 North 306 Street,Renton, WA. 98056. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site(circle one):Flat,rolling,hilly,steep slopes,mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site? (approximate percent slope) Less than 2% site is flat 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. Soils are medium dense, brown,fine sand and gravel d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,describe. None noted e. Describe the purpose,type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minor grading work to be done for foundation, no filling will be necessary f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe. The site is aflat,grassy open space where any erosion is highly unlikely to occur g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example,asphalt or buildings)? Less than 50% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: Very minimal earthwork will be done to the site and will take less than a week to do any of this type of work. 2. Air a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e.:dust,automobiles,odors,industrial wood smoke) during construction and when is the project completed? If any,generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Small amount of dust and automobile traffic will be generated during the construction phase, which will take approximately 3—4 weeks. After construction is complete site will be visited once every month or two for maintenance purposes. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,generally describe. None known c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any: N/A 3. Water a. Surface (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 water body is in the immediate vicinity of the site. (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. N/A (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. N/A (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,note the location on the site plan. No (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 b. Ground (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)is expected to serve. N/A c. Water Run-off (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. Proposed site is very small area and any storm water will sheet flow into surrounding pervious area. (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,or runoff water impacts,if any: N/A 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: alder,maple,aspen,other X Evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine,other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture Crop or Grain Wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush,skunk cabbage, other Water plants:water lily,eelgrass,milfoil,other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Small amount of grass and one fruit tree c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known d. Proposed landscaping,use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: Landscaping will be done around perimeter of leased fence area for screening purposes. All trees around area save one will remain to create visual buffer. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals that 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,trout,salmon,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 or a migration route? If so,please explain. None known d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any. None 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. Electric power will be necessary for radio equipment 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: Proposed site uses a minimum electric power needed to run site. 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. N/A (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any: None 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 site. Air-conditioning system may come on from time to time to cool radio equipment, but noise will be minimal. (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: Air-conditioning system is kept to a minum amount of operation time necessary. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Commercial properties,gas stations,park-n-ride and residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not that we are aware of c. Describe any structures on the site. Presently there is an existing electrical contracting business building on site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CC(Convenience Commercial) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A 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: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and project land uses and plans,if any: Site is located in a commercially zoned area as to keep with existing land uses 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,middle,or low-income housing. N/A • b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None eliminated 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. Once per month maximum g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any. N/A 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. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water,refuse service,telephone,sanitary sewer,septic system,other: 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 immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utilities need by proposed project are: Telephone—GTE,Power—Puget Sound Energy Trenching will be necessary for use of these utilities. C. SIGNATURE I,the undersigned,state 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: 4 Name Printed: Lori Chase Date Submitted: /13/OD --' .-:i.--0.1\1 . e_oc), ,0:1 . „ ., os , (-- 1 % ,y* pkoitst rywS641.011-5 AA- r.,...,. 744 icafip (IV"' "itce• . . • L 6-r I" 8 04/.q1•221-'1717;- 61 IS s u . j . • :..gjtH."8 i1 36 aI1 35it•`-J4'.Ni3(:••1I3 52 113 1i.3.1 0s e 1a29..!P.f zN"i cI 2I, f7t s? s 32 H$,iI 1' k :rai.l3ia kgf•im414..r g,';-Q0..16..1Q,,,'V;,'I,' i,I;..::. k,..!i•,........:.f* LU 33RD ST 7 ° wt 13i >- c i1 62 DA\ It\ ., ,, ,36.t.,,,. 4, 17- to 19 pl,.:22 ....., ..,.., .., ., • N. k *., --ti•- --c, N. - 32ND'' '' STA! a--, - 1:::,:i: :i.. r.r.':i: I so loo I 56,, , ez .5o 151 P I i -,I . T. i0 39'.-.3A,371:Ai.r6 35--,34.,.33 132 31 13.1x, 28 271 26 1,J-.. 1 1-71 1% I II , II ;::: 285::. ) I 0 Z1:It i;i 9 . , i - i 'CO - .. i . i • - 1 - ; 1 u".; '5. . EV:4_ . 71 i il n, ' -111't ilt? .61--------41 1. all j :.::. ::...',.. i':'. :••.!' , A -V\ \C \ - • 30% 32ND ,.'" ST. 2 _Aloe il 8.., - ',1 i: ' :. ..5 :,.,.' \ s....... !I \ ,-..„, \....,,..,... .1 tIM I5„,iii p4PIo t-3ib.•-•2•13,6 1. 3I1 74 p.]31.65 1i1 5.3m5-t'31.47 1l1i e3l.3tir.3...g rII aT23s01sI11[23E.10 1I T29I1 lo9t 1,1 2..4 NVIli'_L69 d16-::il : ..:..::(,-.z:r):........?•;851'. Y6..,0.•-i•--_,.•-•.c,-'j'4'./•"4 ..-.?•,•...• `..,7. o ss ! • . • •... .. . 131..„1 ,.r.v • 38 i,...., „ 3 7 • ..,1 r .: ,.. ....1 ,.. 1 58 `, 1 3IST. ST. . z; .., /5 50 • • ,.,„„5,25! ,35,1 50 . I • • • • : •>-.1: l'il c11:1-triici 2; . •;:. 0 •:: ?•- •:. ....i• 99 2-'. 51 8 i 14 of , :.., l•.,18 1.20121 2:. 23_44.i 2S a•L___ - .. ... . [,-..Z. !. .7. ,::,..Z : I 3.3. ,I4 29 14116 .sfr Li;71:19.. al .. A''34.1 I 6' •: : 17 I 1 : I lel'01 I El '11 :ii.'4,7-•-•• 1-!"-!-J ' .....z, , :., ,,,• ,r.,. • 335 - ••-•••,: .. •.• , • , • • is7 : 5:• 1. %,p1, tf• T.i., . ...:', . . N. 30TH, - 1 ST. 2 g.' :7.-,.r....•',.........••.:•ffigeonsiim :.,::r....i:....••••," 30TH STs ------. -- " II .v...4:ff_i 1. ._w m eri.._./5:711_10 1......,ez, • , • i • ._c__, 11;1 I .,I..+.15 li; 17 IS 1 13 I 2.:2•1 23 24.1.25 U52, .: I-••••1 t, : • • .1-1_,_4-#s "t• ;,,ss. :'10_el 33 3e3.,i7 34-35,.34 3.31 i2'3.14225,1 001 27 6 L., GT !. _,__i, ; ., ...........t:: i!:: fl . , ._ 1 • . .- _ i , ; .... :::cry:J 1,;‘, . (A5 ,'\`: .''-1, '. - 69301rM 11 4'1 29TH 5r. .2 14 0 1 I 1" LI'R .V :-.1'011.-.1 I..: '7, . .8 .- . _ _ R. . ,,,. 10.25 11 gi . 6 ... , , ini i - 0.- 1--...A7-____ . _ 1 „,_ i36., : V 1..Z.:::1 ' , . ..., , 110„, 00 IL .•••-•.:I , MISMIIIIIK S . ,2."17 1 .4 . .5 ;16 17 18 ri Lzi. 24i cc 3 11 1 I I 3'..7. 1i,-7.i g,1 3•5 1.I 3..4 530i.3i'-?-71'536:;25 Ia.'..i'-•L•• 30 27-26.. P,..- -t N„7-,:Io.1„1. -I:4- 1.I 8 , •Iviagi -; __5.7.__._-,_,-.;-_-, I I:1•2.-29_',7•, 1112.-3 6\11i Tse, H. ,I!it,;>•Lt"1i7 i1 PL.oi•n3, 2-0 2•1 i1I 2-2 23 1I F-• s2.o..C.4. .5° ,,.,-,,,. I l31 . '. '.•••:.::. ••g•.•:i, : L : tt 4. 77.•P'4% 50 7 S-E- -•7'-7•-5."-*---•••:11•7•77.7-' li-i , .- or, 2,• 1-71r. -7 • .::'i . 2-i•-N. 6•7*Ft-,-sT.-.7,•,-.4---• , 22\ 22234- JAMES L & MRS 34 es II2.3.., dO I ' ,c.,-0 k it LI /' la - - -,...„- c- t i f.: ...4::t z ...m,,, Ill ;4‘1.m eV ' lais :' •••••• f..' :: ,411".El MARENAKOS r“.9 ;•,,,,...- - a 1.zz.44 - , ----' ..:.,.. L-• , .,:: ., , - „ , :,.. ',; LELAND .F.N 0.11.41c. . 7: 1, ...., PETERSON. %. (044 T.O./t ri amk.0 r‘.IP"/"./ ,:, . ::: ... 'ela ‘-zi i Iffi-x s .-^ . . 6'' i. so ,....;,;•-•..' 09 4/r. SO' i • .:i. ":•: ',.: 1 I 4:1 fl e 0 E D. S-13 IDE ' ri6..'' -" 6'. ."WS g ' . ; : ;A .A. % A A• ,7 2,....., mo ,._N. . .. . ELAND F. PETERSON Zi..7 < 2 /024 /524e- ' '42? e r--i-st, , ,i ^,. ..... .: , _ s N.F.2 H CI.% .25 Z .00 Ac. ' ,eizr,. it./ • I /: ft. 1 2 ISr' -------: 1:. .C.. :la "' '''" .' ..., ,03 .ez..'t r• :I,- i 33: i 7.. c'ta -6..2 '-'-. . .q, , \32 I 31 tz• 30 !/MIA 4 a 1 r - 1 --. ;.....,4 Z II • 1,11 MC I S,'Cr 1 ;'• ;, t td Z4 .,,,---Ir. .- •.17q11, ..: ...:. ::! 6- , /70 ,. , -.‘...--1 assA, • 2ii'xkoty t'. i ,." 6 ; '.:' :. .4 GE 3 FPI 2 . ' ,..•••-• ,, . ....-'.' ,,,. 1, I/ .**.0 ,,_,„r..., '3,1977 70:-4",it-7.-95--4i-f4110 .0114 I 4:` • :. :' '/C. ,,.',T's,.."Ce. 1 A ....."• .1".--s U t!:7 I-zral O /:/ .. 7-.2 .11 I ig-,.. -,.-,-k----- ...... ,.,.. ., . ... .-;:k•t,s, , . , , ‘ ti:TB,,, '1/4. ' _..,....._,_., ti 1 b.,..- 251 .: .'.:i 4 (0) (C)' /16'''''.5 ,-0j3, P-,s ' . ' j..s. ,,/06 14. ,• 40 : /0178-1 .0 00 •''' ' N'S • __Iziftr,,, 4.,i'l.‘ N. ..\,26,T1H , ST. 4 , ...:., ..:i MO ILI .,.<':. •• ,.....;\ \‘.1 , . ,•ay , ,,,\ 29 z. ,; ,.._,J,; .... 1 cz 1p roo • .... 15.. ;,: .., •": / \'‘ vs c7Pj pitinc;...17, . ,...:>.'-k_ -.:.c.)i ,9, • . ,. s /-;-1,-,-;,,, 4/1„..,..,/ 1 is(4) 2. °Z.4f I 1-1.--:LT-J:"=-C* \ ..:Sh:'• T ..I t..• - • , , r- t ,e4st, ---• T-74250 rri ."-, t' ., 4343 4.050 `,..... , ,,,,?;-- -.. .1...f._ ''''',---.. F (t1 17,.,, • 24 P59.5. 1. 2e-L1 41 : • _ i.', • Q. --er- .... • • • COLEMAN POINT i. "Ir� r S 4 Ir • C lw -.rD L '.ram ._+✓�"_- y Looking SE to Site from Corner of N. 30th St&Park Ave COLEMAN POINT . *`x • � ti 1do WI.b, r't "4/A` l I r r i v- f w eat 4.111110r- • alb* -- 11111Wilw• ..- 1 y J allt Looking SW to Site from N. 30th St./Freeway Entrance Off Ramp After Recording,Please Return to: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES,INC. Site Name:Coleman Point 617 Eastlake Ave.E. Site Number. WNWSD.CS40 Seattle,WA 98109 Market Seethe#20 ATTN:Real Estate Manager County: King State: Washington LANDLORD: Paul Miller and Pamela Miller TENANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. PARCEL NUMBER: 334210-3272-04 ABBREVIATED LEGAL (S-T-R): LOT 41 HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 1 E 1/2 OF 1/2 MEMORANDUM OF LEASE • (Short Form) THIS MEMORANDUM OF LEASE ("Memorandum") is entered into by and between PAUL R. MILLER and PAMELA JO LARSON MILLER, ("Landlord") and AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF WASHINGTON INC. an Oregon corporation ("Tenant"). A. Landlord and Tenant have entered into a certain Lease Agreement ("Lease") pursuant to which Landlord leased to Tenant certain real property ("Premises") located in the County of King, State of Washington, which is more particularly described in "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit Al"attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and B. The parties desire to enter into this Memorandum of Lease for the purpose of setting forth certain terms and conditions of the Lease; and C. Tenant and Landlord now desire to execute this Memorandum to provide constructive knowledge of Tenant's lease of the Premises. .1 ��� OeLCO Merno of Lease.No Option Coleman Point 5/10/00 1 • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. Lease of Premises. Landlord leases to Tenant, and Tenant leases from Landlord, the Premises for a term of five(5) years, commencing on the day of , 2000 ("Commencement Date") and terminating on the day of , upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease. Tenant shall have the right to renew this Lease for five (5) additional 5-year terms. 2. Provisions Binding on Landlord. The Lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, subject to the provisions of the Lease. 3. Governing Law. This Memorandum and Lease are governed by the laws of the state of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Lease on this 1 day of M a , 2000. PAUL R. MILLER nn By: 1 PAUL R. MILLER Tax ID#468-62-2917 PAMELA JO LARSON MILLER 77/Cidc/ By: Gfi�'1'L� PAMELAJOLIR NMILLER Tax ID#475-64-7174 • AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF WASHINGTON INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION By: Name: Its: Memo of Lease-No Option Coleman Point 5/10/00 2 ' Market: Washington State Site Number: (SD51)Coleman Point ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss- COUNTY OF KING) BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this 1.5-4 of , 2000 before me, the subscriber, a person authorized to take oaths in the State of Washington,person y appeared PAUL R. MILLER who, being duly sworn on his oath, deposed and made proof to my satisfaction that he is the person named in the within instrument; and I, having first made known to him the contents thereof, he did acknowledge that he signed, sealed and delivered the sa K�v9Iu,tary act nd endtr:_the purpose% rein conta' ed. ��O .\5g1oNF.���II� Notary Public :; -co.. , My Commission Expires: i :O SoTAR I, y' i :o t STATE OF WASHIN�T PUBLIC ) • COUNTY OF KING) lt`�pJWASN` BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this/ day of -71/j , 2000 before me, the subscriber, a person authorized to take oaths in the State of WASHIGTON, pers6nally appeared PAMELA JO LARSON MILLER who, being duly sworn on her oath, deposed and made proof to my satisfaction that she is the person named in the within i --• ••�- vgnd I, having first made known to her the contents thereof, she did acknowledge that sh- "'.t ' •,. , Fetid delivered he me as her voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein contained. S►oN''•.`y� I ' �;p 1I0TAq p' III/ Public i :o TT" % Notary � i C; % My Commission Expires: .�'-/7—C -`7 ▪ PUBLIC , & 19Od?/• RATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ‘ �INASORPO STATE OF WASHINGI�bN,1WAS - )ss. COUNTY OF KING) I CERTIFY that on , 2000, [name of representative] personally came before me and acknowledged under oath that he or she: (a) is the - [title] of [name of corporation],the corporation named in the attached instrument, (b) was authorized to execute this instrument on.behalf of the corporation and (c) executed the instrument as the act of the corporation. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 52/00 Option Land EXHIBIT A East half of the west half of Tract 41 of C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No 1, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Platt, page 63, is King County,Washington. Parcel#334210-3272-04 Memo of Lease-No Option Coleman Point 5/10/00 4 r • EXHIBIT Al No TO 54.0.1� 11 AT T' Lectsc Pre w, .1se6 - V f0 fi± / 1f`�1�1) Re 4-6,16K out / / / / / / // / / / //// • O--F icc Gas! 1J. 3D+hSt. 1 o- 5 J PowPr Nbr-fh 30 -A ST . 1 1. Final Antenna type and configuration subject to final radio frequency engineer and zoning analysis. 2. Actual equipment location and conduits subject to final architectural design. 3. Final equipment location subject to structural engineer analysis. Memo of base-No Option Coleman Point 5/10/00 5 Inventory of existing sites AT&T has no other sites located within a one-half mile radius. GTE, US West and VoiceStream wireless have a facility located across the freeway from our site on the east side of Interstate 405. The approximate location of these sites is 2900 NE 30th. The towers are 50—55 feet in height with 3 sector antenna arrays and equipment cabinets at the base. Unfortunately we are not able to locate on these towers due to technical issues with the radio frequencies and the coverage objects that must be met. < G AT&T—SD51 Coleman Point '-)'y;\- ‘ .,4Aip FYI A �A f'�; ) T ,-.- lif I 161 15 164 25 e'Q .1 1--I.___1 \ 12 13 a 116 ' .' IB Io I'/.o ,/I 12 1 ' 2.2 25 - �i ae R _I ._Q., Z '2?0 _ l I II • "33 S N r 1V• W „..„....„ • 0,,, , i'lv,.. 4 3 8 I 36 1 35 Ada�31'32 i 31 i 30 1 291 28;27 -36 Q W .a 1 I N r��332 1 ���jzJ��3 W `1 1 - ' m .1z/o ;r 11H,, --__.,,,, -i 2 2 s.Q ¢ „ 162 �} • 33 R D ST. � ,4'Lu 1_ A D >o s,IA :,„,is lr • - ,,Q.A 31 11 ... „ :Ilest- 1\F'Ia.1 1 13 'aN y 17` 18 19 RI -22 23-N 2 M N Y• t 410 .r •1tsa:: I`\ . t���, t•V� =1I= =1 ,,1�; _s N. it 32N1Y • ST.,f - \ ,t1t ,}, 100 I b 6i lao 161 I N '1 20/^ 1 �, i0 39"'38 Vim.6 3S^36 ',33 2,,3311, 30 28 2?p6 50 n I 11 j I ii it . 20. I' Q n�.� I 0I�' Ii Ise_ /a I I I �% [ iI A \L \ 3 ,,,, Iq I . I - 1 1 - -a --1- n •- 32ND•: ST. ��, I� - \ `x� .1 oe r tio- IAFI -EI .:,- .,iy" IN_X4.01_5_1_* N t . . ... . 11p 13 I4 :5 17 I 20 i 21 S,,Le - ' ;r as F�''' 01.39^38 39�36 1 4_'�34 13314 1 31 i 301 291 1 274'6 2.7 Isi si .�'` • \.0 �(•Tl; L'-�`q,/ � IIM ®I® I 03 - we 16a r 9 ::0: 1. . �,,+-041 1/ . 1 •LLL1111 1 I • I . I . , . I - 1x . 1..::I 3IST. ST. '^ o. 38;� �y3f • I58It) 30 • 'Se 123,23I SO.f5'81 5o I . a - .. . IiiIr� .. ___ 1 _ •II la it + e I ! IB l�y 11 20I21 22 U 25 �61___ $ ;~�. Iii. \ -{ 1 f.`_ --ri- �' 5ERs'• 1 ° I U 4\,00 ' 2 ? .9 e 137 ' ,ry 3: 33' ri 29 6 ..SIA to r b I ?22, I{ lrY'-.J : 335II7 h I 32-- N. 30TH . ST. �� 4 ^ •..:� 30TH STa -1-.. - !5 �0 i•° is'ts 3° •�f 1 1 I so w ,w so s, is ¢ .�,. ]30 ,sa 2 e6.t .��. I 2 1'y Il..! 1 I .V IIt1 I t11•� Qom' Q ; ,L9 1e.5^ 2 MILN G 12 1 R •166 I7 IR 1 s1 110IleIWI 124 ' TY 1 ter• •� 33 136+3734--35 •34 331.12 31 I 29 20 127✓,26 :F—' I r S !� _ 29TH sr. �40 a I — 4� w • 'a .'R.N. C7�, .•�. • li I r3-, Y;_ 'oo-y-'.n,_� im•, 2e.s �•. �' . I•d ITS 1 ,a :,5 116 17 16 �o Lai it 2i4l` 24 i1i9 cc u' �I 1 I ^s �'a' e;�. I t IIMINIMMilk_II ` _ 3 4 1,1 i 1 4 s � L 2Iz I�-- 9 5. II11 •1 •.487! 1 I IS01-Imp- �1 p0 .. 1., I-1 . I _ li 4_,se It3U .. : '128as, �_ial_i_s-Y-_q I' I 28TH PL. a - I1 gII s '; b t Fw.. 0 y' ",)' 1��-11 1� � 1s. 1,,,f',. • • 1 • 1 ' iti sod ♦o -, ^R II lJ l�LI III I P ' R• 50 ��yi I,Ig3t+JII rU�, I i `,��,.�j III r wa 6R i. • 12!J LI1 471 II. 17 IQ 133 20 121 122 2311Ef„z 45° ils, ii I1 Lt1 s �� u L —e • •• • p •---•', .—S r'•—•—•—•—•-- —a—,�M;ea, ;3 1 i •—/v -0a• -- - E. --.-N. ;?13,rH--sr-"'/. • --• / l 22 zzz9s n2.S do I un n f=l Ii B , I is •hs Sl.: JAMES L 8 MRS y^ 4=� r •2715 ''' E'•`. 2a a:I I 1� MARENA KOS f110 4124c ` - I w LELAND o.11aa rt.t. ;.• .s - I t �' Rol T.t.1! aaio. •17ad'� •moo /'� I PETERSON.. Ilvv `i1 u1a ri.s7 rt.gs.' ;� 2 .1 i , .:.. 1t.„ / a i EC . . Y I 2 2s/n c p 6 H w y Y a E.D. 5-RIDE t ii9'l'�' • .I� 1 `x A�C' I 1 1.53 At, 1.3B Ar 49Ja�. -' _ N -.i�'' ,21 al, f., 2710 18r'_ $ 17 7 t.13 as `\ T.t.12 7:4G h h �, 1 i "' y 1 2. Gg t.Lot I s a . • . 2, Fi CT1 ELAND F. PETE RSON c, f /,02 Ar. /,S2At, 1 27 ,,, o s a2s� 2$.00 AC. ,fR1rt.9 7.t./ 1 i /,."' , 2 IC�. --- IH,. C4:f 332 ; 1• a�ld 1t..2 J ti •p3 ° 13 M 05 a 32 31 _ IN 30 ' o 2 ,'7 t ;"F zrdfll`1�-- � '6 'Ir = M;t * ' /, r.Les' 2L� :i..'''::--2 -_ 2 10 / ''5' ,o I `ioo , .. i f 97,. • alti2LLIFT:, . 6 .•./ •5 2 S 3 l - ({�i MI bi lz '-ram "•' 1 %'/tiW !Iram-' °°��_.I� -a1`1; `�>�rQ '+�7e1 � � .. • ''�N ^1. \ ''fY 1TS.i7 - Galan. a13 2 8 • 'FtioJ .,,,,,sit, ..,: '1 7-1J8,t• -°O 1 ��_��' 251 a IDI (C) , srh '•o� .J IOS pf ,map - 101,•h, •So I /A M . W 29 I�4 N. 2sr1� sr. i 21e ''s k o) ` �� .As a = '7.,�•5�.,,i� i��c2--771i 100 ,iis• �r-•r `• 2 J ] 1 d // ; 10 O ' /,111_doll p 11 Lh12'� ::.o.. f _ , �, Z J K11.3 .50 1 �� b• N `l W '�,\ h2`- .. u _ - In ..•.. 74 2S 5 ., , �\, ,' ,fr'3,- Applicant Agreement Statement: AT&T agrees to allow for the potential collocation of additional wireless communication facility equipment by other providers on the applicant's structure or with in the same site location, subject to AT&T's standard collocation process and requirements. AT&T 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 it's pre-exiting condition, normal ware &tear excepted. If there are two (2) or more users of a single wireless communication facility (WFC), then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the WFC. Rod Hanson, Real Estate Manager Print Name&Title 7 C ignature Attested: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle . on the /3 day of iIi -y , 2000. Signed /- A 1 Cheryl-Lyn Samuels Notary Public, State of Washington My Appointment Expires Sept.27,2003 ,S ' ADaPT July 17,2000 ADaPT Job No. WA00-4481 AT&T Wireless Services DEVELOPMENT PE r^,"�J JtiVG C/O Davis Bay,LLC C� `(CF RENT6j 617 Eastlake Avenue East JUL 3 Seattle,Washington 98109 1 26C9 VED Attention: Mr.Kevin FreeZCEI Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed AT&T Communications Tower Renton-Coleman Point 1321 North 30th Street Renton,Washington 98056 Dear Mr.Free: Pursuant to your request, ADaPT Engineering, Inc. (ADaPT) is pleased to submit this report describing our recent geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced site. The purpose of this study was to interpret general surface and subsurface site conditions, from which we could evaluate the feasibility of the project and formulate design recommendations concerning site preparation, equipment pad and tower foundations, structural fill, and other considerations. Our scope of services consisted of a surface reconnaissance,-a subsurface exploration, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. Verbal authorization was given by Mr. Kevin Free of Davis Bay LLC on behalf of AT&T Wireless Services. A companion environmental site assessment for this site has been prepared and submitted under separate cover. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Davis Bay LLC, AT&T Wireless Services, and their agents, for specific application to this project in accordance with general accepted geotechnical engineering practice. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. ADaPT does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to such other parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by such other parties for any purpose whatever, known or unknown,to ADaPT. 800 Maynard Avenue South ADaPT Engineering,Inc. Tel(206)-654-7045 Suite 403 Fax(206)654-7048 Seattle,Washington 98134 www.adaptengr.com aPT Engineering, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance to you,please contact us at(206) 654-7045. Respectfully submitted, ADaPT Engineering,Inc. • lI Ngoc H.Vu Geotechnical Engineer K.V.Lew,P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 4' oc x • 14.) t.AG�,�`" 19466 ,40 w Kurt W.Groesch,P.E. �s GNAL •*" Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Reviewer EXPIRES 6/15/ z ( , KVL/nhv - I Attachments: Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Appendix A Boring Log B-1 AT&T Wireless Services July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 2 ADAPT AT&T Wireless Services Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation • Proposed AT&T Communication Tower RENTON-COLEMAN POINT Renton, Washington WA00-4481 July 2000 800 Maynard Avenue South ADaPT Engineering,Inc. Tel 1(206)-654-7045 Suite 403 Fax(206)654-7048 Seattle,Washington 98134 www.adaptengr.com DaPT Engineering,Inc. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The host parcel is located at 1321 North 30th Street, in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The host property is occupied by Summit Electrical. The proposed tower lease area is located south of the blding, in an undeveloped area of the host parcel. The lease area can be accessed via a paved drivevIi)ay along the eastern side of the existing building. Site topography across the proposed lease area is fairly level. Grass covers the proposed tower lease area. We understand that current development plans call for a new monopole and construction of an associated equipment cabinets or buildings in a proposed tower lease area measured 50-foot by 50-foot fenced compound. The attached Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2) shows the approximate location of the proposed cellular tower lease area in relation to other site features. It should be emphasized that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from written information supplied to us by AT&T Wireless Services. Consequently, if any changes ar i made to the project, we recommend that we review the changes and modify our recommendations, if appropriate, to reflect those changes. We are in the process of completing an environmental Phase I site assessment for the project.The Phase I study will be reported under separate cover. EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site on June 23, 2000. Our surface exploration consisted of a visual site reconnaissance. Our subsurface exploration consisted of advancing one exploratory soil borings to depth of 30-feet below the existing site grade. The location i f the boring, designated as B-1,is shown on the attached Site and Exploration Plan(Figure 2). 1 The specific location and depth of the exploration performed was selected in relation to the proposed site features, under the constraints of budget and site access. The location of the borings and Other features shown on Figure 2 were obtained by hand taping from existing site features. As such, thi exploration location shown on Figure 2 should be considered accurate to the degree implied by tl}e measuring methods used. Boring Methods Soil boring B-1 was advanced on June 23, 2000 using a truck mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig. The drill rig was operated by an independent company working under subcontract to ADaPT. AI professional geologist was on-site to observe the boring, obtain representative soil samples, and log the subsurface conditions. After the boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of soil cuttings and bentonite chips. During drilling, soil samples were obtained on 5-foot depth intervals using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)procedure (ASTM: D 1586). This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch AT&T Wireless ! July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 1 ,DaPT Engineering, Inc. outside diameter(OD)split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer, free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each of the three, 6-inch intervals is noted. The total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches of penetration is considered the Standard Penetration Resistance, or"blow count". If 50 or more blows are struck within one 6-inch interval,the driving is ceased and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual number of inches of penetration. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values provide a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs appended to this report describe the various types of soils encountered in the boring, based primarily on visual interpretations made in the field. The logs also indicate the approximate depth of the contacts between different soil types, although these contacts may be gradational or undulating. Where a change in soil type occurred between sampling intervals, we inferred the depth if contact. In addition,the log indicates the depth of any groundwater observed in the boring; the Standard Penetration Resistance at each sample location,and any laboratory tests performed on the soil samples. SITE CONDITIONS The following sections describe our observations, measurements, and interpretations concerning surface, soil,groundwater,and seismic conditions at the project site. Surface Conditions The host parcel is located at 1321 North 30th Street,in Renton,Washington(Figure 1). The host property is occupied by Summit Electrical. The proposed tower lease area is located south of the building, in an undeveloped area of the host parcel. The lease area can be accessed via a paved driveway along the eastern side of the existing building. Site topography across the proposed lease area is fairly level. Grass covers the proposed tower lease area. We understand that current development plans call for a new monopole and construction of an associated equipment cabinets or buildings in a proposed tower lease area measured 50-foot by 50-foot fenced compound. The attached Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2) shows the approximate location of the proposed cellular tower lease area in relation to other site features. Subsurface Conditions On June 23, 2000, one exploratory test boring was drilled to depth of 30-feet below the existing ground surface. The soil boring B-1 was advanced in the approximately location of the proposed monopole. The location of soil boring B-1 is shown on Figure 2. The near surface soil consists of grass an 1 topsoil over loose, moist, brown silty fine-sand with gravel. At 4-feet below ground surface, the soil Was logged as medium dense,moist,brown fine to coarse sand with silt. The soils unit become medium dense to dense, moist, brown fine to coarse sand with fine gravel at 8.5-feet bgs which extended to the full explored depth, approximately 30-feet bgs. At the timer of drilling, the ADaPT representative observed soils that near-surface soil samples exhibited unusual odors and a significant response on the photoionization detector. AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 2 )aPT Engineering,Inc. Soil samples from 10-feet, 15-feet, 20-feet, and 30-feet bgs had very faint organic odors and PID readings ranging from 23.1 parts per million(ppm)at 10-feet bgs to 153 ppm at 15-feet bgs. While it isi possible that natural processes may account for the odors encountered during drilling,the subsurface soils may have been impacted by unknown chemical releases. Several of the soil samples were submitted for'analytical testing. Subsequent analytical testing common industrial volatile and petroleum hydrocarbons did not identify and common chemicals at the project location. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. The soil sample at 30-feet bgs *as very wet but no water was observed in the hole. The groundwater level would fluctuate due to factors such as seasonal variations in precipitation, changes in site utilization, or other factors. Seismic Conditions According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), the project site lies within Seismic Risk Zone 3. Based on our subsurface exploration,we interpret the site conditions to correspond closely to a seismic Soil Profile type SD for the Stiff Soil, as defined by Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. This classification is based on the observed range of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts. The shallow soil conditions were assumed to be representative for site conditions beyond the depths explored. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From an environmental standpoint,AT&T Wireless could be held responsible and potentially incur clean- up liability at the site if the contaminants are disturbed by AT&T Wireless construction activities. Ideally,to preclude environmental liability,a new lease area or host parcel free of contamination could be used.Based on the field evidence collected during the drilling of the test boring,the subsurface soils may have been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons below the 10-feet depth. We understand that VoiceStream Wireless desires to proceed with construction at this site. To limit potential liability, we recommend that the tower be supported by a mat foundation to avoid disturbing the possible contaminated soils encountered below 10-feet in our test boring at this site. Design criteria for compressive, uplift and lateral support of mat foundations are presented below. Our specific recommendations concerning site preparation, equipment cabinets or building pla-form, tower foundations,access driveway and structural fill are presented in the following sections. Site Preparation Site preparation.will involve removal of grass and vegetative cover and topsoil, following by limited grading,preparing equipment cabinets or building and tower foundations. The following comments and recommendations apply to site preparation: AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 3 • 'DaPT Engineering,Inc. Clearing and Grubbing: We do not anticipate that significant grade changes will be requied to achieve proposed site grades. Clearing and grubbing are not required at this site. At this location, site preparation will largely consists the removal of grass and topsoil,limited grading, followed by foundation preparation for the monopole cellular tower and equipment cabinets or building platform. Backfill materials, where required, should be placed and compacted according to the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report Wet Conditions: Because of the high fines content of the existing near surface site soil, these soils are both moisture-sensitive and prone to disturbance when wet. The contractor should minimiz traffic above the prepared subgrade areas to minimize disturbance and softening which would require removal of the unstable soils. During wet conditions, the use of a working surface of quarry spalls or clean sand and gravel may be required to protect the subgrade,especially from vehicular traffic. Frozen Subgrades: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend that all exposed subgrades be allowed to thaw and be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. Equipment Building or Cabinet Foundations It is our understanding that the foundation for the proposed equipment building or cabinets will consist of a poured in place concrete slab-on-grade with thickened edges. We anticipate that the pad bearing pressure will be relatively light. However, we recommend that the thickened slab edges 11e designed as spread footings. The following recommendations and comments are provided for purposes of footing design and construction: Subgrade Conditions: The proposed equipment pad may be supported by thickened slab edges extended to bear on the existing site soils encountered at depths below 18-inches at the location of boring B-1. After excavation to the design footing grade, the surface of the bearing soils should be cleaned of soils loosened by excavation, and then compacted in place resulting in a firm and unyielding subgrade condition. Alternatively, the equipment cabinet foundation may be supported upon structu rl al fill placed above similarly prepared soils. We anticipate the subsoil encountered at the proposed foundation grade will likely consist of loose to medium dense, sand with variable silt content. Depending on the time of year that construction proceeds, it may be possible to compact those soils in place. Howei er, it will be difficult to achieve specified compaction should moisture contents above the optimal moisture condition be encountered during construction. Some overexcavation may be necessary if excessively soft or wet subgrade conditions were to be encountered at the foundation design grade levels. In consideration of the light loads imposed by the equipment, we recommend the overexcavation extend no deeper than 2-feet below the thickened slab bearing elevation. A layer of geotextile may be required to separate the structural fill soils from the underlying subgrade materials. Footings should never be cast atop soft,loose, organic, or frozen soils; nor atop subgrades covered by standing water. A representative from ADaPT should be retained to observe the condition of footing subgrades before concrete is poured to verify that they have been adequately prepared. AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 4 )aPT Engineering,Inc. Bearing Pressure: At the location of boring B-1,the near surface soil should be stripped, and excavated to the proposed bearing elevation. The surface of the bearing horizon should be cleared of materials loosened by excavation. The soils at that elevation should be compacted in place if the moisture content allows, resulting in a firm and unyielding subgrade condition. The equipment building or cabinet foundations should be designed to extend a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per-square-foot for static footing loads. This bearing pressure can be increased by one-third to accommodate transient wind or seismic loads. An allowable base friction coeffidient of 0.32 and an allowable passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot(pcf), expressed as an equivallent fluid unit weight,may be used for that portion of the foundation embedded more than 1 foot below finished exterior subgrade elevation. Settlements: We estimated that the total post-construction settlements of property designed footings bearing on property prepared subgrades could approach 1-inch, with differential settlement approaching one-half of the total. Access Driveway The proposed lease area can be accessed via the existing paved parking lot off of North 30th Street. Therefore construction of a separate access driveway does not appear to be necessary,in our opinion. Tower Mat Foundations In order to provide adequate resistance to horizontal, axial and overturning loads, a reinforced concrete mat footing could be used for tower foundation support. The following recommendations and comments are provided for purposes of mat footing design and construction: Subgrade Conditions: Footing subgrades should consist of firm, unyielding native sols. The .mat foundation should never be cast atop soft, loose, organic, or frozen soils; nor atop subgrades covered by standing water. A representative from ADaPT should be retained to observe the condition of mat subgrade soils before concrete is poured to verify that they have been adequately prepared. 1 Embedment Depths: We recommend that the mat foundation be embedded at least 6-feet below the existing ground surface but no deeper than 10-feet bgs. That mat foundation should bear on the medium dense fine to coarse sand with some silt as disclosed by soil boring B-1. We anticipate the native soils deposit could be excavated using conventional excavating equipment such as a large traVkhoe. After excavation to the design footing grade, the surface of the bearing horizon should be cleaned of material loosened by excavation resulting in a firm and unyielding subgrade condition prior to placement of rebar and concrete. AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 5 ,DaPT Engineering,Inc. Bearing Pressures: A maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot can be used for static loads to minimize foundation settlement. For shallow footings, the amount la settlement that will take place is directly related to the size of the footing for a given bearing pressure This bearing pressure incorporates a factor of safety of 1.5 or more and can be increased by one-third to accommodate transient wind or seismic loads. We expect that uplift loads will be resisted by the dead load of the mat foundation, as well as the weight of soils covering the mat. Native soils used to cover! the mat and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density could be assumed to have a unit density of 120 pcf. Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads on the foundation caused by seismic or transient loading conditions may be resisted by a combination of passive soil pressure against the side of the foundation and shear friction resistance along the base. An allowable base friction coefficient of 0.34 for the medium dense sand with silt-concrete interface and an allowable passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per-cub c-foot (pcf), expressed as an equivalent fluid unit weight, may be applied against that portion of the foundation embedded at least 2 feet in native soils. We recommend that the passive contribution of the upper 2-feet of embedment be fully discounted. Settlements: We estimate that total post-construction settlements of properly designed mat foundation bearing on properly prepared subgrades could approach 1 inch, with differential settlement approaching one-half of the total. Construction Considerations Even though our field screening indicated that the impacted soils occur at depths belovir 10-feet, we recommend the mat foundation installation be monitored,and the condition of excavated soils be assessed during construction, for the possible presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. Our observer will also be able to monitor subsurface conditions related to geotechnical design criteria, and offer recommendations should conditions vary from those anticipated in a timely manner. Tower Drilled Pier Foundations Based on the field evidence collected duringthe drillingof the test boring, the subsurface s ils have may g been impacted below the 10-feet depth. To limit potential liability, we do not recommend that the tower be supported by a drilled pier foundation at this location. Structural Fill The following comments, recommendations, and conclusions regarding structural fill are provided for design and construction purposes: AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 6 .DaPT Engineering,Inc. Materials: Structural fill includes any fill materials placed under footings, pavements, d>;iveways, and other such structures. Typical materials used for structural fill include: clean, well-graded sand and gravel (pit-run); clean sand; crushed rock; controlled-density fill (CDF); lean-mix concret ; and various soil mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled concrete, asphalt, and glass, derived from pulverized parent materials may also be used as structural fill. Placement and Compaction: Generally, CDF, and lean-mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, pit-run, sand, crushed rock, soil mixtures, anti recyfled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Using the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D-1557)as a standard,we recommend that structural fill used for various on-site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities: Fill Application Minimum Compaction Slab/Footing subgrade 90 percent Gravel access drive subgrade(upper 1 foot) 95 percent Gravel access drive subgrade(below 1 foot) 90 percent Subgrades and Testing: Regardless of location or material, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrade soils. We recommend that a representative from ADaPT be retained io observe the condition of subgrade soils before fill placement begins, and to perform a series of in-place density tests during soil fill placement. In this way, the adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. Fill Content: Soils used for structural fill should not contain individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter and should be free of organics, debris, and other deleterious materials. Given these prerequisites,the suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the grain-size distribution and moisture content of the soils when they are placed. When the "fines" content (thai soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than about 2 percentage points above optimum. Even though dense,the existing near-surface silty fine sand with gravel soils at t�tis site should be considered highly moisture sensitive. The use of"clean" soil is necessary for fill placement during wet-weather site work, or if the in-situ moisture content of the site soils is too high to allow adequate compaction. Clean soils are defined as granular soils that have a fines content of less than 5 percent (by weight)based on the soil fraction passing the U.S.No.3/4-inch Sieve. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 7 DaPT Engineering,Inc. may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity of the tower foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. We are available to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical recommendations,thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins,and to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during construction. AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Page 8 . . - ; • 7' ---- ----' it. .-"'"'l ,.:''."-''',: :%,, • \./'t I ./ ''''' • - -,:. -4I: - -; • • .;I stt " L_ i 1 1.: • 1. ..,,...,,,::: ; . ‘ , : ' r 1 .1.-1-- --'Thi ''s .,1,___ i —.- ' .,,l'/ ;,...— : ...: - - 4 ,7' H6 - "( . s.,...---r‘--:(1, '. -,..• I'.-;- ,4, .... . "1-,:,-- -- --- -. • -- .-74,"L-17T-,:7.-'..;:-.•,7"-.7. '". "-- ';-•:-'-;;-:•••:.• ./.''t"7.i -!.. i".-z$'• N..1 -'f •,- •„-: -s-1-7,4 ;-' , ,:- ,/,„:. . .,,- . , ,.. i, .. . ., is• r " ,- - ., /rs\ Hazelwocid . .. , 4-://.:' ,,..c., . • , I , : .:;: SI :,./ / !;;'" , .7-::• '''' . :..., tf \,... ../• ''•,yi l. .-..v,...-' ..(•;,..1 • ', '1,, -, r.' i`i: :, i•-/Irt,',/ ..-'' lA ,- x - Qtignda1;....,/,/A:' , i ip,.. - ' ' , , , • , . , 1 ;- i i. ,,. .' i-'/it). ' -- -''' * ,.."-% -....: '2";-.. .• //c1x1, .. i •::'" I •,,1• -!--z, s. $ / .•,- !.....t. ,.--' ',./i ., ,.-/ a.• '', :'•':' .!.- ,-.T.' . r''i \ i 1-. i: -/.1.-.--/ •-,, WW.114.),1 • e,:.., , f"..y ; .1V,..:.. i(Cia4V '1• Fi:;1)1 • :MayLCreek 1 ol I. 't I 1,- •.i 1 - / ...-- : ' i .;-. .• / ,". ',./Pel$'::';', f. .. • .! '-,-;f4, ti • " . , .:, >.',...i_J / : ',", •:, ---/-:. k; /..0, ! Tr ) / / /i; ."1.4,%, \. -' ( ' ,..‘';•;I . 4 ' t ": _ .1 ; : • .: ••. .-;-• :... I . f• ----) %i I ' 4 !, \• ....": / ,,1 1 I '11;(1L1:6' Traiikq 1,0 r„ _,1 ; X1- .f.•it( • 4,,, ,., : - , " , ;::-.'----- ; I. ..,.,T('( -.----- ,3•' . ! I ' T.,.., ,,,./ , -,"1 i i' 1 ' i _._•,__. , \ , ..,...,--..i. •i.4--,,t,,. ,•:,//' . • • , i . '., . ;,.„Vir..- ", -- '0,.....2 4-T 6 ,., t, ; 1: _':-' 1 - -,, . ,,. i_.....i.. 0,,,,. ,4. 1.:.,,._,L. , , . , ., .. :,:‘, "I, .--(114/ Gac.F19 ' ..". ) I. i\ •- t". \ , .,.,7 • .........•• ; •;,.., ,s: - ,) / ,. Fim-ta----- . 1. It.. ! \ - • '• :1 :.:`. +•.$,'"•.:-:;_37:,:;7:e',//".f .''.7X., .. '\:' - •''' '' e. --=.:' • ''''-°%-- : . ' --k- \ •,,r,....---- • -----• -,,, `,, : 1,..! I., ; ,., r'(.•••,.......•..,..c,4!:,.".1.,' : \:2.,• •,, \ , : ./1. _......„_I ,... ,-z- ( , I .: ,.•,,,4,,4:,V5„„; , . ., •• ‘ .!.. /./ /,• '' 1 1 f • •-. r. : '. • . : ; I i ..' : t111-6/ %::(''' • 1.-'' : '.g, ..1.‘; s/-i,(,- ' 'i 1-"A'---. ',i - :71 ••. -,. ' i -- •s '. ".,--.:),--:':',, ,': .:. . ' : /'. *,' '1. ' i i 1 / i i ! t : .. , " t • T t-,'- /. ' .. .• <.•:',..'//' `7‘- ''l.-:.s*, ' • ' ; . 11.44 ' ' t 11• i 'IS.-:/: 1 d' .....''',4':."--' ..' - •,.\,- /.;':-- 49.'I,/ :::':''1.• , • - .i :!' I I:.. :.ti,..• N, k --.„';-•..e,1‘,i-..,:"-'_'•'::I'.:.:-..-....i..::.::-,-:-,.':;-„'-.'-,-...-:•.----.-I'.?.-.-'.-,:'.-'/.,.,:.,'----\,•:-,!i!•,•-,T,1';1‘:,!.1,,.':,vl',1::','.,2.-:,i.:';-:"-'---.'.,N.,,---,.'.7:,.'..'-.,;.:..,•,-.,-'-./,•-',-:',,)'',,',.,.-...,:.''4::•„.:;:'/,i/'./1.m:',;:o1'1.w,1i.=., 3.I•„'',, ,:_.1Ni,4 • / .., ..,e/;i.i-,.'.,•1 Z, 2 / 1 1 ";',-:--)--,-I.-.42!!••%,.._j...,-.,,\s,, r " ,,,,.. --,- n30 c \ , T -:'•,•,.4..•-!1.••.'-•-•-•-•-—;•;-:•1..ii.1r4t,-.!p.--:•,-..-•.1"z.'•-e2.-_r:,,'!g:-:,,f.•.:-•-,;.("t,.•;••?•'•4;".•2•,.-7..;-••-,.,-.-."-•...-1,--..*';...•..,f1 •'4.t I-1t-i•.-•-I..•-V.•.,:••,-.',,,'•,1(:;':• ‘•,: -/• •i:•• .. • , 21,:t. • ---i:i41t11Aw91o1II1MMminII3IMm9it1 ----e--s-t••; • '' ---4----'-';' - 4; •--t-k -.,•'2i\'-;'j';„; '1'-‘• _. ---t';'-'-:)'-:';'''':"::.------"--=:i-.•—:."-F.-F..i_?ti —I ' \v01 )af7 , — ---' < :POint , etei- \ , 4k "- rz''3 —50''' "'''.(q '' :.if i•-:•••\\- IMINNOM ,tiE . - :\ q‘-..-... .•, -,---.. /,- _, ,,,•72.;.--- magwommalmi , ____,..24.....__,..,,..i;::.-.--.,•:-S-,, •---• 4 ----•-•• ,:te ,•,,,.. '..,,....-„,...,,,.,\.— 1......„,___i . ....: ..s.:,.s.:,...-•s.,:,..\\,,,. 1.23.N_.,,,... _ ....,._ .. 27TH . _. . ,.,:s., ___.............„. .: . ‘ \ Illi i . .' ----; Ke aydale.1L-iaks.r4A.ri: : 4' " '''"W ''k- ' :I ' • fil '7, - Park -1. i I.. •,s1') • NnA:\\ ', —`.'--.'.:':"-: _„-. •-•• I •1•,,'• :I:.- • ••• f.. I .'<'''-,/,..-\--.\"5-: - I ,...1. .0',‘\\`"1 : -7 .. Itt-.;•• "•. .. : I ---' il.: ,\l',,,i,\.----..;? • ..----,.... , 0 \ist I. • • • , • .'. ',', '\,, .`\.0.1\'4. \... .•,;;11 •••:k I'', •- - • 1 1_1._; 1:.:.': .•-••.y••••,''•';< • : ' ..; ' •\''':.V.:::1S•,1,...?. ., \ '.. , .•V:''.. \ .• . ' '''''z .../Grvell;' ',V '' Y . ' ,'' . i 'AC.).., ,.• \.'.. ,,' •-\ i 1: :.i c • •• !.-:: I 'p',:,:••-_ 1':••• / * ' ' -;i.:•i t'' .-% etviljj $: .4 • -, • it:- i ., ; • 3,%. ! , . ,i . 'I.. ,V,S4 V; • .-Th:1- FA,' ;:\.'..1: -.:. ___ .; i 1-,--,: _ 7.:--..*-. 'KA, ;-•:.• - •;'•,.,\g„. '4‘.. 'e::./ 1 .',' i . •"• • i r) ck,,..r ,,...1 7 .‘-.?•.-_-__C. -. / •._' ' .., -:r: '-, 'i. .',.1‘;,' t -,: .i ;: -F / ,,., • i . -: $ . --1 : f ti;-. c '• • -'''' i Li- A ,01- . ,.._ ,.....th, 1 . .0 g, :,.....-..: ' \ , .', •I , ,, ',..../:.%.: i'.'.:,,4•1:;'6\ \\ 4 9-1 ; %,..g : ^(' pitddiest . .r.. I••,.. . , • - ..-"'•/.. ".: .....,/ .'11'.%•?, \••• Pl!:.11 .!•-, V I 1 '‘.\ N• . ... . .• "• :' • .7..1. 1.•..: i,..,,,..e---y,•.-....:',.;l....;..,2.../. -gs..,B On3 ,..:\-.---, II;\ pgrit)T 9 N. .i.,i1 i , .___...4, ,,, ,,. 41,4. j. ii il.••:, ,:•••••,w•-__..,::: .„ .i. — , _. i ., :„.. .,. ...._. .,r., .•_e7. . .e. .....„... ,, .. --1, .1 iAz. •u mr,-,7 if. i .• -----; .,. .:--,.. ....,...,_-:::-_-- ,-.:.--..:-,-,./...•..4.4.... ,;:,.,;":;! ...1. - ,--:-.,..,:-- •::.-, :::::../:,:-..;;;,..,:.. :4,-;- power ki t..,) . :„ . .,. -.1 . , gs,., .,,,,,,-NE' 11, .iji. s,:2 ' '''''''. :'•'-,••:••.:,..::).';- .:'':,'? '< /..\*N, 0,./ I.7‘20; ''-',';:-..dii'ii-,.R' foil ( .-1:.sliesla,J0,: ._4,:tf.•_-*,.:. 9 '1' . `,..-.z741-,4.„3•:.;:;:......$10:114,,.- ,,..-•-•-:.,....-;..-_,L...;,2,- .., —: qp-i/5( . •,,a_Nf,--*-2.\„ 4N-tERC, GE_.,,:.T.n-, , \ ;at F,:,,,f, -' :-.--4.-- 1 ---,.. ' - ••,-.:- jklaittf.•L'..--:•.--,;' ,‘'4'i"%f_i".7. AO '1 7, -;.f- ..".' ....:L44_-_,,.iiir-,,K:-.-- 41.ti - 1`..:1q.., --:III- ii r--i- ' • ' ''''' -='•::'. -,-; '-'-'&;;;`,:e-",s---';-:// :-$Q.4,17-A I .- r'•-•;) , :‘'11 \ Cs'.----.7.-4''% C Z.' ' . ' \I - -w-i• p 1 0 ,-7---.._..-\....---7.1!---_ _•1.....--",,, 6-1, •:•=,.?•••„•-•-•:.4„,,,41 ' . - •-•;-',.... 1, '‘ ''. . ; • .111..\ '(4::-N.;,.,6 ---i-e) -.v..„-___•.-7' ,,:-_-,_„...-./...-,i,-o-.- f4., '--iit:-',,,.,--.4>. bsta-,:' ...-..• ;...;,•.,'',. ., \s,t-: :--,";;: L., ; :-.4l,.,:--,-... :.,., , A ..,t• • ,<-:-•' I':91.-ciVffirk:\I ' ...t..1. -.*-,...'.',.%•;.f?, ...• ,,, - .; , . J ,,----.1i ..7t -rr -- ir, •' . ', .-. ••; A,., r "rt7-7.1 .41 :,;-;1' . 'K‘,,5,\,,,14, ..,-:-•:.:(1f.i.Y'..\ :er,....L.--ii \ t t•/Li:"'g.•:!.'..-r• . (. ."7-7.:: As--L-x....i'''1,..'n • . 1 ,. ....IA...,.,..% ,.,.- .i ,,,. \ -..:...., , • , .,i .P......---,-,,s,-- ,-26..„.4.4.,..,„:..--,--•.„ i 1.i._:!.., i " .7-1 l', ,,,".1;...., ',.-",..J., ,\\ ',;,:,:'2,.;1c...,..‘;',;.--i•o..,-...1-7:•% :,,.,!:::. t .•-. ..,:',...-- It,A )''r.P..''Y'::,,, -1— a; \\' ';-,: - - . -::ni,-,,i',. . ‘..:.--i , , ‘',..1,r.,,,,--,-/,.:47.-..cr,-. - I , 1 ..., 1 , : ,! •F,,,i T.,- ';-ita .1-,-L ''; '-••• il* 1\ _ ,... ,,,,, 4,.. „..,. I „A, \ Az. -..,\ ii:.•.„.,..,‘,.:4......4._,........i..,,._.+c,t,J,,4 i. 21„,„:...1.-1 ,1-..„, 1 ...\. ..1....._.......i : -t-,- .,,;;g .F,•*.A k‘'1 a-4.1-..-`";:..--4 i! :,',....-:,::!;.,..„....,.• : 0,.....4 i---T-:,•:‘,,is ‘...,.. • 1,'..,,,-1;-4 i',1:„.- ...:4"\!---....-• ii ,•:! ,i 1.; •. 1( ,..".;,.8,,•"---•i%lai• - '''as.A..., A\ ,,is i' , :, lto, • ,.‘'.1,. F4.- 2...J i 1 .._.;..-:, , •i ‘,..i,---i i • i\ - r 1r I, i••.,•-, .44-..: 1,,l• ,' ATailk•_.!. i X BM-26:-, . s .. '-:„., '•-•' ‘-:,"1"/ •---..; I I ',. :" ;5'LIM/(iiihtaikio -1*., •••••-1 - -:-. . ,,,. = : ---t t, :-.:.../.-:El I • s I ,....„..1. ,,.. ,,,-- L.,...-„vgl -E7—it,'z---,-77'N.- l'• .k - • .14's -... '' % !I '... 1 i‘. ,...:•,..-, et i , ,,,..,.. z._,__, :7--_,... . , 1 r ...-L 3 -7,-----t_ ' :), , • i 5.i .. ,., \ \ • 1.. :,,,,..„„:, ‘ sub5ta.. -. r-i . !•\,.; \t-:-1,`•., *rtit'nitii,PArk riP.'•°4---- 14), I . i•,--7. 4--,',,AV j ,t4.'• .:,\,1 ::.,- .. '-4 IC' 'hilt ,‘ -,, :-:, , _, .. 8 1 ,, ,,\\. !---- A,1) :-r-,- -tt.f.. . ,IBM-i'20\i: ''•' :i'..i..: I; 1•11,t!EL I- 11131'. _1(2 , . , , ., /mu Primed from TOPOI 101499 Wildflower nocluctioret(www.topo.com) ADaPT Engineering, Inc. FIGURE 1 - Location/Topographic Map 800 Maynard Ayeriue S., Suite 403 Location : Renton - Coleman Point 1321 N 30th Street Seattle, Washington 98134 Renton, Washington 98056 Client : AT&T Wireless Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 Date : 7/12/00 Job # : S-WA-00-4481 ._. .. RESIDENTIAL TEXACO STATION NN 30TH STREET PARKING EXISTING BUILDING _ Q L Z W p • I-- J Q Z O a_ W Z W Q > to U W W Q = P B-1 I I PROPOSED SITE — I • LEGEND RESIDENTIAL SOIL BORING NOT TO SCALE ADaPT Engineering, Inc. FIGURE 2 - Site Plan 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Location : Renton — Coleman Point Seattle, Washington 98134 1321 N 30th Street Renton, Washington 98056 Client : AT&T Wireless Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 Date : 7/12/00 Job # : S—WA-00-4481 aPT Engineering, Inc. • • APPENDIX A BORING LOG AT&T Wireless July 17,2000 ADaPT Project No.WA00-4481 Appendix A A'- --'?T Engineering, Inc. BORING LOG laynard Avenue South,Suite 403 SE ATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 TEL:206.654.7045 FAX:206.654.7048 PROJECT : Renton -Coleman Point Job Number : WA00-4481 Boring No. : B-1 1321 N 30th Street Renton, Washington 98056 AT&T Wireless Elevation Reference: N/A Well Completed: N/A AS-BUILT DESIGN TESTING Ground Surface Elevation: WA Gaging Emden: N/A _ am o w a � 7 0... r OZ mo OS O —0 _ Grass and topsoil — Loose, moist, brown,silty fine SAND with gravel _ _ _ 6 3.5 _ — Medium dense, moist, brown,fine coarse SAND u 8 —5— with silt ; 10 -Medium dense to sense, moist;brown,fine to _ _ 9 23.1 coarse SAND with fine gravel I I 20 -10- 28 - 4 153 - _IF . tt -Very faint organic odor -15- 13 — -� 10 It .N 16 Very faint organic odor -20- 19 - 8 3.1 _ Tr N 13 -25- c 19 No odor 7 49.3 � it -30- Bottom of hole at 30 feet. No groundwater LEGEND I 2-bd 0.D.Spill-Sporn Semple Static Water Lint et Dda@p Grab Sample DATE p I 1'Geopmbe _� Static Water laud nw Type d Anayta,l Testing Used j DATE I Page: j X Sample not Recovered �_ Perched Gmuidwrder NA tic Recovery i ATD At Time of DtilWp 1 of 1 Drilling Start Date: 6/23/00 Drilling Completion Date: 6/23/00 Logged By: KAR . . • . . ••ArJg"J..,._1...,i73 i E.z.°.i..,..:.1'„.'-.1-,31•':.31 1,43-1!P3‘,.211..431 3 4,1 LRSHe 15D7%i..!1i16 4..,l;? II.IircitNtd 40..1,:41I:p: .a1.24z. 41 1 ?5._4.1 1.1 01.5____,d1:1 3,i R2I 1't,11 1Lklk-ka.1 ,.iL•3n.e:-1N-31i ,•,,':4,.0,g,•,'i1c"s,1g,i i '. UJ 4 ‘ 36 35 343323130292827L _i „ 463 >- C 62 , : < 0 , 1.4.. 32ND- '' ST :El• 46-1=4---- -,--L---AZ.g-Zi4-1-t-:1-4--V:7-t4--1-/-' ,,,, N,• „sir, . „ . ,„ A; °IIt III ii .0 :..... P...;:f::...'.: '.. i z.:*.:. •::::•:I• s)9 a • 10 39 3A,371•As 35.^34 .33.,3, i 31 1..;_ei Zf.,.. 28 Z? ill 26. 5'' z, 11314 Ii II, 7isarrni. , 1 , 0 .: 2135f.' V_'• N _.-- ___LQ_'' : 1 • IV? - . I • I • I • i • • i 30- 11, .:•:: ...hi.: I . 32N D ... ST. n 231 67, i10 I' Lest r..;•-------II .f. :::i; ':: ...: !. \,_s, .I 7.. ; _rdA00 t1N • °Fitt,- Tqa3F.;:cw• .,-,3 _DJ_N4/1.5_1_ ti ...••• ..... ., ..... ••••• -1 ...N. .41,.''"Lar.:::::i ...s: ':i; i •A y60 2.-. 2.4./.,..... .so, ". c ..., ... , ..' . . F14 ii ow il Id 419 ride' 17 118-1_ 20 I 21 72 12.1),,,.,/24.,,lt *„ti-----7....4 ::'''' :..::.: 0.1.3?•-•38 374 36!15''''34 i 33-rmii 31 I 30 I 29 1,-28,1 274726 - s••• : iv 14 •251 • 0-. :" i A1i.qi (V. I.I.n. 1 . ilrIFITITIVi .../5 ,r, . •„i ,4,,,..., - 157 1150 9 e's ::' .. ....... •i• - • •' 1 ..... ., 3IST: ST. - 38r LJ 3f . ..: 1... .. 58 *'... i/5.50 ;1 Etilso4zs.,:zsi. so 129 so 1 • 1 • • . , . ,,....z___ 197 i : :;: •:':. 'j. 59 •:,.. ii ,‘ .4 ;II_C.• t. t'o.al zo:zt Zz 7-3 I a z: ,r-,__.L_ _,._ 2:,_ .. 51 • 1.-i-t-1-74 L.' ±-- J--LL-r-_:F-i-- --(=•-4.-•_- - ri* *- , .:1 ,o' ;‘,..! 335 7...L aT 3? ' '37 '--.3!•: 3:I 33 i IL:111 'ial- z9 6 2374- 11 Wt:=1 1 1 % I 1 CI gr r- . 1 . 1 Z20 30 A. i 0 • N. 30TH a. ST. 3 p,. -7.::g.,......:............221 7,!:'... .:.::-- 30TH ST3 .-- 7.3+.12,i jo,,,t5: 30 1,..„,..,_:, • i - I • ...7.,.! ,0 1",,j :50 .50•51 OLZ5 .taw, .5 ... 4‘ '4,e 330 .;:'• --le-.,., 125t5eie, .Li,:, /,, q-1 I gq•t r 11![21 '... ! i W i P, VII E I,*.:a : : *gil 11 .,.,N7zisi •:•:\ i•1 .;:•: 1-:•-•F'.-----4*,."F.L.÷-r-4-, --!-- -4--'7t-'4 ", -1-- 4 ,r,' G '. : :lit'. ... . 4• 1. :•,s. ••it 4'..IC 1 33'34•37 34-35...34 33 1 42 31 1.10_F;_i_7 1 715 I Z7,ZS; .." . -.--i ..•\ ,i•:1:::?:.: tit I : M lig t i. I • '31.:qq1 . 5 ,, .4_......, : ... :(1).4f i .:: ,:519:,41-4..--‘•/cl‘t-c)- 1\T4::•'1:4:-... ...-..'...-li - \ ,- - 29TH ST. • ..-. s - --' 40 1 1 4 \.. * *j.::., I.- . • I ef'.3 ri r.11 + .Ipl, 6. , . . .. .z,,.. :.: , :f- .... 1=1 ' .4 ,: .s ;lo iz id Ltd 731 rinzi.lh'fr 241- E: I , :ito,- 1:: '. ..... i':-I.1 t.. I. 1,_, i 1 ,,,, oson .. t -- 1 .2 if S • -1 i 39 38 37 I-SE 35 I 34 33-'.3 _ILI 30T --a.'8;27-26 !- 13 -- .; ‘,4. I . g .7,- ;'-(e, ,,,,,41..1 rtlill's\-zlze s 1,:: 111 .11 `.1 i 0,,-..7.7....1:.: 1;. •I•si 44 I ,...48 1 ( = o, ...a. -. ... I : : ... :,:' ,p9,-7-1, ,,, . i .... ,-.-t • •• 30 ts'it 5 i-1-1 SO 123 23, YS's le lit 2 1 " 4'IL l•......' 4.-- sZ ':' Z.0 :: 1 ! __in__1_-_,-..-4-,_- I I:f7 ,..t .. ',•: ...::i : z: ,r, ----7•21--- ' P VL. •-.-5•--.----'-..---- -- 28TH PL. . . ., II gli I-1- ---:1 . ...* '..... ..:;f: g. ,0 .0 0 tz. it .:.,..:i: :.. m: ,--/-,,. , ....,.. , , ; 001 g • _i, ,•,, :':,.:. ,:. i • 14 i . I'. :' .:.: ::.::.` '4 5 , 1---•\7--ST.--------•-•-•-fg--Ei.--t", ;,--v '-' iy, '7,7ii. --Tie-- ••• •----t" r. : ,.... ----' 'M ?e•T/-1---ST.-7.A--= 22\‘' 272.94 02.S, do I "6 1.11 co 0' MI [,:l '' il Eil \ a- r... ''...i.q. : .41 ,..J \ JAMES L & MRS ,O . ..'' :1715 ,;.• .: `,' ':6' 1 Ci : MAR6NAKOS . It 4! •!.?4,.- - 0.72Ad -•"--;,-;---.. „.....--,. - '::. ;:, Z - 1 , ;. 1 "4 I LELAND . . V1.7; '',, -.. ' • i . PETERSON. • 01 S Ar. '/5A,"/ -'I',,,;/.. , .• se (,''''Pg°1° " "" Id40 IL" "•:17' ,,, ,de,...' 7 ::.: '::'. Z a .41, I 117 " CC. • ' • ,.;• 7 sd , , , ::; Z ! I , ''. al.9. Y ••-•••• / 2416/14 Mmo ' N. 1.38.1a. a 93,P: -, 1 :: b.) /.• ,;;' .,", ',. :,... ii, p;q2aE ,. •,.! , :.. 0 ' N.E. H C7:1 ELAND F. PETERSON 74.7 •'. /02 A 1 524e ' I' r 1-1., !. ` •:.: - .g • 2sf.00 Ac. .,,,•,,-..i.`g i.,., • ' , .427e/-, 07, eeo .5 ':: Z' ' . s• 1,...z Fri 4B, - ,33: ...,.. . - ,,B .11.2IJI, •. , ,.7,1 , e,r11 10 5 - Z a i7o ‘• -- A --1 0 8.9,4 • g ii.1,2 6•Fn 7i, , n-_, •::... :,:. 3, ELEI 5 pwil 3 ..------.. . .. .; : idl t. , z, , ,• „ ...--. sr. • ''''' •t; i 1.'df--0;,--.•, ?'.."El-7°--• t ^ - .,... •11q4 s . . f: 16/ 1101, ' . As...... .1---'((ir: -'; I 111-_1(' ...... 771-5-- :•..: '.... SR 55.76 71 °.79/ .7S •... • 0 . • 0.23 t..471,, -- ..- . . ...\.., R to) , 4„5„ 5, . 47Ar. . • • • 'e,... ..• -7. 1,,,s\ .• . .,,•: , re 39, ..d. • , !Xi 1-7b XI P".5 1. . ISO OD ‘...K‘... •• A sss\/ , f.1.0 , ------ ' `' F•\ • r,:?;'- '.' . g....7_ --770;-;-:.• Q•..:5' i.1 :!.,„ . 24 F15, ii. ti-;:::, _El. i.'1,7 ::.c.,\-C.: -1'''. ---8--- ..m., . Pale I 51, - Co Irmo h Po; eNroN ING Decisf an ria. +Dr mod Dn- lar,oc c1;. f ►r,e�uIrr.����.` Ai _ ' T s _rDpo . nq . t rnecLr, 1 -Llle kulds Cup/ ,j Velar' ewie'4 f- -- _obseu/1/tj ...sC'_►`eepl fn, a/7 au 6 cies 0-4 comp i"id 5 Oh -��►c 5- s�- aVS a Lees* sic!es 01 CU y p62,chd arc( 'I Oki A104-I1 and sr;u+h . (A) The Iands ei.e mi L47/// # ic'ef -the in1,744- a-r fire t'ode_ b� LvlII b merely 6,7a h j -l!: blr c- Syn</lez.. Apt 17/- kieP4 ees a,wdsbrid a/ li4vij'ts SIZeS Zvi/I S.fi// p 7 he S/k -14 'fr,re se reei71 ns -the. lz liG) e iiiiani4 .I L/S Ali ifl/i ti..,19 the appecabice. . is will ire I 34: /ct env;rvno/leo-1a( opetIcrn>1 C✓7G/ .rounr� �o7fiJv7c'C-7i7� (.3i 1,-)f 131'40 pl1)poe hies I/ no-k be b/e I-c sF'c 6i.c e(i_Ur,tc, 7� 'ce siKlatmaii /' /7cL c, P-_-)/ii C7 / 1'/a cc'o/ a v I)Lf f-7 e 'the sire. I.2e hale 415 late!f ' -FI •JSi/z 1,1 be=eL Lt!tLG e/L -He pa Izet us ne/ be .see.7 IDrn 417 Srre" 11 of sot back- 4'M -(Me lacy- O,Z'PL rhf ens -17 rn i i71/7 i zc. -Hose pa re e/s "Me re !yKe e?&L, seveizz I -h-11 -tree s'petk-clec-/ page. tea/ et cce/l iI wee s e' -2--he J-c,- p/vpe: 1f4e-r (() _smaller l&ndsapi,i 4611 tW rlseIr/ a,S helpful v screer7/vc� Papriepu rpose- , yef nat a✓zf- 05.. n e f a Cac -547h Si k. a rid / t CXistiii j s eree'i)%r)j help ifrnciis(c j in "Me ilatlr•a( screw;i� 04 e'L<e 5..7"c and sI'kl,L I4T4T SOS Poi n+ Pale, Z . . Help in C i4 rminJ h tie in nt 5,77411er bu f r diva- W�// _pot arecz tc, r� ac(ixrs�._irn�ac _._0447cr prape-.(1-ies.... fhe. Cvea. . ta/'►dsc'rcpc . seveeinl")y w)'/P be cLan e 4,1 done i-i o glireytive, mai/ mev �o CtJ hY�- -/ie fiact uF -me Gonvoukid a'eQ . 1 R` • • nnl!!rorl:! • p P, \t• ;• • QF�lr r &Y`ram 1 5 • COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company FIRST :UME:RICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor or the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgage of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the • provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies cornmirted for have been inserted in-Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the Issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent indorsement. • This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations;hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs,provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by and authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has.caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid %%hen countersigned by and authorized officer or agent of the Company, all'in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date," • • • • First American Title Insurance Company J• • -- = BY PRESIDENT • • SECRETARY BY COUNTERSIGNED r S r ( 'c A M F: II / . • First American Title Insurance Company 2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 712, SEATTLE, WA 98121 NATIONAL/COMMERCIAL DIVISION TITLE UNIT - Cl FAX NO. (206) 615-3000 MIKE COOPER HEATHER NTFI'A COMMERCIAL TITLE OFFICER 1'Il'LE ASSISTANT (206) 728-7229 (206) 728-7234 ORDER NO. 810938-C1 YOUR NO. SD51/COLEMAN PT./NA 28062 • MILLER/AT&T TO: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 1600 SW 4TH AVENUE PORTLAND, OR 97201 ATTN: RON FOWLER SCHEDULE A 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: APRIL 27, 2000 AT 7:30 A.M. 2. PROPOSED INSURED: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION 3. POLICY/POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX LEASEHOLD OWNERS STANDARD COVERAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE .PRICE 4. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED ON PAGE 2 HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN: PAUL R. MILLER AND PAMELA JO LARSON MILLER, HUSBAND AND WIFE 5. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO. • Page 1 • I • LEGAL DESCRIPTION ORDER NO. 810938-Cl THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO. 1, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 63, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Page 2 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: ITEM (A) PAYMENT TO OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE GRANTORS OR MORTGAGORS OF THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE INSURED. ITEM (B) PROPER INSTRUMENTS) CREATING THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE INSURED MUST BE EXECUTED AND DULY FILED FOR RECORD. SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED WILL CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOLLOWING UNLESS THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPANY. A. TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN AS EXISTING LIENS BY THE • RECORDS OF ANY TAXING AUTHORITY THAT LEVIES TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS ON REAL PROPERTY OR BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. B. ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTERESTS, OR CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS BUT WHICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY AN INSPECTION OF SAID LAND OR BY MAKING INQUIRY OF PERSONS IN POSSESSION THEREOF. C. EASEMENTS, CLAIMS OF EASEMENT OR ENCUMBRANCES WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. D. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LIENS, SHORTAGE IN AREA, ENCROACHMENTS, OR ANY OTHER FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY WOULD DISCLOSE, AND WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS. E. (A) UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; (B) RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF; (C) WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER; WHETHER OR NOT THE MAI'1'LRS EXCEPTED UNDER (A), (B) OR (C) ARE SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS; (D) INDIAN TRIBAL CODES OR REGULATIONS, INDIAN TREATY OR ABORIGINAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING EASEMENTS OR EQUITABLE SERVITUDES. F. ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR MATERIAL THERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. G. ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION, MAINTENANCE, CONSTRUCTION, TAP OR REIMBURSEMENT CHARGES/COSTS FOR SEWER, WATER, GARBAGE OR ELECTRICITY. H. DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES, ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MA PIERS, IF ANY, CREATED, FIRST APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR ATTACHING SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT PRIOR TO THE DATE THE PROPOSED INSURED ACQUIRES OF RECORD FOR VALUE THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGES THEREON COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT. Page 3 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 CONT. ORDER NO. 810938-C1 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31ST. YEAR: 2000 AMOUNT BILLED: $1,901.13 AMOUNT PAID: $ 950.57 AMOUNT DUE: $ 950.56, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 334210-3272-04 ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: $88,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: $58,500.00 2. A PROPER LEASE MUST BE EXECUTED AND RECORDED, OR IF A MEMORANDUM THEREOF IS TO BE RECORDED, A CONFORMED COPY OF THE LEASE MUST BE SUBMITTED AND THE POLICY TO ISSUE WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: THE TERMS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE REFERRED TO IN SCHEDULE A AND THE EFFECT OF ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME. 3. UNRECORDED LEASEHOLDS, IF ANY, RIGHTS OF VENDORS AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND RIGHTS OF TENANTS AND SECURED PARTIES TO REMOVE TRADE FIXTURES AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM. 4. A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING FROM THE STATE OF OREGON FOR AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, AN OREGON CORPORATION, SHOULD BE SUBMIITED PRIOR TO CLOSING, TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICERS THEREOF TO EXECUTE THE FORTHCOMING INSTRUMENT. 5. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: NOVEMBER 23, 1999 RECORDING NO.: 19991123000443 IN FAVOR OF: PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. FOR: TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF GAS AND ELECTRICITY AFFECTS: THE WEST 10 FEET OF THE NORTH 5 FEET NOTE #1: ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE, TITLE IS TO VEST IN AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION. EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS DISCLOSES NO MA1'1'ERS PENDING AGAINST SAID PARTY(IES). INFORMATIONAL NOTES: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997, AND PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES RELATING TO STANDARDIZATION OF RECORDED DOCUMENTS, THE FOLLOWING FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE RECORDER. Page 4 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 CONT. ORDER NO. 810938-C1 THE DESCRIPTION CAN BE ABBREVIATED AS SUGGESTED BELOW IF NECESSARY TO MEET STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS. THE FULL TEXT OF THE DESCRIPTION MUST APPEAR IN THE DOCUMENT(S) TO BE INSURED. TRACT 41, HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADD. 1, VOL. 11, P. 63. TAX PARCEL NUMBER(S): 334210-3272-04 A FEE WILL BE CHARGED UPON THE CANCELLATION OF THIS COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO THE WASHINGTON STATE INSURANCE CODE AND THE FILED RATE SCHEDULE OF THE COMPANY. END OF SCHEDULE B PS/EIH CC: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 800 SEATTLE, WA 98121 ATTN: MICHELLE ELLIOTT Page 5 • C NOTTCJE -� ORDER N: / SUBDIVISION 1 I This Sketch is furnished as a courtesy only by First American RCDG.NO. L & PG. ��� _ • Tide Insurance Company and it is NOT a part of any title OTF JSEC3_ TWNSHP __�`" RNG.._ • commitment or policy of title insurance. N This sketch is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in P4'' locating the premises and does not purport to show all highways, °•* •,'.� roads,or easements affecting the property. No reliance should �' E be placed upon this sketch for the location or dimensions of the `\property and no liability is assumed for the correctness thereof. C . r Sr. ( aft/ 08 Jo !w �.� .7B,.otoLC % •I 125 . y, 1 albN. 32ND ST;mine.,/r y , i53 . I - S. 6 . 155 1• I •as7 I is a7 ,u i ,75 1I 95 • • L r° 13` °`Joola 2 00i 4I °°eIoo° IR°°� 5°°! UL°1Sj9 i !�i\ I 1 , I g d.1s0� 62 1� • • .Al r s. 34 ° 1 II s! 60 ti0 AI'E' ° I s°° e'..79 s1 Sj7 1. ,�s „ 10 tih >� F• f .. /35 t A r /75 fc s °ar.e..vt ,u ` 1 o'A V I t77.to • w y _ e I" 2 ill w L......--7 Ani : I.; _ Q tie. �1 ; ; i,,A °�i' ,�L) w„ 15°•SB .,I �1a° wI + �r ii��A'w Sl�I.)1� �• �� 39 38 _ = ,�` 1 �_ 7 • „ e 59V y NB,.o:".,58_ x ; a So �15 �Iw a°° ° 1!/� 4 to t.� °QRI I�'ir . .4 0 0 a 4 !yi • t:o h ,26 is i ! ` le•9,�y1 IT or ! # 2%.,1 `^fry ,!`° v °- v . �s'y°^N 6)i��' r"`I� u 9i o. f t4. _,/i o I 1 Sp /47 //O /$ • ,1 • Y`_ -1 257 137 go 49 /75 • v I75 SG 3 W ° J 2 y r o v ". N. 30TH ST. / ells n Av /Jo 5-7" u7 .to 17 64•I5 6d aS /10.1 ,t81 • 14,a °• �. /70 ,f° It ,� •'. ISoe '0 ylopol`vow 1 , . '- • , , 2 + 6 n [�L7_ ° 40 1 ,�, 4 • 5 Z —'° �,���,'� • o Ao /30• 4 49 — p I�' 51. ''�t� ��• .1 0 y1y I 15,j11,,OA0 I I,sb6 ty° : i • '.�' ` 8 i. ZS C Ao I too /f7 I I roo �• h • $l 10 r(�� • 1 1 • �a ° s� s'�° 3: Ti j—— e : �0 1 /eo—_I 0 ,,5 , v OM 12 r i a s1° )a I " 1 r/7!D yt'4!y ii 45J ,s• + • .2 y '�1° / -- 31 4 „ y S }i i•�ip1 1^•1p; n I i�1 Q„ 'O $�D + ::......4.: •tlI� DL �7jamD°r�0 �Ww ' �t ,1s9 �'9' I81 si " gl ',1q8 i? /0° O I �� , LS7 N. M 4o er 3o M�° �•.•.. : J�f' ' ,-9 'sy1 .1` id4! L.r (B/c,v:.,IYO o,¢I of/ I\ �.,/ N. 28TH ST. �` 414 Y Oh.,) W 5 — 23 —5 u«� �, t s r • Form No. 1755 Commitment,Conditions and Stipulations COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations 1. The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,encumbrance,adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing,the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these.Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate of interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and conditions and stipulations of this Commitment. • • ��&Printed on Recycled Paper . A M 1 S IC • who'lite - Nt 41/4)1/4\ , First American Title Insurance Company COPIES OF DOCUMENTS . , . ,. v • • i ,1 • • • . . • • • . . • ieel . • . , " • • .. • Filed for Record at dm Request oft De ton limml li•%mar%Um • • ,f*I Mark E.Hodges P.S. ' •IRO 112th Ate NE . Bellevue.Wa.96004 - • • o When Recorded Ream To: ..1 Num: Pall a Pamela Milks N Address: -11oZ.3 cis st.e.oltJeLatAx_A)E., . . al Tcose...Nc..,_ iLD- es—9e2D-54, • —.% 4.3 ,po 1 g • . . • • - • . . 73 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED - .. . • . i •: • "-\17 TIM GRANTOR.VIRGINIA MAUL.who mewled title as Virginia&taking.lobo was an 1982tunnerrierl' wawa between Jamey .1. and May 10.1063.edio is now a married ammo,se her amanita astale,for and ia eausidasti as of TEN DOLLARS(S10.00) AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, in band paid,convoys and warreoss to PAUL L MILLER AND ' . PAMELA/0 LARSON MILLER.hasband and wife.dt o following deemiked real edam.situated in dee Comity of/Gag.State of _ *"..... Wilibint°21 • . ;• • : Ea*bah'of du wee half of Tract 41 of C.D.Hillames Lake%skives Genies of Eden Addition to Scuds No. 1,according to the • (,...... plat thereof recorded Yoko=11 of Plats.page 63,in pas Camay.Washiesseq. . . . . . --.....c.) . . . . . - • • . . . SUBJECT to Rights,Retervetione.Restrictions,Agreamtats,Cowman sarlIer Erseaseats as disclosed in the prolhaiwn.y rite commitment •, (Z)heard by Stewart Tide,Order No.246070. .. . 2 • • r ,. . . I-. DATED: lane 7.PPM .,,.. . . . • -/ 1 ,•• . . .„ , . . , . -z-,_,-.....„1/ • • ,,.. . Virgins.. 1-. id.ge.... " • - . . ' • 1. •• • r . • . . . . STATE OF WAS/IVA/TON ) . • )fi••• COUNTY OF /ft4/1 5,.....— ) . . . • . I certify that Itow or ham satisfactory evidence that ‘C)CiNLQ-_ •is the • patios who appeared before nie.and raid perms acknowledged'that 1U akAdki4s3=this morusseat and acknowledged it to 6 . :• .,.k. ........free and soltiotary act of such party for the uses and parpmed mentioriedin the'matron:cm. ai.en under my hand and ' al ibis day .1994. . .) •'' " .. . ' . -) ....zi:•.. . la moon.rending at . NIL--Notatnisaion,,,,fir,,:...3 -9 -9 Si . . • . i ..t- • , . •••iiik . . . . "Iv e,c ,0" • • ,.. .,, :..1 • . ,...',:•., • • •:.;:,... U . • • . . . •• • ,... ,.. • ".,...:' ••::: . • . .. . .. . . . .)..-.1 .,,....,;'...., • • . . • . • . . :4,', ,.....1,:.... . . . • S: 3R04-Ar7 /f /:a94 3233.00 lanoorhoo ,-ii.,.,- :.:-.;,...,...:,• . .-...' '' -...,;`•.: ••,.. • • ••.. ,. . . • . . . . . . . .... . . .. , .. . , . ... . . .. . . . . . . ,.. • • • III'IIIIIIIIIiII112300443 3 0.41 PUGET SOUND EN GAG U.tM KING CORN 1fA Ess1�792�81� 1114p G1A,yia'r RETURN ADDRESS: Sisaiti :n Puget Sound Energy,Inc. PAGE 903 OF 002 Attn: ROW Department P.O.Box 97034 OBC-11N Bellevue,Washington 98009-9734 EASEMENT REFERENCE#: • GRANTOR MILLER GRANTEE' PUGET SOUND ENERGY,INC. SNORT LEGAL: SW 32.24.5E ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL: 334210-3257-03 For and in consideration of One Dollar($1.00)and other valuable consideration in hand paid, PAUL R.MILLER AND PAMELA JO LARSON MILLER, husband and wife('Grantor herein), hereby conveys and warrants to PUGET SOUND ENERGY,INC.,a Washington Corporation(-Grantee'herein),for the purposes hereinafter set forth, a nonexclusive perpetual easement over, under, along across and through the following described real property("Property'herein)in KING County,Washington: EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D.HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO. 1., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS,PAGE 63,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. • o SITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 24 o NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST,W.M.,KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. on . Except as may be otherwise set forth herein Grantee's rights shall be exorcised upon that portion of the Property ('Easement Area'herein)described as follows: o, THE WEST 10 FEET OF THE NORTH 5 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED a+ REAL PROPERTY. rn 1. Purpose. Grantee shall have the right to construct,operate,maintain,repair,replace,improve,remove, enlarge,and use the easement area for one or more utility systems for purposes of transmission,distribution and sale of gas end electricity. Such systems may Include,but are not limited to: a. Overhead facilities. Poles,towers and other support structures with crossarns,braces, guys and anchors;electric transmission and distribution lines;fiber optic cable and other lines,cables and facilities for communications; transformers,street lights,meters,fixtures,attachments and any and all other facilities or appurtenances necessary or convenient to any or all of the foregoing;and. b. Underground facilities. Conduits,lines,cables,vaults, switches and transformers for • electricity;pipes,pipelines,mains,laterals,conduits,regulators and feeders for gas;fiber optic cable and other lines,cables and facilities for communications;semi-buried or ground-mounted facilities and pads, manholes, meters, fixtures, attachments and any and as other facilities or appurtenances necessary or convenient to any or all of the foregoing. Following the initial construction of ail or a portion of its systems,Grantee may,from time to lime,construct such additional facilities as it may require for such systems. Grantee shall have the right of access to the Easement Area over and across the Property to enable Grantee to exercise Its rights hereunder. Grantee shall compensate Grantor for any damage to the Property caused by the exercise of such right of access by Grantee. 2. Easement Area Clearing and Maintenance. Grantee shall have the right to cut,remove and dispose of any and all brush,trees or other vegetation in the Easement Area. Grantee shall also have the right to control,on a continuing basis end by any prudent and reasonable means,the establishment and growth of brush,trees or other vegetation in the Easement Area., 3. Tres Outside Easement Area. Grantee shall have the right to cut,trim remove and dispose of any trees located on the Property outside the Easement Area that could,in Grantee's sole Judgment,Interfere with or create a hazard to Grantee's systems. Grantee shall,prior to the exercise of such right,identify such trees and make a reasonable effort to gNe Grantor prior notice that such trees will be cut,trimmed,removed or disposed of • (except that Grantee shall have no obligation to Identify such trees or give Grantor such prior notice when trees are cut,trammed,removed or otherwise disposed of in response to emergency conditions). Grantor shall be entitles to OHNG Gas S Electric Easement 11/1998 101004497127806/SW 32-24-5 I • no compensation for trees cut,trimmed,removed or disposed of except for the actual market value of merchantable timber(if any)cut and removed from the Property by Grantee. 4. Grantor's Use of Easement Area. Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area for any purpose not Inconsistent with the rights herein granted,provided,however,Grantor shell not construct or maintain any buildings,structures or other objects on the Easement Area and Grantor shall do no blasting within 300 feet of Grantee's facilities without Grantee's prior written consent. 6. Indemnity. Grantee agrees to Indemnify Grantor from and against liability incurred by Grantor as a result of Grantee's negligence In the exercise of the rights herein granted to Grantee,but nothing herein shall require Grantee to indemnify Grantor for that portion of any such liability attributable to the negligence of Grantor or the negligence of others. 6. Abandonment. The rights herein granted shall continue until such time as Grantee ceases to use the Easement Area for a period of five(5)successive years,In which event,this easement shall terminate and all rights hereunder,and any improvements remaining In the Easement Area,shall revert to or otherwise become the property of Grantor,provided,however,that no abandonment shall be deemed to have occurred by reason of Grantee's failure to Initially metal Its systems on the Easement Area within any period of time from the date hereof 7. Successors and Assigns. Grantee shall have the right to assign,apportion or otherwise transfer any or all of its rights,benefits,privileges and Interests arising in and under this easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,the rights and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon their respective successors and assigns. DATED this 1 0 day of No t e in be r ,1999 GRANTOR: o • 8Y: G✓� r BY: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) MIA) )SS COUNTY OF ) h J yI o On this /o' day of i11�vc..ya� ,1996,before me,a Notary Public m and for the Slate of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn,personally appeared fa 14, ti•lip r and jp,«r 14 1, L`rt«..M,N'r,to me known to be the individual(s)who executed the within and foregoing , Instrument,end acknowledged that rrSS signed the same as Tlo,..- free and voluntary act and deed,for the use;lraftdtpurposes therein Mentioned. ' GIVEN u4 y official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate first above o ., writtea a�� ........, �i c : +?F�►e toec4,• . •A( D o e�ota� t. 1000 ' tary) 44QT t nil for the State of Washington,residing at My Aivoilltieefil Exptre§: • Notary seal,text and all notations must be inside 1'margins STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF • On this day of ,1998,before me,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn,personally appeared and to me known to be the individual(s)who executed the within and foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate first above written. (Signature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,residing at My Appointment Expires: Notary seal,text and all notations must be inside 1"margins cso July 31,2000 , =AT AT&T Wireless Services City of Renton P.O. Box 9159 Planning 617 Eastlake Ave. E. 1055 South Grady Way Seattle,WA 98109 206 624-5700 Renton,WA. 98055 RE: Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Communications Facility AT&T site number: SD51 Coleman Point On behalf of AT&T Wireless, Pacific Telecom Service respectfully submits the following application for a wireless communications facility located in the Kennydale area. The following information is attached for your review and approval: • Land Use permit Master application (12 copies) • Environmental checklist (12 copies) • Title Report (3 copies) • • Mailing Labels (2 sets) • List of surrounding property owners (2 copies) • Fees • Project narrative (12 copies) • Neighborhood detail map-Kroll (12 copies) • Site plans (12 copies) • Architectural plans (12 copies) • Geotechnical report (5 copies) • Landscaping plan (12 copies) • Plan reductions on PMT (1 copy) • Colored display maps (1 copy) • Justification for CUP (12 copies) • Applicant Agreement statement (1 copy) • Photosimulations (2 sets) • Map of existing site conditions (1 copy) • Map of View area (1 copy) • Documentation of lease (1 copy) • Inventory of existing sites (1 copy) I look forward to working with the City of Renton on the proposed AT&T project. If you find that you have any questions, comments or additional information needed please do not hesitate to contact me at(206)696.3367 I'd be delighted to help out in any way possible. You may also contact via US Mail at 425 Pontius Avenue North, Suite 202, Seattle,WA. 98109. Sincerely, Lori Chase Pacific Telecom Services a Recycled Paper EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS • .. .................. ... . ................ Calculations, Survey, Drainage Control Plan 2 (/J VO..i'...4i4:.40:41:01.:.6041i111111111111111111111111111111111iiiminnE.mingiii Elevations,Architectural 3AND 4 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable4 Geotechnical Report 2 AND 3 • Gfad..�t ....fan .G��ce...�aa�z.....::. ..::.:::::..::.::::::.::::. .:::::::::::.. :..::.:::::::::::: .::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::...:::::::::::.................:..:.::::::::. ........ ::.:::::::.:.:. ::. Grading Plan, Detailed 2 Landscaping Plan, Conceptual List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Monument Cards(one per monument) >................................ '<'< `:< : < '' ><>> ° '` ' ;>"' <<: Plan Reductions (PMTs)4 Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 Rehabilitation Plan 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: kT 1 I 1' (e c&11- &, Yf 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section -)‘ r ',' °�` z 9 bATE: 7-1( 4. Development Planning Section r,\ h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.plan.ing\waiver.xls REVISED 5/17/00 ' '/ELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS :* N `t M T S B`MIT ' > :»:. >:AIVR: > MODI ::>:: . . .......... ....................... ..... Screening Detail 4 Street"•`.'r`>:.Iil �':' '`> '`'<''` ' >> [<<< > s><> >>>>'''5 ><> > >zz«< <> > ' >> > >' z <^'> > ><'>' <':`. >< >:.'•. `_<r<`.':z�'><< '[ <> ><>»>>> z>z<> >> Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 ; :>:>>:>::;.::>:::;:'<.y ':: >:.'and r : ':;:.;:;;:::;::>:::.::;:::;>::>::>::>::>::>>: >::»:» :<»::;»::;:: > :: : >: :<::»» >: ;:.;:;:;:::::»>:>::»>::>::;:::;:>::<:::>::>::»<:::_»:::<:>:::::>:: >::>::»»:::.>;;:;<:::::::: >::>::>::>::>::;: raffic Study 2 Ne 14 Tr..ee::Cu##ir N6:d is#i <:C#eari .Pan. .......::i:m. ....... ................ .....:.... ............................... ..... . Urban Center Design Overlay District Report 4 :::.:"n::.'Yr:YSY1:>:: < : C {{' ':••.?? , ik.:64`':? > >f` \ ' y n `-' ' : 't` C+: ..:.tilpties::: last :0.e..eraljZ0 i. ::::::::.............. :::::::::i::::.::::: .::::::..:..:..: :..... . ...........?:ia.......... ..... :.......:::::::. :::::0.:.. .... ..... .... ...:..... .. /Wetlands Delineation Map 4 ,Wetlands Plan# lar}' <:`:: > '<':>' ::<:::: :::'::: : :>:::::::::::=::':'> :> :: :.::>':::::>:':>:':: : :::: ::: :: :::::::::>:i:::::`::::>::::::::::: iii€isi :::=<=:::: :::>: :»<::::::::::::>�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Wetlands Study 4 ::::;;>:<»>:>:: '?;::; ::'.::::::::::: €' ttentI:':>:' ::::<::<: :::::::<;::[<:> »» :::::i»:: : > : : <' iii:?. mi..., ':: :: ` ?>>:>:`> <`: > ::: : :::><:«A::.IicaR#1� earnan..Sta.em..e..... . <::::[rtvein..o ..+af.Extstm S>tes. ........ ...... ...... .. ..:... ... Lease'':Agreement"Dra >` ``:`eii.41:::>:::::::`::::::iii:,i::: :::::::<:>: >:>i :<: ::: ,-.- ': . : ,„..„,,,::::::>:'::':> .ig.i: of:.Existin Site::Conditions:::.;.:< ii.: :::::::;::::::::::::::>::::;<; <::>::>:>: ;:::::;:41:.:::::>::::>:11-.1i:::;:;::::::::::::::>:::::: ::::::>:::;::<::«::<::>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; :>::: :p of View ' r'.: <A;: <: >> <' :>:•m `.,.:zi':<::: ::::mi.::.: :::: :Tii!:>:::>::::::::::::>::q:::::`<:< i.e:::...ii::: :ii.m:;a:::>:::::::: ::;:':<:>:<::::::::::s:::::::<::>::: > ' ::::::::..:::<:::::::>:::::::::::>::::::::::><:>:::<::::::»: > ......o. This requirement may be waived by: /�/ 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: HQ!? le /Y 2. Public Works Plan Review Section,..,.,.:,:;-s, 3. Building Section - DATE: 7-00 • 4. Development Planning Section • h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.pian.ing\waiver.xis REVISED 5/17/00 *************************** ********************************** City of Renton WA Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R0004399 Amount: 1, 000.00 08/09/00 12 :48 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: AT&T WIRE #10437 Init: JEJ Project #: LUA00-104 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 334210-3272 Site Address: 1321 N 30TH ST Total Fees: 2;509 .24 This Payment 1, 000.00 Total ALL Pmts: 2, 509 .24 Balance: .00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345. 81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 1, 000.00 **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 07/31/00 14:37 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R0004229 Amount: 1, 009 .24 07/31/00 14:37 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #10421 AT&T WIRE Init: LN Project #: LUA00-104 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 334210-3272 Site Address: 1321 N 30TH ST Total Fees: 1, 009 .24 This',Payment 1, 009 .24 Total ALL Pmts: 1, 009 .24 Balance: .00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345. 81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 1, 000. 00 000 . 05 .519 .90.42 .1 Postage 9 .24 '************ ************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 07/31/00 14:40 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R0004230 Amount: 500 . 00 07/31/00 14:40 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #1031 LORI CHASE Init: LN Project #: LUA00-104 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 334210-3272 Site Address: 1321 N 30TH ST Total Fees: 1, 509 .24 This Payment 500.00 Total ALL Pmts: 1,509 .24 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345. 81. 00. 0007 Environmental Review 500. 00 a, MA q*yOI� y/. e i .'--� ....� ' 113�^� \ N IT.},:, 116 f i le I.a /o tl zz1 Z. L. 25 I v.--r g31 1 itii•i� w l .,-., _ =.. 3 ,._b.s -, , ..: . . i s ' )• • sI 36 � )5"-3n� 1)')2i311to 29; NE, 27 '3� 3;:H1i:-- ' '.1 �.1_1 : I 1 l I IU �� a U +,•�I; I ° 1-631 }- X 1 62 33 R D ST. �" :� ° I v s ss �o I� " ( Ie1 I. i _/ \ Q A • . . N ot. {Pm�--y��J7r o''� I11.lr4W ^Il . ,1 it 11 N��� ¢.�.`-'1/\ Ie 19 p "LL ? .-+LL+ �,-, N . o _• 'act - " ` —a Co �,, ; 62 Op 6 I , • • L• 9S C2, 30•Z\4\ ;O J9^3R 37 6 35-^34 JJ I 310 12.' 28 27 126 s0 c I , , 1� I j1 �1 \� \ 8 1 c U IL . ,it I ro n 1 , • II , Ill 11 r e-_- • I . 1 .. 1 . . I - I • I I sae! _...._J zst I .. i� N, i1 i ` a. „Noe; �: • • .� x Yam.. c ii 13 ti'M D. la Is n 're' zo zl `fit �zJ z• iiiir -=34 35 I y " '`ies •` 60 ^.v !� } TT • foTh39 grili -•36 3711 36 1 )s 34 133-I•fs211 31 I(3301 z9 - , zi-1"..., r'+l '• "'loo ' _ (�I 1_r Opal!® I M J/C; •15` • 1. SIT. 38„ 3 ' 58 ! 31ST. I . Is7 .� ., n w }iSCAa�zsl s� •'rs;asl so i I ,,II -- -1 p'^ _ �-'.` ^g I �' I h �I L� ,A i,� i�l. Ie1 20 21 2: :1 141 Zs =`L--- -- I---- -4-I. - Z.: '• -'Tl I._,F�.tFi - -- ERe i IN e Ili M .. 4,600l ` 2 ? .:1 �V ,T 3� s. s _� •t ���6 TA to - �, G - [ • y ,"^�115 ftill 1. q fit' a it' I •,:, ------ - -. 30TH ST. �� s P-• ks...,... 30TH STs_ ` 1 R )��.. r..'• = a �aa ,F ' 1 ! f 1 a •. 'is, so 1 - - A. - e, , � so .w w ' s7 1 `' ,y s , a.s^ ��'��1 • 2� ` u, � 1 1 1 �f [ 1 'a' dA 9` •• a q I? . 3 5 �� `''110 t. 1 IH„I I 'i j 00- to 0ice` —i p; :w'Ir a t ? �e IC I 33• 3,8 37fi3 •34 33 I it 31 I 29 20 27 Lo ^• _ ._ 3 : .\ is 1-•.I • S `. •ta '.`�'. 111` I 5.'..... •• I •- •i �' z4 w : I I ' I I �'Z.• // • ,4 ( I ,4 ; 13 1 16 I? IA I' t j r3...•-1zt A 24 ! ` iii I N 3. «N� I 1 ` o e 11 I i . ® ! l It I r _? 9 l s o 4 4 33 3.6 37 I 35 34 33 .i.z I 1 f3 ± z76 ` .._.1A-. 1ss.. .y � ,I isH iw4` .' f I � �` `so• El _ ® rti '. I 5 113 t o sts is BQY�o. �' -1�- -f�- 1 .M - 2)0 �� k 1 28TH1 PL. 1' O. bt 1� ts�c.',n i • IRz.i r • i 1 N `L! "x it 1 r��I r 111! ' p. 50 I 4 114 I Ia 1 I /WI Ifil 20 I 21 I 11 131 TyS. Ilst '�a s t� 1 ay3ei iv /.' j, i 5 7 --— .;•—S•�•_•-_•_._-•—. -A•—..ems ..,s;�-I-• +� av ou . —. --4:T-: N. $T ST--- �4 22 2I2.7! _ .. H-_ l I,1.S do I u A •� �i " a �.. -+ , r III ,r}6 K 5/ 17 i I ` c;ii 4� - r 1 E JAMES L E. MRS 11 11,5 .. `I a i a . MARENAKOS `"' a orzrc :• I� - 1 i p.n.e, I ' ' -t l i I y f I PETARD N pf �e./� "•''•..,.'ems'' ' ' •�'t PETER SON. • ,ArrR ^ ;i tt.o r.c`.t)' rt.;9' `I'i: 2 •i $ 7t.10 .", // O 601 .` ��,,''••'' t. N v X E. D. S-RIOE .6 . I I I . , Jr, •.'�i • i)10; .ea w4 M ts14e, t7CA g9J4e. -t t /�` W�`. 2 10 2 31 'M.I..... W W .' • (�_f`) I 011,//I -1 ,. �'• (�/��{', �ICQ�,�,M 4I I ELAND F. PETERSON za.7c' G. t' L0t 1 < 2 ' / -- '""' • ,F /.02Ae, /.$Z4e; N.F. H CT� �t•e.:.f 27.0� At. .E�jte.9 7i./ ' i a�/4/ l - 1 _ ., My S • 3 2 � 't ' ;ram= IG �' ''' � B 1 31 k 30 ;o L1z /,� Fes, I � 4 T a --_-_ /'i 9Ae, ^I� To-" J TM = N.f , ' . _ 7l.Is LLj a, ---2 - 2a 10 5 t 0 ;50 4' • ,„ „. ^. , ��N 17Si \\\�. p pp pT,! �2• I(� V ..... •,1r 33•76 •,,.N Ah ..oi•. ai.J zJ . E.', - - 15 s grI A- • i_J tAi ; a N.'?"' '. ,,,QQQjj�,,.-_ _ s ... l.1HI ..,. • 74 S S ! iVo ' .,, --6--- ® b - -EX-k` 6Ft #2 Vv G1is w Y-. ,..1105 r 1 ' t rvvU�lt' AIL �` ® Yr yi r ';;'� ).r :Li 13 e4 is ,n•Q: :i G• t-_�� s • I „�,1 S 1' 116 y,i! I fe 113 I lop,,,l,zz "1 1 21 I - R i ± a t 11,11= t , ^� � ^a ��]S R ~ ~ 'J w I 1 I 1 9)y__, 2 .q '� IV n ] B 26 113 J4'�•]] ]t JI 70l 19 i N6 i 27 _�Z_____. w , Vu I•i` 7 �. - ---I Led 4� I .PI s R 1—k 1 ' " 1 9�Q e �, c. } 1 62 � ' i1 Z I rD 33RD ST. f3zio__. �, I� ii �3�� �� I::: ' 1=1. if --- - 1 U W W 1 V. • 47 ,, II l] Vd SDI{ 14 .19 Rl r..�.��y- _ ii N. 32ND.s ' 'ST.,. .R-�, r .i '• �I s.. as '4 A —fir Pr 1 �'ti': 1 C • to !e ]" ]7 6 7 ]t .]] ]I ]0 27 26 S° $ '� N Ii �� 1°7 L _iI `� [ • • `'i - ---.30= 32ND . I`ST. '� - ...._,3rr M^;' a. a a \\ `x� `L .1 II WI NM _ 34 35 I s :' ,as 60 '%�ib=4' ;11ZIEE ...-_-_-=-_-__-- - - N J Mr 11111% `Anti . p 7e JO 37 76 JI I 30 20 27 6 no 'u15 1s71aa 1{ iS " "Q�< r 1liE /C: E 3I ST. ST. 38 , 4, ly : :: 58 , _ � rel., 1:11-464:1'4113•71 w - I . ,1- � : a � • 5gEi I ( 4 1 fh8I2aI2I i Jl2S -__gt---t•-1--- i----- -�is i a!? r '.3'. _• J•; 17 1 tit A t! •tnii 6 _•�414„� r - 1, _ ;ep 'c ? ^S7S �' 1�l� 1 Into I II It 70 . 1 . i . l . i y+1t 1 1 it ��'` {, F i20 30— _ N. 30TH ►'''' a ST. 5 30TH STs • ,e 13311 So r • ; • 1 • 7 10 L1 S1s b•c r .LeC 7b "YIlii 11 '44 •�t: :Q N �;, `'I. t 29TH ST. g 140 I .4 II ' _ . IL 1 A ' IS I6 17 ©I I IYI�z2�� 2a d Cr 3 -WI 2143 ; I m,� .,,4 III l `�+o . 39 JO 371 75 )4 31-' 2�'1 7o1.:J�28 i27Y26 ..-_..__0._, per-- -_ I 1';u,"-iy `. o In >e ss lts IV ,. 4123. sol seo S' "•I r- 11 i ;t M1•. • 28TH Pt., li It --+ ; • a. F 2 r r� li. r1l, >�aI I . I I 1 1.: y so E II: l_J Mill i i I 1 '•1 fa / 50• I L17 a �a i1v -Is'? ' " I? ;41 1; 7, !' P 5 r 12 �. � �li; 17 I�I 1!,ra I zl I zz 1 z7,�zy i.5' 1L"• �.�'— 1---•`�.._ST- -- ..yl'—..ai!s�;i ilp.+r�7 .__ /F a oiJ, 7J _' yp' ----3--N. zip-HI-ST.-Tr • --• i 22 127.9r :as- ::, ::: t '41 . . -ill i ,1�•: ; % I MARENAKOS RJZIc � . ' , t ; LELAND 0N. e7 TOIi .;, 4NAI.er y�4,":' % i : c. 1 �; PETERSON. `,. r'Pi ... y 7r.e 77.10 Lr.S7 c11r !� �±g f7� }: Z Y `a:: eL z °Fl ' E.D. S"RI OE ,.' r.. . 1i1► �TI is • I� a a n • r.Salr, �� r.3e lr. 0.9]4f -' Z +i „J....,_ i r , , y rc r�`181M-' . T f.13 . 1..1.'7 EY.c W R F, /_n 1i,r gli f -•• iiiu, G�'t.Lot 14 < ' r ., r„ w i ;. N.€.2, H CPI ELAND F, PETERSON 'r,7 fin' f /0En /.st/e r4 i (/�?� T i r i •r' ' r7S L• Z �0'v. 'le Pr 7:7.1 1 �Q7'ri':14 L..�.i'v M�- „` '�o rAi i � �^ � ° 1611a 7� �• 32 31 _ 30 ,�:zT�.34 I+i�F , a ,•c• ,°••r t. PI • 1 _.,__ 4 a1,2ka a ow--7- : = Cr4c_ -_- �.+;7 .J A "I gii I!I �IG if rf n� ailZT � 2y �'r,v�. Tb,, v r�,1�.s,,1t grr19, 74. �e '1,1, S:II 0) Jro. Y '•e i rand. Qr, lay ns r i_ra _ ,. r-1 i *�•iIli 29 '5-a N. . 26TH . �ST. ; 1,.\\ o a L2I -'�° I :low. f _ _ ``.►_-"".2. • 4111../ 0 'e141�.0 z 7f '• I 1�i —'Q7 `� :Y ® �\ '• • _ a_� 1,1 1::,.. . 74 IS S I [�i ems', — ;11r,. ..4.1(.:::::!. ,Y7Rv. 61ch • iib► . i'. ....4f 5 COLEMAN POINT • • 1, ft -- • 1111111i r< 1166;: Looking SE to Site from Corner of N. 30th St&Park Ave COLEMAN POINT u • Vr r .r► ' 'TA 'f.:. e *"d J .y `,. � 4 �y I FN. .. 1 fi Jr Looking SW to Site from N. 30th St./Freeway Entrance Off Ramp AT&T AT&T Wireless Services August 18,2000 P.O. Box 9159 617 Eastlake Ave.E. Seattle,WA 98109 206 624-5700 To Whom It May Concern: AT&T's cellular coverage has a "hole" in the Kennydale area. The purpose of our proposed site at 1321 North 30th Street, in Renton is to provide coverage to this low signal strength area along 1-405 between Kennydale and Renton. With a great deal of RF analysis done, we determined that the optimum location to cover this area would be the above mentioned site. The sites ideal location is on the west side of the interstate. It should be located on the west site to limit the spread of RF (radio frequency)interference back across Lake Washington into Seattle. If the antennae were located on the east side of the interstate they would have to be orientated pointing back to the lake. This orientation would increase the spread of RF interference above the —12 dBm threshold, and thus reducing the capacity of our network. Therefore,the west side of 1-405 is the only working location. Sincerely, Ian Hopkins Radio Frequency Engineer AT&T Wireless, Inc. • .• 6x Alb/ t wit ., ' . • P I. ca-liDli o-F- BA,ikon -1-est- PhD-i-t5.s _. i IA 1$1,6415 :t-•16 .1' : -S--- 1 Li%.4 16 '1." 10 i la I en II 121 '' I- I Lit i I 4. 1 1 I -1' ''.. 17-1 1:1 i . . 3 fiot , , „_______.___„ , .i., ,.,,.... ! , .....,-__.-- _Stk._,42 34 3S....3433'..32 I 311 30;20. 28 f 27'44 Elz ,3 63 r.,..., t,' -.: ••:- Z., 1 I • ,., '- c ii: ::s!• , , I I A Et i 1 I iM. " , -it,:,,..,: migiliffi.e, :: .,.... 1.63 i )- cc , 62 k, 33RD ST. , /:.: ° MI - ill'4 I: rfl lintil I"u-i -'7--. - ; • 41 • c, .: , - 1.4- .:. . AD . ;.,. H] Lit4t4:Ar6N5li:: ,4}1. te,t4 :-itiki ... ..,, :. ,. ,.._,. ...:: , . \g < 0 ; I 2,f,, '. I ". I .../ -, 7 11..',...; .-4. /0 1 \ N. „ 32ND'' •. 030 I 551; 4I '.4 ST,„.- 3-:, ,s1 ,-,,, .•,1 :: 1::•... ,' • . 0 0 Ic 3:13A 37 .141 35."3....4 33 r3; 2, 1 lo , ml ,1 t ,. .1 •-: U.S.'. ; I\ 2 7 1 . L. 1 . [91'iqiiV. i_101101 al i .. i ; 0 . . , -a-I , ,, „ ' [1] 1:r- . ....5 ..,,,,, ..K ‘ ..vv \ .A.:' \, \ 32ND , ",.....ST. .1 2 \ -.., t TM Et., • r1544_110"Igt13q04%61'. ir'. ,b_l `CaS1 •••• C .....2 --0 ..... ..?,....... 1/ 14 la .15 I 17 1 20 1 21 ..:,:4 E. .- - - - - •O'd• $'''''.. .' 35 '. stIr:') : .2111S :. 60 1 -.. 101 3?..-.321 37/ 36 f;3...14 I 3314211 31 i 30 I Z9 IA I Z7.4-221 ; it7 i0.4 li? 14 :.. '::LCC3'.: , • ALIA? t 0- I . il111. 111. ri .J0 g _ Jict:' 161 • 104 : .......e. . . . 1 :.'Cr. ,. I 31ST. ST. .. : :: 38: 4., 3_7 :. :.::: li 58 4..1,'-T,.i,2-',.1-Tv s.).-_1_._.{'_314104 i.'CJ3;D4:.I 1:T3i1f4 3:-,-.Lr--.35::0!:s•t±ji.r-e3d•:'-.3i4.ld3-7i-.I,i--li.-.71.i..-.2 I0 I.I:'.t.2.:A1.T,I-2@.,- --fta.a1.•1,,,6-'•3s t- ----!.:0 (N A04;.,:.,-.,, 4.L..l.•.,...., ,,I.1.1..,.. . 1 . 33S ..',.• .A...,.i.L 1c1: 22-.-.: , 30 A. N. 30TH 1 ST. I .2 :..L.t..., ....:,. .,,,,, m.::,..4.,,,... _....30-TH v,3 liJ ! Z.. no .:,. ,„ ‘a 1 1,....,.., . •'..' ri 1.1.7.,,,..„,. lit 1... 1 • i • 1 . tir;.„ 0 . 50 51 N , 12113 % . 3 . _ _ '1: PT' ; .__ z LI" , . W: i ' •Cns, •• '. ‘. ' :: 'I84'50‘‘.1"-- ...:1': T:' 1 tr;i. ..-- k IC-133.30,3."7 I 34 35,'34 331 ii 31 '112_ 19 2d I 27.-.1e/ •-• in . .29TH 5T. 2 -..•-14 0 1 • I T.' 4R ‘\ t-,.u'I-1 I . , 9 I i f \ • t.,11 • • I • • .- ,' .31. ', I EJ n ,„ , ..... .m, , i ,, _ .40-.1_-.._.37--- " ...--311.-1-- .141 :, __1. r Z._ 11 • pa• , - I T, II 1 12 1 .A • iS,16 /7 16 LIM t i ayi I't'...3j1 24 6 cr: G,it' , tit ;-;e44-3 10 30 37 17E 35 I 30 33-'367211 301. -"el•27 26 _..r.-• L'w.., '''' ; , ,,, .ii ( ; 1 10 1311.1 '4 it121, 3e . f .. CI .: 28TH PL. ,..., . li •,',..=_ , . z: .:: g. w . 50 Iiii-Tre : if: 1 DI I . 'Fp- 1 ; =Es «4 ..til'I .... .0 1,1.,., 0- 14,j, .•'.. :,..:!: :.„.........................................,.0. 12 - I Ils 17 1 --' I 13 Ln 1 PI 1 2Z 23 I,'el ;3.-1 IL, .,".4 aix 4 Alt._Ad71'. :..7: e'i: N--,' 5 i 1---••7--'-STr•--"--*---'-•-•--I-R• ,,.,77 it• • •.--.-• ,., ,....., -' N. $.7"/-1--ST.-5?-05-1,17- I 22.2\ 212 94 JAMES I E. MRS 42 i.., Ao I (- -2 101 [ 1 " . , a \ -- .• vi; 1 MARENAKOS : ri•5 or.44‘ --":--' 4-, -_,:...._ . ,. LELAND FN. 0/14( ......• „ ftPETERSON • lop', ,, 7.i 4 ii 4,4 l' .. 1. 4... XI t7 r'.II' v. le 40 „:•: 1i Ertl :. 2 w 1 1 6 0 re' ''a ,/7 ass ,.;•11-- ' [ a 2... 2 . E 0 S-RIDE__.../ ,:, `• Of;,/ ,"/ : .., ,... 1. lo , , N.E.WI N. 4384, a PJ,r. -, 1 ••, ,.._ ta. cc ' N.E.g H Crt ELAND F. PETERSON /i.it'r. Govt.Lot I :.,i ; ,oz, ,„„' / ,:.7 " 42i., Zg.&:)9 Ac. wiri.‘; '. lily:.\ :------. : IM• ' &Ado 1 ., 50 .'- ' .13: ' ? t•Id .1.......2. '.- .-rr 2. i.: i Li,z..... filt 11 1: ALutlis 1:Ff-;40-^‘ 21'16 , 32 31 •-. 30 i,,,272 4 ,,, imm,miniTh' 1, • 1•4<it:S 1 ;,.. ,• 7 i 45. '--Mir-1 • 4. 0 ' ' fis.:.4,-, 7: .1.i.--zeiat-fi. ;Fiz 6313 Ralf-igna ' , ,...n.,., -.." - • Z iAl ip) Oh .•••=. '. '---' i ••'•-• ,,., : ,','4.""4 ;,.,___,, ?.,..../91--.67-7,---2Tre.;,,NA ,,Eki 4...." .. ..1 1 • '•• -z- 5 ,- 4 Je.0 ki 29 t 's.-4 N. . .26TH , ST. 4 z.. .zsgs -1 . ,. %. • A 's V , : 11':. 7 s-s•t. - ."3 .).c` ." .: =,..,! , ! isto e : - '6,f' I.., •: , _--zo ,ax, ,-,,, .,_1 [." cip, -, iy ‘ ,..". •614i •••sa •••- ' - r„ ... .. • ,4 171.5. ! trI;"'. - -.-- '''' ''s: --8- r-4, 1 . ...._ , ..,„ r • • I eicht4 t t 4 7 ,. . _. Balloon Test for Proposed AT&T site 1321 North 30th Street View from' "A" i w- i-{3fF Y. T 4 f t I i. }►' /...., ___ _ , .., • `a.L. Q Y .1• r •1 • 1 t+ .. Y `^s ` ,,,1' y ••:'• 4 , 4.,-. fi•r k' M'•f t•_ ` >a Looking Northeast to proposed AT&T site Looking Northeast ••>. A., $ ,•," .,wIlliMels ' �.' k, P• A. • 1 f t r s ` $ Aimit, : Fd i" } <v ` . 4:.':�, f y.x Balloon Test for Proposed AT&T site 1321 North 30th Street View from "B" oA" , a1~ r _ �; ?\•�� i >} r ?n L,�.i r.'nJw+\ �s., ., . 10..,;:ritf '''' ti1i iv1 —.. ‘‘", • .—I ! ' i.. ' .:':,. .'• • - �_ :J14:. _. . I;I' *1 d, Looking directly North to proposed AT&T site — very minimal if next to none visibility of proposed monopole Looking North / 4 '• , J ,,,t : ' i • 4 , t _ • I ..-. • { tom '.' • +w�•,r. • s il' _ _ I, i abC il 1alik*, '...- fit'•l ,... ri' .a Y r. 1 b Balloon Test for Proposed AT&T site 1321 North 30th Street View from "C" 11 x 4 22 • ' - 11 i f' t Y' f \A 1• 'F\�G-5 . %.,.� �y C� ��\y tt • 01 • Looking Northwest to proposed AT&T site location — Monopole not visible from this view Looking Northwest • T ; r \ _. i . •, .:.�.. • *Il i at id,!_ P AT&T Inventory of Existing Sites STRUCTURE SITE NO, SITE NAME ADDRESS SITE TYPE HEIGHT SS11 MAY CREEK 1160 Duvall Ave NE (also known as 138th Ave SE), Renton monopole 120' SD16 RENTON ll N.4th and Logan Ave N, Renton rooftop(existing building) 52' SD24 CEDAR RIVER 2439 SE Maple Valley Hwy, Renton rooftop(existing building) 30' SD11 KENNYDALE 10915 SE 76th St, Renton rooftop(existing building) 42' SS34 405 & 167 500 SW 16th Street, Renton collocation on existing tower 150' t12° two^•� it Propagation Map showing coverage area of 5 existing sites without the proposed site located at North 30th Avenue. Red shows optimal coverage while in building and within auto Green area has minimal in building and auto coverage,customers experience with poor call quality Yellow signifies very poor call quality with customer's experiencing"dropped calls" AT&T—SD5I Coleman Point 1321 North 30th Street • EA/46/r411e i s1111' :Ca , i • ' �++ se A �. Mit ��� i 1� Interstate Mobilephone Company V,�hr:1: Seattle iiiiiiiiiiin, _ o „lull 1.1 Best Server 1l=t�z ��� 1 t ali ;��� CeIICAD II v4.3 �II ' �■ I `` Sttnlist i PIIIIINI •Ai • I , ' � yi •••• L .. KENNYDALE SD11 I►V211� •2� jlTr= I'i l'i'-4 m- #1-044,' ' -I i `1,:• ►^ LAT:47-32-05N LON:122-11-37W $1551"1 �� . GE: 46ft f -,aig PIP' A 1 ' STN:V1 ORTN:O 'TN TXHT:49 ft iL' �!{■■ 1 f5141ERP:100.00 W ANT:D :10-XC fi�:t� AIM _(, ; ,i **1 fEl 1. , i NTOM I SD16 :100 If +a++p'ill i �,, p1 I_ • ' RENTON II S'D16 ,� ill - II II Ilii LAT.47-29-19N LON:122-12-30W k, I� II. �fa:.. :Air F.. , ►r ` STN:V1 ORTN.115 'TN TXHT:58 ft iiliktr�►' ��� I-Il '�= � , ERP:40.00 W ANT:ALP9212N Oiiii11s , ..— s•I I DT:OE HW:3 LD:100 5.47.19 ��; ii�' = Ir. WSTN:V2 ORTN:235 TN TXHT:58 ft 1 1.1; \,..1_,.,_ a�j tr`: ' it ERP:40.00 W ANT:ALP9212N /,• i a�N � ■ 1� ■■ Jr, EDT:OE HW:3 LD:100 � � ili���11 ,.. �'� ��, �1, STN:V3 ORTN:355 'TN TXHT:58 ft O. �� � Ilt'*w11�� �.. �11 41al II ERP:20.00 W MIT:ALP9212N C.■1 " Z �` l 1., 1 �r1 V 1lmii1! A� .. 111111 DT:OE HW:3 •1:i \. _ I _ ' _: ram" ; � -1 1 t w :�1 ': NEWCASTLE SD22 �� � el `f ��'wanAl �_� -��11 i LAT:47-32-30N LON:122-09-47W k‘ G`1 / , , • ■�� , _ , it. inr 10I�:::�` GE. 371ft ,\ 1 'IMI11 J, 1,1230111 � Il mik '�i, ,t1) 41 -i7 ■ STN:U1ORTN:O 'TN TXHT:So ft 414E44: ��,Il �I,�111/ /441i , � El ERP:40.00 W ANT:DB806 k , 4 1, ';.PA 1 1111 ■ il" l DT:OM HW:3 LD:100 , ini �� � �����J�=( u� fE��1��Nfir"Aiiiiiiiir III �� I ,aLCEDAR RIVER SD24 '111it -�L .�,ri „�■�•■■ i,•1/' {� 1�; 1 lAT:47-28-36N 10N:122-11-�W s �� táiri , rmamak --"611"� � � 11� w �� a-�`� � � :#+ Legend incomplete. See report ::* 4._ - A■ 1� n. iiii '��`01Lijimm ►' �, ` THRESHOLDS OVERLAYS I ;/116-111rOmilii t ♦Ii i (> dBm) IvM��\ �.�,� „ >=-70 Interstate Hi ✓�`���,,, t� • vir4c., r.41k, V i �I i L >=-82 State Highway A �� W M o' �l! ..t%. r Tertiary Highways IIlC� i� i44 ;� s `�1� }-, 1 Shorelines and Rive N2 0.-Isii f s k"�II■_117� n►'� , ` mar irilliell fisip III t _, 11,11-1,,:„„,,,ci.------ ,:40,4,„, Miles NneLs. �,., ir A 0 02 1.00 1.50 tiiiraila` + 4 , .. 122-,10 11 Illiiii'l j; ' r -` ' " � ■■ I ,lIf .04 / Interstate Mobilephone Company •-tll t,. I I nal� p Seattle i ji l,�lillll�� I � 1 "'�'�•�'ss�lCi�� I -VI ii I r��+�, I �� 'ail Best Server Ih moon, I 111111 ��,1i ' -` 1,11141: 1,. CeIICAD II v4.3 �I �1 mo ■ / r,1 �■ \' Sttnlist f'4,srailihuliriiil, I 11111 � (S l � art 1� 1 `1� I Point SD51 \. $R �� Coleman 111111115111111111N �� � j r�� LAT:47 31 05N LON:122-11 56W -� ( 1 I •` GE: 207ft 1 STN:V1 ORTN:140 TN TXHT:48 ft T.•• i11111: �. Ili/ q11.�� .-1�� 11 '� IERP:5.00 W ANT:FS65-13-00-A _ _ / I,I IDT:OEHW;O1D:100�u-►- ----,_ki LtiniSilhalliaq !gi■ia�i■r� 'c ;�,. = STN:V3 ORTN:45 'TN TXHT:48 ft I jilt ERP:5.00 W ANT:FS65-13-00-A 71�=_��'1�: ' �11 DT:5E HW:O LD:100 , wilial. ■nii:1`n ISiL, 1 wirmaii..0 �� NE N1 1w" I , cs 1' �. 1 Pil-i s t• Mit I A .,k \\ ■l�.rY1 � i, ,1 , I* kk \ `i Iii %IN , P‘ II, t 4`1 , .,. IuM=MAimINIn'!MN=M1MMNO1I IIOMMM1lM1•O ppI u mIl1►. i11 Ai ArItis sii1I , n .,: \ um itep Fr 14, militiet,,ileids, ' AT‘ tre_. f rin.4-........ ...„„*.-: ,,s 4 _=�1' ,�--- " •�■11��.i,\ ij 1111111► INkW1 a �■ wt`71 1 ..--�. .. . I ■ — HMI , � 111111 � THRESHOLDS OVERLAYS _ 11I1 li■ /f� i (>= LIR kirt0Atiill \ 11 d&n) tI l0rr r- anliTy:� ���11�It;• ILMIIIM\ >=-70 Interstate Hi .a n� ` _...� 11■,�■s■ _�.1� '� aill _ - >- 82 State Highway LYllail i f ��� l��1114 II 1■ 01! ffl Tertiar Hi wa s Inill.711k I �� y 9h y(++ ��`. �� ■���15�11111 / Vj1 I ■ ��`�� 1r'��tu1�s le ri r- - 1 Shorelines and Rive o. hi ..\ : pili* 111110 ' ./1.44.: : my s ki.7:- q' tiLlt—/ Iiiiiiiii 1'r�1��1! I `e , vamp, ik. �11lki" I 1I/. 111111) Miles '9Tr-14W �`1w,1i`■� ,�i;Ik Wil �1 1111�� I �' 0 0,50 1,00 1.50 nJAI AIIIIMP--*. o w r SCALE: 1:50,000 08/17/00 14:49 a ' ti 111R1_111311.,.. , --177,--- .' \ Interstate Mobilephone Company (I GE sLeo:ttle46f ..0411114 i in ix - r iii - if ' ).- .. yi IA IA Best Server '!3'ilk _. • / lill 9iiik CeIICAD II v4.3 R kvirf Imo lt‘V 6'1 ' P Lk 4 I MUNI i 1 SttnList IN \.. II L'i:ratti„ja6„/ %.,... \ -.., -- 114 .---. ' ,,)t , %4 . , KENNYDALE SD11 ilir 1.16 1 1 ir. i 111111 fil lit. : ,-I , vitt AT:47-32-05N LOK122-11-371 lb ,,.._., CE1 If Al illIL II sir witit --F -- i ii ,iit, ,, , I r- ,\I 1 im li ig. ...4 - i STDNT:V:01m0HRwTN0LDI:NioT:T:49 ft 1_ _, _.., ERP:100.00 W ANT:DB810-XC Di 4 liar*: 1.111111114!Will r.--,,r poilhill""iiii' liVI r, ter: P7 N. I -: 4 IIIPI: i ,, iiiikt tJ. ,, -- IL*Ilk TI- P ' / ___,, RENTON II SD16 ---- to LAT:47-29-19N LON:122-12-301 tali,' ____, 11,11 ti N ,-.. „,- GE: 26ft 1 STN:V1 ORTN:115 'TN TA-IT:58 ft .,' - , - 11, vi 1 _AIL 1 ,k. 11 _I _ 16 4 ERP:40.00 W ANT:ALP9212N F.--1 V i ii/F. .. L__, um *Ili ' 'I , ;Sr r-'‘ ' ; -, i DT:OE HW:3 LD:100 .N.IIP =an kk, $ YIN - _ -- , ( STN:V2 ORTN:235 'TN TXHT:58 ft , - a ', ERP:40.00 W ANT:ALP9212N ,\\ - 4 1111111)- , - , lb.. rri 1 L ..,-------4--7--„,„,„, .._ 1 , DT:OE HW:3 1D:100 INIM 1111\ 1 IM ._ um* I '1--. s,. , t , e c STN:V3 ORTN:355 'TN TXHT:58 ft rim. urdr 4., 1 \ \, ERP:40,00 Yi ANT:ALP9212N 41111111111.1 ..... .. 1 ir. tau MA flirt 1 'Ill .114 ,..; \ DT:OE HW:3 LD:100 Illigillillif I VIP ',11 ihmimi alkl im., 0 #4.1 -inifpik 1r440*.‘4 filiiini ti' IR-44 1 ;•;--t- ' . • I — .,,r NEWCASTLE SD22 , . 41111111 Airehr 'ilFL -- • s , _i , LAT:47-32-30N LON:122-09-471 ' _ s i mpg t. ii ii ' Sh 1: , '',•!" ..N , - i c ) ..,. „ .-.., I GE: 371ft Illicialialt t: '‘'‘ rit..-pAramr...:„......... - _ ,,..,.• . _ _ .2. . A STN:V1 ORTN:0 `IN TXHT:50 ft itiqlrti,,,, ' Wrifc,44 ; milamisti: , 1 Ar lailhilarq t:: ) .._.\ , .... ,...,, ERP:40.00 W ANT:DB806• tailizisi g -■142%, ip= It at all ., , _, t so, II DT:OM HW:3 LD:100 iiell, : VIII Ell I Itillii ;;IlikIrlir 4..111( ili L ' )Ciii:1111ffillThaii7 j11111011k a ' ' ----;-6 Hill ‘11.141.11 5111111=MMIll al 1 _fi--,.. 16 I - - k , CEDAR RIVER SD24 ° Pillar 44 11$ II 1 7 LAT:47-28-36N LON:122-11-00W n 14111-111-11i'reginviak`...31119-71.' imiiiM I - I GE: 43f t vs- like2rairaliping 1-- u: Li ofitosii.• ....1,- 1 rzt: il STN:V1 ORTN:90 'IN TXHT:20 ft / ' llballikal ' I ai 1.11141111re.) 46' ICBM ...._.... . I. t 1- 1 I '- al ERP:40.00 W ANT:DB834 im1111011414,1111101. '44*i/A 11 Illt 11111111 .ff I ''' s,- - ' ii."444/4.4 flu°!-./"Iiii AlrealetiliF41607 lir sb ,1411iEW 11 - i-- . . \ i DT:OM HiV:3 1D:100 *** Legend incomplete. See report SH _Ay • illhaimp k is, b_,....,...,-, 41-1! ___,_ THRESHOLDS OVERLAYS t lo I ll , ) : .....1 (>. dB.) I II t[C,1 1 1 >.-70 Interstate Hi P ,or I >=-82 State Highway W I rt ..1.1.0r...1-ArioU MOlbLf , Tertiary Highways , , ...,, --'4111111iiiillrAgill V I 1111/4 lito ri Shorelines and Rive Art •i rogi...alL ., 1116.........._41______Ia—liaft- __..... 1 - 1 1 1111111111m ) 1 4, ,.....1 i ,,„1 its pLilialini mu. A tMilktiliblialirliarliall 4441* 11, momilil Eftr.sp—girimge kNin ....1. 4-11t laire.sela it—iroa a ii Miles Illigli i -11 \ . ";r:i 1 . iii it Ittie Milliriiiili ' "lit , , , 0 0.50 1.00 1. 0 0 -1 44* vio • . , e•-"" '. SCALE: 1:50,000 08/17/00 14:47 SEP-11-2000 M0N 04:06 PM PTS FAX NO. 2069038513 P. 02/02 September 11,2000 Mr. Steve Taylor City of Renton Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA. 98055 RE: AT&T Monopole at 1321 North 30th Project No. LUA-00-104,CU-H,ECF Dear Steve The Department of Transportation was contacted in late November about the possibility of a site off of I-405 on the west side of the freeway. The AT&T site acquisitionist began working with Mr.Terry Maloney of the DOT on the application process and the particulars of the leasing area. A DOT and AT&T representative conducted a site walk and preliminary review of the site. Unfortunately around the middle of December Mr.Maloney,the DOT representative stated that it was extremely unlikely that AT&T would gain approval from the transportation department at the DOT. The curb cut and access point is at a major intersection. It is imperative to the transportation department that access to the site must be safe. AT&T technicians would therefore not be able to gain safe access to the site and the deal was killed. If you have any questions or need any other information,please let me know. Sincerely, Lori Chase Pacific Telecom Services n011 ,r UuL'j • u' • • y44L Propagation Map showing coverage area of proposed site • • L'JUiI =9J AT&T—SD51 Coleman Point 1321 North 30th Street Athlt. ID Propagation Map showing coverage area of proposed site in conjunction with 5 other existing sites in network area • , — Ps) •- - ,';-• • • • . AT&T—SD51 Coleman Point 1321 North 30m Street aiu 6 1 f 41 if UTIL TY LJ a_ . - . • TREE POLES . •i • . • CAMOUFLAGE • • . ; • • -• _ _ . _ •= _ . • • sink .' '• :10 • .r. • `• • • • 4 6,01• LjLj • y: Lill-n[4 d • THE LARSON COMPANY 6701 S.MIDVALE PARK Ro.bosom•ARIZONA 85746 TEL: (5 2 0) 2 9 4-3 9 0 0 • FAX: (5 2 0) 7 41-3 4 8 8 UTILITY Rum... .... 11 •: •::: PLANNING l DEVELOPMENT 1._Ili! ; ��� CITY OF RENTON .. .... SEP 2 5 2000 CAMOUFLAGE RECEIVEDIII -= I arson Company 6701 S.MIDVALE PARK RD. TUCSON•ARIZONA 85746 September 20, 2000 (520)294-3900 FAX:(520)741-3488 Mr. Steve Taylor Planner City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: The Larson Company Camouflage Division Solutions—Products and Services Dear Mr. Taylor: The Larson Co. would like to thank you for your interest in our Camouflage Division. LC provides a variety of disguised wireless antenna solutions to satisfy restrictive site locations, minimizing visual intrusiveness on neighborhoods and natural environments. Included among our more popular offerings are "TreePoles", artificial trees resembling pines, firs, fan palm trees and date palm trees. We also offer a number of other concealment solutions, such as architectural facades, artificial boulders, and, a real attention grabber, the GIANT SAGUARO CACTUS! Enclosed is a packet of information and photos pertaining to various LC solutions for wireless sites. Please contact me if you have any questions, need additional information, would like our ideas and assistance in solving a unique site issue, or would like to request a specific proposal. Thank you, Larry D. Hibler, P.E. Director Larson Camouflage Division Email: hiblerc�t?larson-usa.com www.utilitycamo.com cc: Mike Boyd :r- encls. LTIRSOI1® UTILITY ,, � k VA' ''- s CAMOUFLAGE Aot'' �i pALM� TREE )) Another popular species of the Larson "TreePoleTM",the palm tree model is designed as either a fan palm or a date palm.These structures are typically used to disguise wireless antennas on monopole towers, but can be adapted for other purposes as well. , 64 ki PPP' Ate- •- Larson Utility Camouflage utilizes an exterior grade epoxy `' composite that is textured to simulate the trunk of a 1" '' palm tree. Palm fronds,fabricated as either a date or fan 14 palm,are vacuum formed from the same ABS plastic that # i is used to make bumpers in the automotive industry.This plastic is integrally colored,and will not fade or discolor over time. Larson frond assemblies are designed to withstand wind loads of up to 90 mph,and are UV 4 .. � resistant. ; ;,, ,;,,_ 4Y-A r' All materials are 4. RF friendly,with z a very low signal , . ` 3� interference of '"' less than 0.5 db. i \ � As with all Larson Utility ` -` Camouflage , -' 444' UTILPTyprojects, structures CARBON UTILITY CAMOUFLAGE are uniquely designed to satisfy the demands and 6701 S. MIDVALE PARK RD. requirements of individual sites. Regardless of TUCSON,AZ 85746 the type of palm, location, or the equipment 1-800-LARSON-USA configuration,you will enjoy Larson's legendary FAX:(520) 741-3488 customer service and product quality. PHOTOS BY DAVID SANDERS LTIRSON n I ' . INDUSTRY U TILITY CAMOUFLAGE PRODUCTS At Larson Utility Camouflage,our unique strength is being able to interpret and respond to the needs of both "sides" of the increasingly contentious utility containment issue.We understand the aesthetic challenges faced by community officials,as well as the economic realities of the wireless PINE TREE service providers. Our professional team knows that finding the balance between responsibility to the public and satisfying market demands is the key to everyone's success. Larson TREE Utility Camouflage creates parity between the siketigig0 ch C T U S progress of technology and aesthetic environmental preservation. 00 STREET LIGHTING/ SIGNS fct- FLAG POLES CLOCK TOWERS BELL TOWERS y� cOMME R: U AL SIGNS \ �� ROCK ENCLOSURES � W II N' D M' 11 L S ✓ \� � MCC Uri LARSON UTILITY CAMOUFLAGE 6701 S. MIDVALE PARK RD. \\ TUCSON,AZ 85746 I-800-LARSON-USA FAX:(520) 741-3488 IMMO 24 MATERIAL TEST SUMMARY CAMOURAG ( F attenuation testing was per upon four material samples supplied by The Larson Company.Tests were done on samples formed of material used in(4)the t ! + j screening and camouflaging of ' Cellular and PCS antennas.These test results are available by request. The samples selected were corrugated fiberglass panels 1/4",5/16" &3/8" thickness.The corrugate panels were taken from the Saguaro Cactus installed late 1997.Corrugated panels like those tested represent the worse possible scenario for insertion loss when compared with flat panel tests. Tests were done in accordance with Military Standard 285 datedJune 25, 1956,and performed by Dr. Robert S. Krangle of Tempest Technical Services, Inc.,Albuquerque,NM July 15, 1997. Each sample was prepared and machined for RF measurements within the 500MHz to 2.0GHz spectrum most common with Cellular and PCS frequencies. Conclusions of the tests showed even using such extreme corrugated samples, "Maximum insertion losses for the four(4) test samples was very low." Raw Test Data available upon request Materials used in Larson Utility Camouflage products tested "acceptable" for antenna screening applications. The quality of fiberglass facades and epoxy composites supplied by Larson Utility Camouflage is backed by years of research and development and field experience to provide a more naturalistic camouflage installation than any other provider. THE LARSON COMPANY 6701 S.MIOVALE PARK Ro.TUCSON •ARIZONA 85748 TEL: (520) 294-3900 • Fax: (520) 741-3488 INSTALLED ARCHITECTURAL FACADES SPANISH TILES LA CELLULAR SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA Wil WOOD GRAIN PANELS ...ami"`..._ LA CELLULAR SAN DIMAS, CA 1. at , ...... ii, , t,„,„\. ;111 to al a as r, ii Ilit FAUX CONCRETE BLOCK LA CELLULAR WOODLAND HILLS, CA �.r. THE LARSON COMPANY 6701 S.MIOYAEE PARR Ro.THCSON• ARIZONA 85746 TEE: (5 2 0) 2 9 4-3 9 0 0 • FAA: (5 2 0) 7 41-3 4 8 8 LTIRSOII® ,,, s 1-, t UTILITY .. ,G� �� �R CAMOUFLAGE S & A R :' Larson Utility Camouflage recently introduced another .�'filk � , realistic design to its product line,the Saguaro Cactus, '�' used to disguise a PCS antenna.Typically about 30 feet in 6 ►. I. f `' height,the Saguaro consists of a steel monopole with a shell made of RF friendly fiberglass. I' By disguising the antenna as one of the Southwest's most ' beloved treasures,this particular design has allowed ` PCS towers to be placed in areas otherwise opposed to wireless antenna siting.This translates into prosperous service providers, happy wireless customers and satisfied 1 vOl► local residents. i i i i /. e iiiir v ^ -, + 4P1. . • 4 11 ,, ' \ ' , A/ > LARSON UTILITY CAMOUFLAG — . 6701 S.MIDVALE PARK RD. 1 TUCSON,AZ 85746 , >i t /�a -800-LARSON-USA % \`A FAX (520) 741-3488 .,fir' 4., N, 4, PHOTOS BY DAVID SANDERS • . ., •1 , I 1 - • . • ,.*".A.."1,!-",‘..,„ .1;.- .•'. -4,,,,-f v •. . • -. .-'' ' ---' * •" ': •,'.. -i- -• ,0 til,..4.-..Y.:,..0- .• ',.... s ,,.".•• "- ..,.• .4••,•••;"4-, . -' - -.A s , •`- • , ,' A•c ,hi- ''• k k "Si*k - ' , •I•• ,,- 7 , I '7! I I 1 I . r • '44 k.1 k i V •‘.., i . 'Irr, •jil .4 ..;A k'••••,„ slo/t * . 'Aii,.. . A* ',,' ,Its,. :' - ,-,,,, , ., • . • . ,• i.... :-.4,7.;.'..-, . 11. ." , .., • - 1 -.. . ...... ' 1 :7*',4,..• , "f. 44 : • ,i ,p. • skt _78(.4, \NI•••••••• •s - •• A A •' '''''•• ' ..‘"' ....... ,-.At 4...II-- ... ..- . '• .44) .3t." • .. • .1. • ' '- ._. , :•• ....:11. 40%. •' • k • ../ .. , lir ''' •4111:7:::'.• ..% !.. ' o, • 1 4 . •rk•. .. . ,, AT:'• ••• - . r,--...,.. .,....- -..: .. 44.. . •., • -- ,. . . 4 4 40.-• -. , , ; :• .< •11,1, • . il , s• A. i • II I / 1(1, . •• ,. , . • 4( • , . •. , ...2 . , •u, i L -,•, . 1 .„. I At .'. 1 .11 • I' ,), 41,,0 ,. - - '.."If f.''•• '' ""4. • -' ' , ", '''' 1" 1 , .%' " j i 1 ' .417s; Ilik Ira •.',' ' 1 - / st . „ • 4, 1 ... • . - -....i . . ., 1....., , - .4,..., 1 ' ' or.`.• " 1 - • ' • *" ft •'." lir' • I, gr•*kt• • r is 46' ' .• -, i . . .L. . • • * Ilk • I • ...T.. • ,t $ 04'•• ' Pik. . V'4 la • ' 11 ... I 1 4ft r ir. it . ,It ..!„.. . .4411p4 . 4 A r • • ,1,1' • . ' ‘.* - 4.4.,41 , .4 A ,„,.. .- ,' . ... 40'- : •, " .' .-.4 ...w. ,.00r. . ,. 141,.. 1. ., 7 ip. • , .. .• • -4 • ii 4. 1dpk, ...allk,e• 4. 4, 44 .... . lk If i* i , 4,-, . •or • _. •**„ . .- , -1 •. ,, . e° At . . ..k. yr •,,-, N, , , .. ii. • . , ilk * -.x. -.. ..,•11t. : r. • ....,ifr , :IOW 4 ( if a 0 • 1 t 0 • .. ir . • . „- 4 • ' , •. ,.. s. s • . 4- ' •-• . 4 r . ANL-,/.. • ' - -' •• • : ...41V dr .41,•• Utilities Concealment Boulder .. ..... _1' - .G•' .HpP•A1 T' s _ _ 'Y A:\ W3D^.t' h1 F �•malualt4 , -7.---.....,--. _ 1 : ._ ___ _,• — wig\ �u:tiiI.i1 1�i�1Y> ___ _ ....=,.."1,4146,31....,...,..,.. __ . , __.,"454.1„,..... ,_:____-.),... . .. ... „. , . . sit- relp �_•, Y yvY . : l' ,Rr: .. s r 4 F" -f i'... •'.:'e ...'"..1 .ii.16.4% 01,1" . . ...4 ..• ______ ... • Iv .,. . . . . it _ i . _.: i ., .,.. i,_,-,.... „.._..:1 . ----- . r "Z'-1.t' t' r S 0 __._ ' °,' ..:,;‘,.. / -"a - e •: -- /-'—'•' t rd_.:i eec'_ 'fel' 7.,1-._. "Niih- •1 !. , 4 , s+11 n • i Ira an , . ... . , _.,_ . .....,. , .. _a , , .. „7,,,‘;„ .. ,,•,.,•••,.. , ..,t..^'. cotiii a ` \ 6701 S. Midvale Park Rd. Tucson,AZ 85746 1-800-Larson UC �#.L, S- , 4 " Larson Utili i), • amou ,Afl . a ye or ... >ft-c, , : . ..,.,,,L.;:-...,:,-:...:i-, ...? .:,., g ) . 14,0 , , i • Y • sp -;` 4 `' :.;,1, Utilities Concealment Boulder M 1T ,y.. ,:('i, • : SSSSSS1 :. ;* 4 t.i,X• - t r .• •1 r t,r .it.� 1.,;34 •f'' li ',I1.I �„y"' 1'1 ..i'• .K'' • w.� f t W .1..fiiiiii •1." t l�fYIi 111 tt III'llllll :• a • ' ' " YV 14 A- - 4111)rarioir a . _ 1 111111II I t 4k....._14 • '-6` ~ r 411 � � � ' �" ts �irl r i 1 '.' � � I 'j Il k.Wif4.',,,,..,'-.1.,,' • NV ,, .,„to. ,„,..... . .. ,.,,....-,,, .,.. . ,,vs, ,..,.,, ...„_ , lArt-, 10111111111111, . .. ,1:.1.,, }: s '' t.- n.4l 'e ' ;I,Ity�rpt • .,10,,, , .2. -,_ \ ;:,4t,1.:L. t,'. .,,.. ,ar y l•.• '.' 1 t '''I-ti* • Y xr L,C ye .. .}..yam f ...PI, . :,''Pili;ir,, tz..4,,,P;4 ,... 4 , , ,.,k .... ,t. . i .., 1-,,tbe .t.: ' irk..4‘..:t :'. ' e. .. IL ' ; .MA . lk.l.r.‘ 14. ' ,NL,1\o'',1 ..0' - -.-45\12:4. 11111\i e'i .,..,, ' $katFo ;;&���',f1: 6701 S. Midvale Park Rd. 1 it r •. '' Tucson,AZ 85746 I';IA 1'2;' 1-800-LARSON-USA �k.. 1� I� I T'' ""' '° ::`_ UTILITY BOX ENCLOSURES CAMOUFLAGE - ,°' . BEFORI ...,- , 0: _ _ , . ,_ ,t,.., _ ,,,L.: • - lit:� . , \ ��_' • •1 ~ .. . t' AFT ER r s-+ r"' ..W 3r i....: i t 41.1 4 ? ?� ROCK ENCLOSURE THE LARSON COMPANY 6701 S.MIDVALE PARK RH.TUCSON •ARIZONA 85746 TEL: (520) 294-3900 • Fax: (520) 741-3488 TI TY '` "" CUSTOM ARCHITECTURAL FACADES CAMOUFLAGE STANDARD COMMON BRICKti1 ' ' , - I i • 11Ht •4 , BROKEN FACE BLOCK . , .� r )104 • 1\ '. ; :t.. ,,I. ... t:' . . ___. , _ •� , { 4 ROUGH SAWN T &G WOOD PLANKING I OVERSIZE BRICK -ili..., • STANDARD CONCRETE BLOCK THE LARSON COMPANY 8701 S.MIDVALE PARK RD.TucsoN•ARRONA 85748 TEL: (5 2 0) 2 9 4-3 9 0 0 • F A K: (5 2 0) 7 4 1-3 4 8 8 UTI LT .................... 1....... ... ..... ,....... ..I .. .... 1.■1■...1■ II 1 1tAJ<JJ I► A■ 1..■■..■ ■ ■■■ II.....■ ■■ ■..■ l....■■■■■■■■ ■..■■ TM I CAMOUFLAGE y i , 1 • , , : 4• THE LARSON COMPANY 8701 S.MIDVALE PARK RD.TUCSON• ARIZONA 85746 T E L: (5 2 0) 2 9 4-3 9 0 0 • F A x: (5 2 0) 7 1-33 4 8 8 TILITY I. Wel ���� TREE POLE PRODUCTS CAMOUFLAGE low PINE TREE filikil''. • •••,. a I# . ''• ;•:a I# / fr.., s *�1 J , r _ ift kk ,• is 1 0,. *_ r •.. i , PALM TREE :a*-_ o .,Acb. t..•'._ SAGUARO CACTUS • l� _ ""� — T A I; TREE TRUNK DETAIL • 1\, /,1 $- rA • CHRISTMAS TREES ..._':r.•.44,d., THE LARSON COMPANY 6701 S.MIDVALE PARK RD.TUCSON •ARIZONA 85746 T E L: (5 2 0) 2 9 4-3 9 0 0 • F A x: (5 2 0) 7 41-3 4 8 8 LTIRSOII® U T IL ITY po) TREE >> CAMOUFLAGE is T R The Larson Utility Camouflage "Tree Pole TM" is the most w OJ realistic and durable disguised tree product on the market , today. Used to camouflage utility structures,as well as digital 1,y Ai ,0 and cellular antenna towers,the"TreePoleTM" offers an increasingly popular compromise between the progress of technology and aesthetic preservation of our environment. ginningwith an engineered monopole, L.U.C. applies a specially formulated exterior grade epoxy composite to simulate bark.This epoxy material is designed to withstand extreme outdoor environments. It has been tested in temperatures ranging from -50° to I 80°F,and UV exposure up to six times the intensity of the sun in southern Florida. Our branches, the most naturalistic available,are also the strongest. r5 -Nt Larson Utility Camouflage branches have been engineered to ~�` ; ii withstand 100 mph wind loads with 1/2" radial ice,and are ``ff taa structurally engineered for load strengths of I500/psi on the , a,,, , , , ,< main stems,and 1000/psi on the tertiary branches.The foliage used by Larson Utility Camouflage is UV resistant and '.� , designed to stand up to the rigors of prolonged outdoor mc. a exposure.All materials used are RF friendly,with a very low Y '' `i ' signal interference of less than 0.5 db. "� ' it.01 ,'_, Each Larson Utility Camouflage "Tree Pole is designed to 41410) • Ot4 meet specific site requirements. Designs differ from site to site,as the amount of detail necessary SOPPIvaries with individual tower location.The common denominator LARSON UTILITY CAMOUFLAGE for all our projects, however, is that each and every L.U.C."Tree 6701 S. MIDVALE PARK RD. TUCSON,AZ 85746 Pole TM" is designed to be an aesthetically pleasing structure,and 1-800-LARSON-USA is accompanied by L.U.C.'s unparalleled customer service. FAX:(520) 741-3488 PHOTOS BY DAVID SANDERS ., r 41, ...4 • 1111 • Sa, le _ , . ...:.. *If., ti. , •.,. _ . • 4 , , _ . ,, it ,.. . 14).0. yr w �� 4 Al . je t ap ....; '..' 'Alkoaoss i. . . : i. , 4 )1.414; ' R ti ._, • + 1 f E _ ' w y`f, } „lit 0,41;.... . eikkiteot.. . .....„Nrwr-- ,- , , r/ . . • ' P s. T` + ail 4 - !1 4 ," .oh,r...\ 10 IL 0 +� lift' "'� �, ' ,� r • . "fir is• st yliCillit , .' :so 4,0 e.mu- t e , tr let 4 1 .* * . * -'.. ' ie. 4 , ... . . . '' . ,.,fis - a , f ...,_ -4,- * ,it ' - I° ,� sa, , • 44 -'lis.. 1 4 ,..„,,... .4.... , , .. ,.. 4 ,,.. . V' 4 4 -- . - ....„,„ -..',1„.1.„-,';,-, .h,-,-.... :. --....'•'-'';`,.,77--.1i • .:,.; • . . - 1 , , ., IP*. \ A ' # .".4116. v , 4' ,... .r. - V $4, $ • - ik 111 / 'if' ' ::‘,• i ' '"A' et.' . ' ., !„.0., 1 . . 'i ti--1.-4', • . .116 ,,/, • II .... ...- ,.JP : 4A4t- -I I -. ... . ,... ,i-? , .... .. .,. ,- AI. .z..404t ., , ,.. ve. ••,, . io.• P ivilt., .,;,, ' idt 117 • 14 4. -IV •1' ..1 * '' - .40 1 • .0.;,.. , 0 A.•.,. ...' • . , IP. - • .. ..11,• „, ...*.- Alldlabt'',,A, ' . • - ,• ' '4,"' 4111 i`*" '- .'" ... --. . • .• , , .„.L. '` .. , ,,.., .... . -,..„ ., - - ... , . e,..7.: r ,. ., : . _... ... ,, ,,..,„ -4,, ..r.k.,,r,,,,',', ',•,,I,,q,'. ,;( 't".`. : • ,'4„4,1 t .,..„ ..,..-, ,,,..,: ::, ....,,,:y.t ' 7: , )• k 4' ....' '' ,te ' 1 ' i ; .'.-.,,, ":"'.:,,,. ''''',1=f7';:;;,L.,,.:,•J11#,.;:::...4., . , Nt.„;•ir#, . lt, 2., , r,ii . 1,f. =..t;0#1" ,4,,' .:)), -, , . ---- ‘.• , , .. ' , '. ,'.„ t\,:', ' ' ' ..'14- .,. .' ...-,,,;:,, ris'..;I:i'''..,,..•''' 14 rk,. .r. . -• .... '1.- ... ...,. i ..' . 'i , . .. . ...5, ' „. ..,14.,, 0 , ,. •-A- t,,,,..40.-,4r.,12,,..:, . , 'I, . 1:1 V- t,t4, . ' 1 ' . i . 4: * - 1 P : /- 1 •• ' ' 4 : ' ‘ - - ! . ,I, , ,: •.•.. - A 1. l , 4 • -. ' ". ' to'.'..., 4rvit, '-'"' t ',IA 4- '. -• ' -.., I. 1 ,. 4 ..:,-' '' i it %.. -.:'-':, 5`;1.,',?''''''::41;1,''. .4'.. ''.',.!•,:',..1:.'',st '''''.'4.2, . • . }. ..• . .. i ‘ii , i , '' , , , , i: ,• , 4 a N IL : , $ ., 'I L if ...,;„..:........,. -.' , . tiAL.#1, t ' ,. f, ., . 0 . f '1 , 0 r -• ,,. • liki .• ,,,, ,, . ki . 7.,",..„.',' _.• , ,* % ' ,jiga, #,..- . ' • # , . .. .,A .. ; ' IV t;OS,,;7 740:0117-4, 4°4. rfarncs7 7 • ', ',... '..n**fttli)* ..° . * .* ' • .. * •‘4.4...*.. ''‘' / OW - ...., - 17'f i .-- * Or ... ,..... er r .., '11" '•. .. ,. . , 9 : - l'641 V • • 9%6 pril -Si irk r . 9, ' . - 1.„ 4 . , 4, .• * • , . .9 64 A 1.4 -.• 11 s 411111111# s 4,, 16 6. . , *r .1,7: • 11.; .. • , PI.. IP 1 ' ' rs e.;....".•4 'I • - -ro' 't • - „ i. ..- ....‘..1...111 I # • ' :4 t s s CI . ' ,..... 416,004 ** . "7:' 4..• ' ss*4 fit IL. ; '1' '11:41114.4."41°, .14 di u it$. ' 1. iii • - %al), „ ...... ..R, ,x;,,„ :• . • • r . ..,,. $11 '114."' ,- .. ••., ..40.. 0. .., ., . , : .tv.,„; . , - k , i,„, ,,,, ,,,, # - vt; , kt. ,...,:„ 10 - . . .,. - • a " A. •P........ • , • A Irtit.A.t *A , wow., , 4:1,\ .0. ,*, _ . 4- . .'. -tta • -0" • -4 ' . . • .. . • :.,4 . .„, . .• • 4* 4 - • -Nt..',....---, .• I As.... 6 -,„„it . .4_ . • , selle ' • ‘ • ssitblir' 'do' $4110f t, „., . I •',,, j, a,' . ,r eiso. • •t tf.' ipti ' . , ! .... ,f• . .II4 -.IF, , ''. '' .. t• VAir 41, • v4,1, . . , ; Ilk • I, ,, ,„ .-„ii mdr 4 „,,, .11„, .4,...P . 4t a, 1. -:. • L 1, ... ...... ' ' '4'.,*- ,I ' ,, i 0-,-..; ..,. • .. . ,.. - t • . - 6;. 4 • * 4 ib* A' _# '' ' -t ' . ..-2‘ ' • 111 .,... ..4 .V. -,.. • '4.. 70 4 Adif • p ! "'' h MN lit ' .. t j' f t, rr f;+ • It; 4 .t y1 f , ' ` 4 lki, ). Ilk 41 "44 i ‘ y' �� �wwr w1 r k• -, 1J 1 `s� ��. , -- it, , a , a • it i die;. s '° .y � ? . F ` 7 .- l fi's. r , AC t a , w''' & a r K Imo . 4111Q' Irk 4• * t•, ; t. .' Lief ' do. it' 1 Jf r^ Mom' 0 "444�• ••� r * r -� ,•t. r y a Jr as aim � _' � :, `." ' mow,. s . E r. i a' . laail • c , ',, rw . , -r's ` @ F'i • P I. i �., '. .ep - s .r !. ' ' f / { a • frj 4. R 4 t y ! .I ,t. r ,# 1 wr*4 • .may, V'" .. .0 r N . ww w ` • Y 'r i rje .' LaJ + '.:tea l \ :I w i I, , :, . ori . „.. 1 . 1. , . „ .. p . . , • -. A 0.44t.: ., . „ b. # i r A. 44 11 f,' + r 't t •1 +' • '/ t' , 1� ...e, r . , 4. ,,i''' Vif- ' /i, ' ....„, ' i ►, r 10 } x;; T' r i , • Y / •/ • I • tr • i+i..`,411111 I ` % t !,... ;.... \ # A... • ....40-1 ...... 00 •N„,,,,,• . 1, - , \‘ s.%,', ' IC `...._ •,/, , ' C-' i /Ai. ."- ..-...• 40 i ......1 1 ‘ , , \ %• s . ... — — 1 1 4 r ill' . : ---..--:-.:• --,.., 4 I I I • ...-d'..• ill. 11 A i s f .•i 4 iis , I is gll ‘ •-•, -N.-4w... .• f --- - . . ...iii. .a •.. villi id . it fir gei"'" •.... mi.. — •-401•V.1 is _ 4 ; t-I 1 I' - t . • r • , i1 -- -, .01•1 ' .. , 'At if • NV,,,,\ .... . i ' 1:ork\lii4,40.. _, ..... ,,.. .. ,. e Cm — _ -...*, k IIIII0b• 11111j- * I • k ' '. l ' • ..... As.."" .... &._ . 44,„..t....i .,%...._ .:. , — t •-_.... ' ... , . / '‘,. ./• k . ...- • o , i ,/ - .. z.-..- j ' ' .1, 41 , . • 00 r•-- Nor ' ' ,....4. .-- .... 40 .iir....... • ••IN jir,e,,,. • •i i -•I , s.• ii iiill % .* Ilia, I I V , i 1, _. -_-...1 . _t_,L.1.____i. 1(1 I 1 ! i I or 1 ' 1-- 99 ---- -----/ ,91 _._ I NT ' , 17.0----1--- -1-L"R - -- - I .___ -- ---- ---- ---_-7_ __.. .._hi_ ___L____ _[ r i 1----T---r-7.--e- 1.ir ' -- -.:,__ : ___ -1 ---L I- --:- -a ..........._--.: -===. - -1_____ -----...- - 1-11711 516th 51 FIT17.--- , 1 1 , , , , ___ _ ,___J_I _1 ;- ....1 i , 1 , . i - 1--$-IiNF-B5rITIV-R----ri ,-8- -7=1. -I — a /_______ - • I 1 .._....J..... ...i_ J I i l ' ' III III , • , — -- T____ T_4-7.----1-- ------- 0 -1--------. . / 1 ---E -7— --3st , . , • __ . . _gi_ L.44_1: 1 . I, 6 1 ! 1 11 1 R ( :::=7:-.2,44, ___[ IFT-T--lori-N--131' i i 1.— - • -----,----14---- i IT— ._ -- ./. - -k:i6 -4 ' I ' LH H 1 1 1§ rl-iEs ....._.i__RI_,__ H____ IN 1301-idi Si I' .1R-18, -i-ri.) RITL8, 1 1 I ; nil . ........ __ i • -I I [--- • _. ' R td-- IR 81 gl .ii .luilii mil . , .... • --N -3- n . 11 - -. , r - • • • I 8 -- . -- LoiTIN--'-hai11-cr-St-1-1-1.---F-1---,r°r- • r=q1siN-w i 1 I ; . Willi • I j I _____ -co-, R-Ir8 1 11 WII,IH ' IR-0 i , 1 1 i n.i ea I Ce ! I r -'0; 1 I R-8 IN' Usit 16L . ' I 1 1 , , ; , , 1 ii „ ; 1 1 -.5ire Milk-L.8i 1 ! I Ilt I 1 1 ,§ 1 ,_Idi , ; C C 1 , 1 , 3..,i... 0 rm_4.,____ .1_1_._..1._1_,_I . -M- 1 Ri-8I PunIll- i 1 ili. 1 1 'RFC)- cc I 0641061111i11 : 1104 CCI . • -.[N-1.---i-01 -)I-Nd."-.12.0.t-h-it-gt-14.--1-6- , /, t.,: e., U .1 L. ' 1 , i L R 8- , p.,'—8 t MI , , HUlt. ' 1 : i . ' 1 . A • 1 .,_ N. i 2bLiil P1 1 II I' , -----, R -48I 1 KtU . 1 ! ! . I I ! i ! I : : I iRrOi .1IF-1_ .... _RI ... - , I I 1 R-8 H I 1 I 1 , N 218thi .8 .---1 .„----- .- • : -._ . ___.1...1 L 1 I_______ _i_____L_.,............i.....„....1. _ 1 1 _L.._.. i j 1 f ---.\ 7 1. ! .1),... 7, , , , i. ••--. \ I , ; . , 1 • _ -- / --T-- \ D4 - 5 T23N R$E W 1/2 . ap.... rvY 0 . c6 yt. ZONING . 1:4800 + AR + • ../ P/B/FW TECHNICAL SERVICES . • •P_At., r-s• • 32 T24N ,N,.... 12/02/99 • : : . . • g)atihits * #.. . • . ••• MUD TY e ?' °'�• •• TREE POLES CAMOUFLAGE lir II THE LARSON COMPANY 6701 S.MIOVALE PARK Ro.TUCSON•ARIZONA 85746 TEL: (520) 294-3900 • FAx: (520) 741-3488 1,4 .• _., kitii ,7, I, ,..., • • c ;14.4. '"1 6,...r .1-,,,.„, •AL,'''' 4;014 4 4.. r I : .4010,. ;741.. .4.7..., . , ;./.' . • I:,,, , .4 r:;• ‘glf;: li."4,' , /.4.. ‘.... 4,.... ill 'I ''• 110 4111.•i 0 - ... . '.,- .1*. , t ''.!•.. 'Ito 4,..,1 -, ' r t \ 'ef,,*.:•4•„k . ,... t , :fs. . -. '.41V-4\-. c- '-vir:;:i4;" - •41111W to 4•4„. + 4/ .2. .z. .... ' . llilir v,•/ ..,:1 .. ., 0...... 44, v *..' -, -.'%,. ' ..r ..., . , 0". 44 .0 4 ti, •, 0' .•.. ti ,,„ ". , '110,I'' iN," ' , ' .. .. r"1* '',. att,..4 '.• ... 0->:T..4> • - „„1, •.„ .4„, •• 4. -,-... Org.- . -* , '"'k- ..4, ' A,, .•*.'4'"417, $ . lk. t Nt Aliegk ,117: - • lif . *& "' )1 ,r ' ,. ir Apt," rt' f` , --4.,• ,- • ,, •-tr,,, 1., f .64 '4", • '.,_. .00•41'. ,,...-`:,4reit Am ,- .. .t- .... ,....- , i,.-,' , ''' - ,,,TVb.0. *_.*',. .'i0t0.:` . 4 6.i,t„.•,, ; ; , .t.,..;4.--- -,c..,,-f"'av 4r,*.4 4 1t.4,,2s.1-r*.Wt n'..A,I *_It:le•,.4"0,.'-,,,-4*4'„-,";'-:i.-,.I,-A,-I4' ..0,1'1v1,,4I1Ntr0 4 V4 - # : ,- • ;" , . 4 ,. ,,4.i, t •,* *1,,..:.,.A.-:. kfai.il1l1.t4•,44 1"-'I ':i.e... "-* 4'. 111." ea"'e 7. .,.„lc ,, . 4,°1' c.. 1) ,'.., - ,,,. •4'':'_'-1 .l 4 -,4 1 i ,. ..• I. ;....-- ., 1 s4 rt Igo . .'A ' • . ...' qin 111 . . : .4. ,.' i .."' ' . • . .AI t,..r.t.. zd, i•• ...- .„. • i •4.,, .4 ..,:yr... ...,.. . -2..). s,- • ,4,-..41„-v„:„. . , -- 4.31t-,. . 0 0 ... • 4 , * I''' ' . QUilik ' .a. •.. . - ,. ' " A - l'N-a. r _ • - .1.-4 • •.- - ' • — - r.,-,••:444,0 - N "414; ' - ,.. ; ,,..: ' .,,,P, ' -- - t -4 t .4--k-- - - ,,,,,,- 4. ,4-.., • -=•4 -.. -,,,,,, . , tit, --0 „ . .'..,f. ",• .. - .t . ••• • .1.s• '' ; ".4"' r 4. . ' 04••• '"If 2... . ' 4.- ''. ,.Z". • • .. • • IS Of . ;',..• ..Aft.tit ‘,4.,..14.- '' '', 4% i , lc .._, ,.. ....• • .. 1-' ' ' .- . ::' Aim'eliqr ,'"'"•:7 ' . . 4‘', •' - . • 1,,.i.' .." . 1 • ` 4,4,11, •••) 1 ,I,,,Va, s.,,,r,".--folt:144041r. 11.4410 0 14, . , ; • S.' I' .4 se* ' ' .; - -- ----...1 • 4 7 ...,•,7 . .1 • — ". , i• . ''''''' 47 dt '. ...; , i .......-_ i i s 0..iii . . i pm 1 \ all - 4 • t* . ..• „ -..o.st * ve . — .,. . It _ - .i 3 ' t •••. ''N .*s. fr5'. If' . , '`''' •.•.................__ .. " ' 'e e'' 1. • -, ' -' -. - .. Pr — • o-- % a ,, 1 e at y ,, l 1 . • oi 24 4.4 , ,fte,,, * 41,,*k,,11"/.4,„._..;; .• ‘.. * 7 . .r f Al;1„,, = ' a ram �a. �+1;i to- y € 117 1;' 4 r, 3..yrM,a � a 6, ;r /► af i ' err • ,. �"'" + 1 r yyy y. • : r4 NV 4 � • V. r 7 tr,. w y�y�• Veil's, i ' *;444 .i",.. . ' 't 04,L 4. . . _ . f ' ' 44 * • . .4 '**�fLl Y b 4 y TON K E%seugyd.ca,e, 3 RENy .1 00 1211 N 28th Place ®�_ _ vazi � � ��� Cl?Y OC�OF� Renton, WA 98056 azgErRECEIVED www.kennydale.org 411 :IV i -vt'• CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • October 3, 2000l] R@NOWN Page 1 OCT -5 2000 HEARING SINNER `... Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 RE: AT&T Monopole Coleman Point Conditional Use Permit Project No. LUA-00-104, CU-H, ECF Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: On behalf of the members of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association (KNA), the KNA Board of Directors has taken a position opposing siting of the AT&T monopole at 1321 N 30th Street. We ask the Hearing Examiner to deny the requested Conditional Use Permit. This letter explains our position. Aesthetics The monopole is located at the primary entrance to the Kennydale neighborhood. As evident by Attachment A-1,2,3, the monopole would be visible from N 30th Street. The pole would become an eyesore and a distraction because of its unusual distance inside the neighbor- hood. People are accustomed to seeing cell towers adjacent to freeways or within an indus- trial area, not within small-scale commercial development and adjacent to residential areas as proposed. In addition, Kennydale has two existing cell towers on the east side of 1-405 near the Arco Station off NE 27th Street. Co-location at this location should be a top priority. Aesthetics at the entrance to our neighborhood is very important because it is where visitors and residents make first impressions about the quality of Kennydale. KNA is making this area a top priority for neighborhood beautification including installation of new landscaping and an entrance sign at the corner of N 30th Street and 1-405 southbound exit ramp 6. It would be a shame for our community if a proposal that would diminish the aesthetic quality were ap- proved. "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life In Kennydale and fostering community spiPit#t' �Y� • ; .III P f2' I, K,Ew,i s' ycl- I e' 1211 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 - 71.7. N ho-o'di www.kennydale.org 41 , 'J o-v , 5 • Page 2 Consistency with intent of Current Zoning and Highest and Best Use The City has an obligation to communities to ensure that development proposals are consis- tent with the intent of the established zoning. We believe that any use approved for the prop- erty in question should be consistent with the zone and provide services that the zone in- tended. A cell tower is not consistent with the purported use of Convenience Commercial zoned properties. According to the City Comprehensive Plan: "Objective LU-FF: Permit small-scale commercial uses which serve the personal needs of the immediate population in residential areas and reduce automobile travel" (Renton Comprehensive Plan, Convenience Commercial). The proposed use of the property in question for a cell tower would preclude future uses that would meet the intent of the current zoning and provide valuable services to our community. There is limited available property at the heart of Kennydale (N 30th Street area) for non- residential development. From a community perspective, the property in question could pro- vide a higher and better use. Our community is experiencing and will continue to experience rapid growth in population over the years with the development of Port Quendall, Southport and completion of the Alexan and Bluffs Apartments. The demographic changes will con- tinue to increase the value of commercial properties on N 30th Street and the need to site community facilities such as a new fire station, community center and retail establishments. The City planned for our community's needs by establishing the current zoning. Installation of a cell tower is inconsistent with the intended use of the property and diminishes the property's value to the community. Placement of the tower on the east side of 405 near existing towers or close to the 405 right of way would not use property that has a high redevelopment potential. These are the best options for Kennydale. Setting a Bad Precedent KNA is very concerned that if approved, a bad precedent would be established and a poor situation would deteriorate further with the siting of additional cell towers on the proposed site or vicinity. The City has a policy of co-location for cell towers increasing the probability that this would occur. Our community has an established area for cell towers near Arco east of 1-405; the AT&T tower should be placed there. 'The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" KeAtt/telyaate, 1211 N 28th Place ® _ Nod, Renton, WA 9E056 'TO itior www.kennydale.org 5 • Cfr • Page 5 We question whether the marginal benefit to AT&T customers is sufficient to warrant signifi- cant public costs to our community. We must insist that the Conditional Use Permit for the proposal be denied and that additional siting effort takes place. It is clear that the need is not critical and that there is time to make a better decision. Final Remarks AT&T is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to site its monopole in our community. By City definition conditional uses are "Uses with special characteristics that would not generally be appropriate within a zone district but may be permitted subject to review by the Hearing Examiner to establish conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare." The proposal is not appropriate within our community's valuable Convenience Commercial zoned area. No mitigation measures could appropriately mitigate this proposal's impact on the welfare of our community. Please deny the Conditional Use Permit request. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Kim Browne, President Kennydale Neighborhood Association C.C.Mayor Jesse Tanner Renton City Council Ms.Lori Chase/Pacific Telecom Services Mr.Paul Miller/Owner "The Kennydale Neighborhood Association is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Kennydale and fostering community spirit" . . .. 0405 4v ..- U I;-'•"01 1 `-- . . • r- \ t - 1 64 04311)Sttv‘AjtjiliCiln(15 . . .•:•, ....... . . .... ---- • Le ()AS . . . ••••.1 '''- C-E.. :Li i ills cizspo:cr: 11,..__. ;7 '8'13 i 30 /1.1.32 2: Zi 31 ..,.._.. 2 •i.... 1 k0 - -. _,q2 4 3V!a lis-341.3E'32 I 3kt 32 Ii 22:f!I 27' . EZ ro I 1 • 0 ''' '. ;.:- • Z1 I ) 1 ..cyl----it •-;'--(:U t '\ • - Pi. MI .10 s 0----;,:ill, o 4 [ . i 1 a ; ::':: ' 1-6, 34.1 >- CC i 62 1. 1, .. L , 3.3 R-D ..,.•- ST. ,--• .1. ,4 --/F, V, II 4J J : ' 1,--1 A • ":4.1.. --ft.. 5: 1:•• `,.:' Jr--;: • H 1 .1014MAN 41( ,„ .0.....z 13..1 a . i i! 13 '44'' . , ' '-' A N. ,t. 32ND' - sT , 2.- . ,..,• :. rs:. •A..-..,- •_ --F •+•w-- ---_-:.4-1-- --• ma 1 .1i • SI '49 10 ;31; ..3/ .. -..E. I ` . c 31 ga 3 3f34,.33 A 31 6iir..,. 22 27 /6 5r Lrq t, ; ricil ,1, . •:4 zes; : ‘ s f-•.' ts:P, 1: • 1• I Z 3 '1," [1] 1: \ rn X \- -- • - - "lir -J- . V. [NJ ,.;- 1 \ .... s ., .1 I 32ND .- ST. 3 4 po Oil '4L.tu---1 --, . • .. .. ... . , -: - n \ )e.... i.: :-.L;- .: 1 .-A `"-4'Lc.:•:..,%, 'L Itill 0 ifirl_i7;-.it ;till 21111 D., ELS] 4 N ii • E:: .% 1 ..,•1)..,..., II 111Bil kW 1 ..-_ - - - - "r- .............................r .. - •i: :.zis .. 60 41'''''...4-,.. 2 ... • 'so . ti ‘t--4 • -..8.1 ., .0 3? 21 37..36 )! 34 I 33 MA,31 I 30 29 real 27 6 is, . • • ,i; I 101 Jo 6 IritE KIEV ;,1,,ti• :.• _Li, /51 • 010 1 : .--se 31ST. . ST. a : 19 .z• 38:,., 4, 3z 'I( 1 58 s. ,v_ ,:-. 4 • 1 - i -1 - ... T i' '> .". .:_t.fi. g: - . .. • 6..,• 1 14 •12 4.: ±..2. 1... i!,,1 2, z; .34..1.:J7 23 -.....L.1---_,.._,____, , . . . • • 1 . ... . •A .. I;W ; \* ;' . r--14-1• • . 7 oo ,1, 135 •_' .--.. 401 l FL ' 1 - • se no . g a+',I 1. 1 iv a," lo • • • , •-NI -..., . .4 ut1 ' I'l ,t ;$ i 30TH.t... a ST. A. •••--. .1 .. P N. 5 V. .'413:fF- 30n1 , E3 2 ) . --- •: no Iii ti oof5ris'es!so lit 1: 1 . , . I . ;Iv .so oo• 51 Ell • ..: --... 1.: 3:i I I • I C ' I ;3 IP pri _.L. fl . ?1- SI 1.C. 1.0.14 i.,5 1_1:11 17 16 10131 I 21 32 Z4...33 ' 1 6 .: :1 :.0-:.-1441450±-r...,.t., -t--.''•-•=s--4r-- --_.t.-#1. I ...•,' .0 3 e eT 31 34 6'7 34.733,.34 i3T•V-3:'1.1,1. ?a I v...z.; z i -- - 1: ,. 113,.-. 'ke.] ... 1 I ,, , ,..,441 11 „.,, • ....„ 29TH ST. ?, ' 140 ; - ."I ' a \ t Lill 1 I ,. ... ti,14 3 1411 ... 3 I 1,7 "-. .3-..111.......-..... . 1 2- I '10.6 ' V 2:3 ' le 1 1.7 1? 16 0 Ts I 63'01.2.3. ty i I 2' C C 3 ..:.. 1 1 , V. 39 38 fa?r311 32 341 31'. ...rill 1 301. ...'..T.6 1 Z7n6 -•...--:=12:k.: 11'.. .* 0 1 1" el. • ” •..4..., o Iiir--1.-.•:-1- `... i: -1 . • ., „,, a T..'---•••1 1 r! .---- •' 7. . ,,..1•>, 7'C r---% • . 2, 43.0//11:1-'jl sr 1r325. ri . 58 7 I ; 1.1 j".."'-'.V...:.-I I 1 Ej ;: .I.. ....` '..: ::. Z C .44 I 28TH PL. : ' . . ... . €11 I:&I r...--1" rt-E'''' rr: .,41._,;'-1,,t, . . '. : „o r • • b'f • 50 - ..r.75. r.:111VIrs&11,7 l• IN - 1 .T• . H so j ; .. a 'IV VA,4 12 All 13 ?0 I 21 I ZZ 23 1 :3.Z..S3." .. •--. • .1 .1,i ... .- • .... • r011 , :is, _. "0 t0 IA cb$V,P 3 1.4' : !...• ; * 5 r 1-".-.\-"'•'•••''S.&."-.7"--.. •...'-'•••-'.'''..-10"-41.•-...1:11.,"13"%-4=' ir"...i•-•-•- ...--- ‘-'..-of ..,--'-•.o it -73F- -:---t-- ..': i;--‘ 7-. lt es.-rii-,s-r.-4-,-51,4---• i JAMES L & MRS e. 1 ... :. - , ' •:. `.i 1 • I , •n \ r Z i . :.r , 4. .. ,1, . . MARENAKOS . I. n43 ;-- r. -122, i ..:. ...:... .;,, -Ai .:CII : LELAND r.s. ...::\.,..,4,:\.,...._.1... gliA‘ lo .... 7 • :. [.. ., - 1 PETERSON •,... (0"6';,. L" P, n. 4114, f54,-•,' A. l': ,7, 7, ... :.:' z . .. .. . -.1 1 fl .... e% Z.; 1.il .. . ! .: • 1 I 13 E 0 S-RID E ...• ' t AV' '221 4 1 c s , 1.38.4,. 0.5.34: --. ,.4 ^ , 41' . ,. MO ''. 1:, .'...:. Q41:7 •.€1.: ... _ wis. . 7.4.,7 ,..; , F, ... -, cc ELAN() F.PETERSON Iiii.P.' 2 4 G71. 2 , • A -3 1.0?df. -T---.;_,...-• ...'34. zs.c)2 mc. .„,„,.9 7.1./ A _______ _,It........:.' ., , i• : t. • . ../.\>\ • 1- ',"-----.. .-- (.........;..11: ,i 30 --T.:I::: RI!4‹ i.4----k -- .; ° aii.--241-1; & ,....,.. .,...a ,- - . . T 1 Or- 1.11 I 0 5 WI ' [ i ENI .. ... ,,,) _„_;]. t , . " .: un El, ''(**0 ),---,.., ?f.t2D- •--. • ,i. ,- , .• .7.• A • • • '''‘kS4",..t\ ;•3 ...s' C'''T•.V.." .1;;;(\ 12'5. 0017,21 ?rli :12*. ' "V--. -;TC-.'' ':. :"... IF 3.1.16 ,.. . ....;.Z.b.• • . , 2.. 2 101 . • „:s, .24... • ,,,,;\ v . . 29 M si' . -7:-7---3.-:, - 43,;,.../ % 141 Z• arV s i : .t_E-----•zo---- - ' \/ •:z- ,:',/ : 1 je: ...A .10 ...se 1_ .if II. ..... o1 ...1 r :,1, F.-\ NI,-- : . .-.:_ --,;:---• : 1.1 ,:.... . 24 RI ; P1`23:3: . _ (••• ••' .tM, 111 4,01 6/AKYVAjt.A '''''• 1 • ,..----, , • --. •-.. .. .., COLEMAN POINT • • . . . . ,.. .. , • . .- . . . . . ... . . ,-; . . . • . . . . . . . .. . • . . .. . • . ,. -• . . • , . ., • . • . . . . . . , . . , .. . . - .-„,::.,....--..:%-i..,-..,-.,,--z...,•-q•.-••,.:7,..v ,',:.4..,,. ..:•1..,:::.lis.s.,:::::;.-',:!....:;----4-.%....-..i...:..L....,:.,.-.,,........, ..... . ....-.... ,.... -,.-.-..,..:%.....:...-:,:..1.........::,,..„,,,v!„--,a,...:---.,,...iv.:.i.4....,,..e,,,,,i,„„Afi.,..,.....”:„..,;•,,,,,m,-„1,;.,:,„,...:,,,,A:::.......,....,,;..,,,:r.,...,,....-....-„,:-.',.,:_..-4.:.-..,•;,-:- 054i,;:y;lt:z..p4A:1:41;,,e447.1,*:,,:,,:N3.44i4.1,1t:i• -4?-'1,3:7,,M:i;.:r'?,r,,,I.:21,:',...• - ., ...,".1., .•.., -,...-.•:i.'. .,...Fr-76:4,4.4'.-Oirl.e.-4,....A...41..,:s4^,.t.,,,,o,„,..,4,7,4,14.1.17,4t,.„...,i!.:,:!,,es,;:-r.M.*,,,,,,;......f.. .. ,:._1;..,Y,, -,....,:".L•,..'......:..;C .,!">,,s:,:•:..:V1:,61,V.,;f4m4:;:yZ,4,T;;;;v4ivv,".,%64,,,SkItg'rat•TtAY'''411.,: ft,l,i,:17:VA,....:41.VAM:W.0'•;1-1,f ZiCalii;•A3•`:: ,-,•4.:f,-;•• ‘':':4•',,',: i.-FA':::'e,Mkikr.5.4a,a,;•Rar4RP:.-kjtASTAIV:$44:''PiA4AtigsAlOAtertiaiNV'Nit4•AVOir-S:•g•U .•'.•;".•,.••••:;:-",,,'.....:.•.1.,:)iy:ji;!'-iiiifIVAiiii#54.1ftlASOP""e•Va;agg4V-40-AS6W):MO.ArafA6*-4.:114VAMTA7.126'tt'UV-.;tk 01,4,-,:,ye,5,741,4,-..:iA:44,7,Z4:,,V*1,10:2.*!AR,:pNtii4 -•?*.-..'-':!q:;Ptq!,',11%11---,t0=1."1.-NO.AA:Mg_a554'14,4411tS.t. -Fi'Vt4413:41,444;410..r::Itoo.tr,c--4A .k;:' i-,XfAq;Ri-ig.S•'-.,:4gfair•tN'i'iriVp.tddit-4. 7; .',:'`. .-:;1-r„,,,t.,,!' 1:',"4...--•':..4.,./..,w'''' '..*,:e3-sii-0-1-ky'k''.11': ';...... 1.r..,- ,.".':s. ke"".4q.'447'45,,-`474c-.7 <A-6f,-..1-v,,,,A::.,,oveiVOS-akIfistr,1.W -1.6-;,,,..., .-v,-',‘1&4,444-.;',',:5-S7Z.•,...A.,,,=',....,,,-1':::e-.,':i--..-c'-':!'.:-;:,'::;:.":.f.•.F.-::'-':',---:-Z,'4,..:;,„,„';..'.. .,,,..A.:.-;',..-41• 441k,g,, •',.00egtot,Istt..A.,1,Zt-(7 .-,IN,q,,, 1;141,1...„,;-,•,-,3..,-;:•,.::: :.:; ,--t.:-,-.-•:.i.e.-i'.'.,..:,.,-.0:•:.: .---',-.:3.--?:.$1--:.,: li`, 1"-;:ti:errc,t'.,'‘.:4:-,‘-,:"IW'Z'-',W",qt'..2.", g. ...:,--: ,•,,..,,..,.,.,_ s.,;;;„_;;;;2-,...f:.:7.,:,::::::..,-_ _5K,,.:i..?„,-.:,,,....:-..::-..i:it;:t7;;:,......,•:,),::,..•':,,,',-;,qa,!.Z-;•,,q.,,.. ;,,,,:i...;.:! . .......,,,,,„.....,,,,..,,,,,11.,,,:74...;...7 .`•-=`... .41:..i..e,.41ria::-t-::::::..:Fp.:-...!:.':,,:::':•::7'...-:';:-..'.:1 .. . •. ., ,--4)---:- :::,:..::::.,..-...-.;/„.T4.4i:i•;,..-,::-.',', ..:-,'.-..-::;-.5":-..,:..;1‘-',_"'',,:._,;.,.-.,''.7",....:1 -,• -4.:.4.- . - :::•„:„.-.7,-;:,;,......„.,_7.,-::....,... ....:..: : • . • .-.,-..... : .:....:. ,: ., :•;„::,: .. ,...0......4. . . ....„.z.i.::.:::-.,,, ,,,.,..:,-. .-....,,, . ::„.„,,"-,-,-":...:,..•.-. . . • • • . --..,-,.. .,,,,... .„:„:,i,.....„ . • ..,.... .. : .. . . . ..,.. •._._ • ..„ ..• • .......i. dalk . , _ • • ..., • ... .... ...- • • -T''''' i ..• ' ' . ., • •r!..; . I. 6. •... :i . ._ . •. • (iL • .'''.-.h.'z,'WN....-•.,g a'"li-tM.,.4ca;„.-6..f..-?f,'4e.:5,l„..:,;.1;-:-','..,.5;%.,,>,..a..4.,.-z--.43:.•y.,M,•.-,'n1.7•,r,.-',',:a:;:-:e'7ar'w,.'•.•.f,..."7t,'•5;,:•iw%••f.•,.o4`'-^..° —•.,7.400;f:,4'.:4:.-V-.t4:.r...':. ::-.*.•_,.,.,y..--...-;'_:•,'..-.-.;-,.!....,.-,.,-..•'a.:-,..•,;-.'',,-1 l.i...::-.•-C..t•-.--ia i•i.'.W''-"k`'.-w...".....,-tr:.f.:.,•,..'.,'.-,.3*;:r,,...-.i_.-.,7.ae5.t r:t,a!.].'a.,,'.,..'•''i,4,•'a....,71..','•a:,-,•,:,-...,-;-.19,-a-.;•.- ,4,.-....-a-.a.4.,4,,.•.•-;-.a•r_a.•,!.•;.a•.• „ . r a .:.•,:a.v.,•,,..,...•A,...;.:.•.-4'-•-..4..;'.,-.,.X.'_'-',.0'-,.-.4,-'•,:1e•V:,.Yr:r...i,,',.e..a,.a;.,,,,i•-•a.'..:,.•.'.k:,.,",'......,';:.". '•,•:[..:-:..,..?:-...'-.--,.--..-:.••..--:.•:,,,.,:•'a . ,-4 -, • ,.' . , ,..•,,;4i,$•'•#:,!"--?-74.2.....,,':',.,..'•':. • ..,.'..1'...:.,••:.# -`••••,.....-..-3 ..r..P..,.-TV.vre. . ...7- • -- • -- . --..-.. ---.,-:',,:,;,-er..,&-;6wi'V *-::--:' ,Yamom , - - . .• ,..i.• "r" . . • '• -',.-,:z,,'.,,=-, -''''---,4'.0.-...5:-:".:-.1;:'.'.t:.e.-. .4iriStriirdAMe r•172'-':-44.14'''.'1:0:'" , ' . • '''Z':‘42reoe*•41P*4.tW.2•!4-1.:.,:' -e.4.1 .',..*,;'ir.,...1.A."V... .--,f:vi•`.,-<gtor6,;i!,1- 1.(,..!'i.4.A.:.,.. - "-14,5.;•...-V.....,i,,--...i-' ;',..":;,;',: „. 4..4S; •.,?,'`''',": •0'..f...„..,,Wil,"1.4.,Ar,a:i..4 7,:...:..;..' ':4:::!.,1,;:.':i.P..,.,",''-:Crx..._*'ivc,•--"'Or. ''.s''-'" ,•:;..::,;:,..,..:,?:-m,'',!..4.,.. if :,„•,...-.,74...:4...1r,,,L3a141:103-. ..„-;•.t4.431;,,ktg,0,11t-p-q--.4.-,,,.....t,..-..r...W.,ff.„,,,,,,,..,.«..,...mt3,...._ Zefr-r. .," ,.,.::%"'eZ4.4i.47, 1;'...0.1.Vailiitli.!:AWI.:nt,;' ,-77-Q..e.,..E:1-.:e7....,-,1:: :::6-- sig_-'''.- •it.,-4-zi.,..,,,. ..42...t,t,:-,,..-f.,..,.i.,..t.:4. -,:-.:3,,z5,?.." -A.-Pe,..;•*.ie-...-v.-- -_, ; ''';---**T::-,tvg"..,1,-'-t,z:--...• ...„.-,,:p.e.,•,-;_,;-.,.t;„.,k.,,,.-- :-.7.:..,,,.1,7,,,t.k,5;r,,..,..::,:,,,t,n1.z,„,!,,4,4'-‘5,-TV,•11.1-•:- Aa • .,r---'".,.•F;'• '••v`il*,':- ...-' • •:?.?-4.414.•=2;44."-ate0.-,-,.',;•*:,..-',.',0•24:4''';.:4.4?--:,-;:.1.ax:'.-,4'..Klifi'''''..'‘' •',as!. -----' ....---aliOiglf`` - ''-•:•-tlehea'a?'--n•-•.14:.•-'1Z.gtaz..4.1*..-4,.,..-al.,;..,:a..:,,',.'---,"..:Ok•6,?:',-,544:1:- . ,„,,--,A4r,7,:t.,•,!,•••!•:?-:,,,,;;;•••,--r, „,- 'v-''''-''''''''-*''''r-?%.?!,•.,4,1,341:-OC::":4',.4C1'7.4":,,..4 .1::,:-Z0V'filti4.4.4, :-'-'-1,;:,';,`,".'7."''a"1--' '''. ',?'.',:%i..Mtce";.;•ig; -...:::";;;';::l'::='''',Til.:-',42,•sf.14).1.#1,:7;;ZSV,7f i'1%..-•-=',3.1,1"-:7::,-,- .." . „.•-....;:..1-,Z.:fi:',.r?-::::?;,:e`f`:.: -*1.;.g;:::-... .-i,',,..e.,Z.L'q.r- -ilitre„,' - :''tiltie::;i'. ....,' •,,..;:i ;.,•:--.2.- ,-',;::,.:,,I.; 1- ;;'"?.,---s:-:•-:. - .."-,'-..,.:.'1,••;;;:•.-..,x-;.-2-'..:f.,',".:.-;,..43..!,..T -' Pi„.••••••_;-„, ,..'..----z.:;..;,•:-:.;.-,f::f s,leit.3.31.v4,*c.4.-1_v,L'-ilix• ,---'-- ./ ..,,,,i.,.'4!.,::,-;•;;.,.3.,....,?,.,;, •;:,-,:ii,;:-..fs•-.41.4.„ ,-.4ric...7'_.,.•4,6' ,..,..;::D.*.I. 1.4ft,* 4 .-.?;.!, 065- ,,,,,,,,...4,..:..1.,,..,•,. ,-_,,,....”....;„...7.,:...;...,?...:P_:,17f"4.),,..•'''.• '.-' -:..::,:',,.i.:1'.'.•:'•:•.•-:-.;=-.1'n.., V--i744•1::.''',•••:.--:::'':if .•:::'-', •'......I..,'' .'.(;.-•.'i*.''-+ •;..'Y':. ',- 42'1:3 iZWk .-4' '44• ...• ..,-..*f_. ''........!.".,:r....,3:.:'.:.',.-.17..r.j...,'.-?-4.''!:talq '?'"i- ' .:',,.'''..:.V-...f.....'' ''' l'.;.'''''..i''• •••:;.!1',:ififfae's ;:.:i'z'.' • ! -.'.-....-•' , ..; --.':i'.''-'-'- ''.-:"'.i't..-{... .'...-:.''' . -': • -. ' . .-..;.., . . . Looking SW to Site from N. 30th St./Freeway Entrance Off Ramp • 0331,CLP-1,4A/U-A.A--11— A" • •• l 'd•`P P1 K yt'a'� t °<'`M t ' "4 iIy`,�� I i. ll 1 ' lig rhd • s I it.:� .. • . , ..; ,oir,„,.,.. 1 1 4, .')...c ., ,...,. '.:::::ir'-n-116.).% • �`7 I t4i t . a i ;i0v;t ?:.:'. .• A M: `l 5 • yfr.� :•:i')}"�;i • .•. . ..,..„....i.„...„..,...„ .,......,...„..„..,.0 .... , .. ,.. ... . . . , ,,....„.... 0 • I.y ... • .,. '. .... •...,.‘ .• '<' `,,,Ili ...., 0 rkt::.,. 4yt ix n 41 .4`,•1 A' '�.. ,y,.+' yy,:.,r.. s,0 •j • cl'Y K 1..e 4,1 c.''''!1 1 Y • I...... . •,Y 't ,• ,'� ''� 44 t,.i 4-� .• s.,•r I ai :r. .,- :r.::,.4k-P Wiz.x,,40,sJ 4tp .1 ry���yw a�,' 1 r: it id{.f''y.Y.y2=';acJ ,/w C teje."..yr�. 1 .,4 i ,.i:1 ::"•, .'.', r 4�� )•..(Z{`''�,"�c�,•w'5Tr Sly i-i Fi.y,{' t�'``�'! ,. I Y4� Y i {'�• I. �`A Yt�*y`�, ''i y' ,4L""••t` ' lM � CC . i yl w el,{t 0 Q,) w • • • jy ` 'F ( +t ° _j �fE { l O P-obit � � y ,. •% � kf :7.. A kS 5 ,. It'. f, � •, � , • tJ.`P 9 Att0.i1 n'i.�v W "3 Zr .p .,• M44g Oz4 \L t=?':: a ,roc .. O M I ' 1 ' i ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 • c c i ' i ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' i ' i' 1 ' I ' I ' LT1 ' 1 ' i ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' i ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1 ' I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' ' I ' 1 ' 1 ' t ' i ' 1 ' I 11 1 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 it I 1R 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i i i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 {` 1 I I :: I I I i I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I Ili 1 I I I i I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 t I 1 1 I i I i i i l i 1 i i i i r I I ► I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 i i i i i i i t i -i i i : � II , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I �I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i f l l i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I f l i l l l l l l l l t l i l l l l l 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III I I ; I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l i l l f l l l l l l l l l i l l l l l 1 1 III 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 r I I I 1 1 1 . 11 I I I I I' II I I i l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l � I I I I I . III I II I p61 11 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I III I I III I III I 1 1 1 I 1 1 ::g 1 .6 I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l l . l I I I t I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. 1•. 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 O ( I I I I I I 1111 11 I I I � J I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I 11111 I I I l I I I 1111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l ! 1 1 I I"�'�I I 1�'' 11 G I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 11 I I , I 11 III 1 II 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I II I I III I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Q 1 11 1 1 11 III 1 I I 1 I t 1 r 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 11 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I ) t ; l 1 1 1 1 1 11 r--- I p1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I II I I III I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I I 1 I 1 110, 1 117ti I I I I I I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 - k7H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I l I i I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 • 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1.. I , r ! i ► l I i r l t i l ► i l l 1 t ► l l I I I 11 , 1 11 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • i I I i l l l l i l l l l l l l l l l l l i 1111111 , 111 •1111 1 IIII" 111 �11111 ' 111i11111i1111111i1111111111 IIII111111111I 11111111111i1111111111111 11 1 I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1. 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 i 1 I '� 1 i i i r i i i i i r t I 1 i l 1 I I 1 1 1 t ' ' I it + I 1 1 '. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i 0I\D I II1I : Ii111 III I . 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111 ��.4_ _\ l IIII ' 1-1., 1 ' Ii111 ' 1 ' II1i1I11I11111i1 Q ill II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II \J 0 1 1 1 1 1 l ' I I r 1 I i t i i i r i ! i i i i i v Ill 1� t I I I I I I I I I I i l 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , III , i1i ,i , iilli , i , ill , ilillliil , tli � 1 ,y- - ii: .� © ��, 1 i Iiiiii1111i11i1111111ii111 A.� Ilk �. I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 1 1 , I I I I II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II Ea n". t ����:; i l l l l l l l l l I I I 1 1 1 1 'T`0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 El u■ t 6 ki 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ... :C■ Zoo Caw= ® 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l i � ( I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■ ■9 � :■z'2.� ■■ a I , 1 I l l l i i I i 1 1 �I" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ► r 1. :Q -- -___„,..,.....i r,� -! -a , I mill i , i , 1 , 1 1 1 mil I 1 1 1 I I I I I l 1 ! Li � r, —r :- 1 [i. ■� � I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I - ■ ■C i-=- ■ — r� ■� ■- "�1, '% I ' , I I I \ I . 11111111111111 1111111111.1 ' till I. .� �! 7 �a �:` �� ei !� ���� �, • 11 , IIII / Ra c Jam. E''' L ■� _ I i. .-- _____. Ja..IN au IN liI ( I I I I , I I I I I I ■ '■ �'■ -- �,■.� I I I I I I I I I 1 , 1 I I /' ■ �.;: /42 -- ' . - n. �i7 � —; t I I I I I I I I . I I 1 �� � A' g- �• E' � @ = �j 1 1 11 1 1 11 - 1 (1 !� Idrii ■1■ E , s II I 1 I 1 I hI I OM aAtA _" "' "� E= _ i� uA_ am n ■ INla Im ��/2 `', VO7aV\ys /, I . , ■mini Ai it - E• 1 ■r —` �J, ,: -'�� "C)r‘ i 41 Si-, !% , :Pc.'" / 1 !■ ��i c_.S mime■ ■ ■ ■ _ ,_._ , ali IIRMIININ ! / / 41 `��w a.!■■■I■■'4.-■ aullll r ■11[a i• u e j iII II 91111111 '`C - 0°. "N- ---- ma _,iin1110 f �' 11111111T LIMit2:-. arfrf, I �1 � ir r■■■ i�■�■■■ I plaiiJ"J' a L l►tilliaul r' O rii Nis.: rarmun rib mo■■ alumnus' ma I/ ■ >A+� , 1.1101r �, Jr' Ave /%_ - 1 ■� rAsammui minzt ■■■■�1■ ®�■■r i1►llui 1 — L ■rruu'■■■all�!,� : iy.f cEller I �_Aberdeen ■' _ � �� a iniimu 116w `gtterbbi—lave. Ng ii ,il1� • :YAberdeen Ave. NE41k41 ■. LIIIII I�■ 1v ■unnm i0__ rii 1 ►�■■■■■■■■■�■ii,. 44 i „Jot MILI fi■■■■■31i■In ■■■ Iillll !W■MI . • .■■■f/ mow■■■■ � Y�a ) l.■■■■■►ik Eli:1e ■■■11■ � 1 ■■■■■ 1�111111 .1„lU1■uui1111111101. IIWIIl E�lW ■■■�I■41 ull� -/�' ) I : wis : Aviv SE err `: ; - : I . '��'—A,�. : g:1,.y- Hu I LEI u 1 1 - - /- w / )1�� SE180th - I II { �IiIJ' ._ ., - 7 = -- ; / / a !II _____ _ In / AID- - - , NE40thSt il 7"81;1&I -1 I Gib &1rr _ mei - � 4__ - � maat'��Iiw. u J'C'� _ '1 P - onus"-toll" ■C'i1!■!!"IM� 7■ci _ • V_ iP/r - - - - -_ - - / -if 'cam Wiaisim f=ti3 - -- ♦*y/_ �r�- - - - - i =: i■rausun .■ ■11.1 _54. VIM 361h �' ♦ ■� 1�11 Winn, 11. -AT tl��,�11i1LL'il1�CB�■1■ I c� w ■111■1,■mtund!!•111■ mI■n .r 1.11111 � Z �� L. ■■■■■ ,� d ilii■uis�ulclaul• m•�1 •1 Ill ■tLais � i•® Atatl!!1!)tl■i:A■iIII � c LE V. ■1■■1111MICIIIII1E: i' = III �- ia■I!uIml.Ill!i1■114 ri NE S, S 0,1* i■II 1t=111111iL'♦';11J.11■■1;1 �� �'11 ■ ii - Q r�/ �ii1L11■1laCl�NL'illlllll ! l • ft Amin IIa111111!1!IIIIEI11■f�e'�'.:, asZ�r ar „ita .4 i autumn Rcs111c ■ 71111is"1 I��M r NE 3ist St —` �riz� ilirli�fl If111111I1lE.iron 111IliCLffl11 f 'r•t + s► ti -� - Otll!!MIl IIIIIIIIIi 9!11�ICIIi�ti 1AT A; i v J I 'I i +1� .NC1s71 ■11111iI1!'J�YE l lIh tc u li i! ;3 Y is �` jf: 1 i �11 �4 [ .1�yy I�1 111lIti�� Itlllllllln 33 1 t ] - - - - - - - - .- I. Anti, IluIl■uitli uunnuult� `ii I g: ` 3; 4i4f I \�6' _ dl/� 111�■11110 1M111111 i;o i g 1 l i ` lii �� / •\ .,\ iYUii1l71aNtlliiii[1�i> �,f u i l 1 .• ► r$:IV �1111. - "k;� •i■IIUI■Iliilll■t 1i 110111111W31111411,11 a4'• 1 , rsekAisaely-• $t 311 a 1 TA F a.1 �1/�■ F1ll! : war ■■ EA d� Ii..�.• ■■ 1 .��< may. ��vt. inn ,: CIE :IIE� :n1 da ro 11_ 11 u-t_ = B[l CCLEN .:",,t: i "'D rc Milan dr ieltir I A 5,, . I -, ILI1 INS 2-9 IsF-Il- Li_, _ ,, - d I■ ■- NE 20t Mill rkc- �1agiington s:5 e�'' '9 : ;s�Gll_ •� II' i!frT' Q1 :4hi1Ii'i • . t e iiii inn ® : , 1slt; i ei � 1 �c" • `& - I�i�ll■ ■. ■s min ■ ,11 lam I mi MN ra 1.] Igo miso Irill--!--1 :II A,. VI i „=,71 fa sj .. .4 ■ i gm. lbw ca ■ Ea ri i���! MCKN 001 1 alliffg. ail. p' ri'l i i " •M.a�■ iIUIU IO ; MIDDI Aid, il tlie gimp EN ii,74 li'fr V -mordAm. ••' ' t a 'SI C' ' ' t HATFIELD &DAWSON .TAMES B.HATFIELD,PE CONSULTING ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS TELEPHONE BENJAMIN F.DAWSON III,PE 9500 GREENWOOD AVE.N. (206)783-9151 THOMAS M.ECKELS,PE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98103 FACSIMILE STEPHEN S.LOCKWOOD,PE (206)789-9834 DAVID J.PINION,PE E-MAIL hatdaw@hatd w.com PAUL W.LEONARD,PE ERIK C.SWANSON MAURY L.HATFIELD,PE THOMAS S.GORTON CONSULTANT Box 1326 ALICE SPRINGS,NT 5950 AUSTRALIA NON-IONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPOSURE ANALYSIS • AND ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION PREPARED FOR AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES Facility No. SD-51 COLEMAN POINT RENTON, WASHINGTON 26 SEPTEMBER 2000 J Pnr l p. _ 1 INTRODUCTION Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers has been retained by Pacific Telecom Services to evaluate .the proposed AT&T Wireless cellular telecommunications facility atop the proposed 50- foot steel monopole near Coleman Point in the city of Renton, Washington, for compliance with current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules regarding human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The AT&T Wireless facility is identified as follows: wireless transmitting and receiving equipment ' with all antennas to be mounted near the top of a proposed 50-foot steel monopole that is to be erected at 1321 North 30th Street, Renton, King County, Washington. The proposed facility will be fenced so as to prevent unauthorized access. To verify that the proposed AT&T Wireless facility will be in compliance with FCC rules regarding human exposure to RF fields, I have performed EMF power density calculations to determine the exposure conditions that are likely to exist in accessible areas near the proposed facility. CALCULATIONS OF RF POWER DENSITY NEAR GROUND LEVEL RF power densities are computed in accordance with methods described in Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, August 1997. Wireless facilities are required to comply with the FCC "Rules & Regulations" CFR 47 §1.1310, Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits. The OET Bulletin 65 describes the methods established by the FCC for predicting compliance with the FCC-specified exposure limits. Compliance is determined by comparing RF field predictions with the . general population/uncontrolled environment (i.e., "Public") Maximum Permissible Exposure limits (MPEs) allowed by the FCC rules, as specified in 47 CFR §1.1310. The following formula has been used to calculate the power densities at specific locations: Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers • 2 mW/cm2 = 0.36 x ERP (watts) /(Distance in feet)2 This formula is derived from Equation 9 on page 22 of OET Bulletin 65. It includes the effect of ground reflections. The Effective Radiated Power (ERP) depends on the vertical antenna pattern. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS • According to the site plan drawings furnished by Pacific Telecom Services, the antennas for the AT&T Wireless facility will be mounted approximately 50-feet above ground level. The AT&T Wireless transmit antennas are highly directional and project the majority of the transmitted RF energy horizontally and well above all nearby accessible areas. The following theoretical calculations predict the peak exposure condition for a six-foot person standing at the nearest approach to the AT&T Wireless antennas. A six-foot tall person standing on the ground near the tower base would be approximately 44 feet below the proposed antennas. The calculations assume that the vertical pattern of the transmitting antenna suppresses the maximum ERP by a factor of 50 (i.e., 17dB) at zenith. According to information provided by AT&T Wireless engineer Ian Hopkins, the'maximum ERP from any sector will be less than 200 Watts with all channels activated. The Public MPE limit for the lowest cellular transmit frequency of 869 MHz is 0.579 mW/cm2. Based on the formula given earlier, the worst-case calculated power density at head height from the AT&T Wireless facility is 0.000744 mW/cm2. The worst-case calculated exposure condition resulting from the AT&T Wireless facility is the power density divided by the Public MPE limit for cellular frequencies: 100% x 0.000744 / 0.579 = 0.13% of the Public MPE limit. All publicly accessible areas near the proposed Coleman Point monopole are expected to have exposure conditions less than 0.13% of the Public MPE due to the AT&T Wireless facility. Hatfield& Dawson Consulting Engineers 3 COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS My calculations show that the maximum predicted RF power densities resulting from the AT&T Wireless facility in all habitable and accessible areas will not exceed 0.13% of the general population/uncontrolled environment MPE percent limit allowed by the FCC rules. FCC COMPLIANCE The FCC has determined through calculations and technical analysis that certain wireless facilities are highly unlikely to cause human RF exposures in excess of FCC guideline limits. In particular, facilities with monopole-mounted antennas greater than 10 meters (about.33 feet) above ground level are considered to have such a low impact on overall exposure conditions that they are "categorically excluded" (i.e., exempt) from the requirement for routine environmental assessment regarding RF exposure hazards. Thus according to FCC rules, the proposed AT&T Wireless facility, with antennas at the 50-foot level, is exempt from further RF safety environmental assessment. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON CALCULATIONS AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS Based on my calculations and information supplied to me by AT&T Wireless representatives, the proposed AT&T Wireless facility SD-51 will comply with current FCC rules regarding human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Furthermore, according to federal regulations, the proposed AT&T Wireless facility is categorically exempt from the requirement for routine environmental processing. This conclusion is based solely on the comparison of predicted RF conditions in specific areas with the corresponding safe exposure limits set forth in the FCC rules. The FCC exposure limits are based on, recommendations by federal and private entities with the appropriate expertise in human safety issues. Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers 4 The analysis and conclusions presented in this report do not determine the presence or absence of human health and safety hazards in any area due to any cause. QUALIFICATIONS I am an experienced radio engineer whose qualifications are a matter of record with the Federal Communications Commission. I am a partner in the firm of Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the States of Washington, Oregon and California, and I hold an FCC General Radiotelephone Operator License PG-12-21740. All representations contained herein are true to the best of my knowledge except, when noted, when data has been furnished by others. 3AMES p 26 September 2000 44' of moo 44, 4‘ .:‘',.;, c 7 ' PA *-;„? g_NeivtA4/ f3 I `'',-"' / David J. Pinion, P.E. (EXPIRES 11/27`00I Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers . MO DMWWG 6 COP/AMMO AND 6 THE SOLE PROFEPIYOF THE • DRAWING INDEX - OWNEL R1I PRODUCED SOLD,FOR IYT USE IEOWNEEAND ITS CITY OF RENTON O "�' �REP C `"O"OWE OFF THIS D M W I NC AND/OR THE H E DORDID IADON CONTAINED IN IT FOPLIDDEN WITHOVFTHEWWRFN np p PEPNSSIONOFTEO A-1 COVER SHEET LEIV AN I OI NT SDS I KENNYDALE w SITESD51 Q • 1321 N. 30TH ST. 5 5 i o A-2 SITE PLAN _ RENTON, WA 98056 g a s LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A-2.1 COMPOUND LAYOUT THE EAST HALF OF THE EST HALF OF TRACT Q W GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO.1,ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11OF PLATS ATPAGE(S)63,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. N 30TH ST A-3 EAST ELEVATION AND ANTENNA DETAILS ASSESSORS' PARCEL NUMBER: I 116 91 ca 334-210-3272-04 A-3.1 WEST ELEVATION DIRECTIONS: - - A-3.2 NORTH ELEVATION 1. FROM AIRPORT OFFICE,TAKE 1-5 NORTH TO 90 EASTTO 405 NORTH `�,(C� — 2 E T D - `0 2. TAKE 405 TO THE 30TH STREET EXIT 7/7 A-3.3 SOUTH ELEVATION 3. GO WESTON 30TH STREETOVER BRIDGE PAST CHEVRON ON LEFT • 9 -P • j-� �� l.�. 0 1BAw 4. THE SITE IS LOCATED BEHIND SUMMIT ELECTRIC _ • + ++' C-1 CIVIL DETAILS I "P ��eo Gjo N[1:1 :oa, a C-1.1 CIVIL DETAILS II 7i c �$ I NAD 27 NAD 83 TO KEY PLAN • LAT. 47'31'04.711' 4731'04.070' Y11 E-1 ELECTRICAL DETAILS -N.T.S. LONG.1221156.492' 122I2'00.931• w ELEV.-208.2'CNGVD 29) VS.216'±(BELLEVUE SOUTH QUAD). _ H r j E-1.1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN Z o PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: SURVEYOR: JURISDICTION: E-2 GROUNDING D ETA I LS COLEMAN POINT MERIWETHER LEACHMAN ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON 1321 NORTH 30TH STREET 11800 N.E 16071-I STREET RENTON,WA 98056 BOTHELL,WA 98011 • IliE-3 WAVEGUIDE SCHEMATIC CONTACTJIMSWANN 7 0 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF WORK: PHONE(206)488-4800 ./ SITE DEVELOPMENTAND INSTALLATION OF • FIRE DISTRICT: ¢ oDDi ES-1 SHELTER DETAILS PREFABRICATED EQVIPMENTSHELTER50'-0• STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: 03 a STEEL MONOPOLE.AND CELLULAR ANTENNAS TB A. • y Y T20 ENGINEERING LTD. L N( I 1 1 #201-1761313 66THAVENVEES-2 SHELTER DETAILS PROJECTOWNER/APPLICANT: SURREY, BRns"coLVMBIA V3S7X7 Cl)• PHONE(604)574-6432 SCHOOL DISTRICT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES i ES-3 SHELTER DETAILS • 617 EASTLAKE AVE E SEAT I C CONTACT:LORI CHASE SHELTER MANUFACTURER: T.B.A. u PHONE(206)696-3367 ES-4 SHELTER DETAILS _ CONSTRUCTION CONTACT KEVIN FREE ANDREW CORPORATION PHONE: (206)726-1126 2701 MAYHILL ROAD POWER: DENTON,TEXAS 76205 CONTACT:MICHAELFLORES PUGET SOUND ENERGY ES-5 SHELTER DETAILS PARCEL OWNER: PHONE: (916)381_9378 PHONE:(888)225-5773 LLPS N PAVLMILLER ANTENNA MANUFACTURER: E-- _ 2 ES-6 SHELTER DETAILS 3623 LINCOLN AVE.N.E O Oo. RENTON,WA 98056 ALLGON TELEPHONE: PHONE (425)227-9991 CONTACT:VICKIE CHANEY PHONE (817)595-5999 Z ES-7 SHELTER DETAILS G.T.E o 0 THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVEANDACCEPi CODE INFORMATION: THESE DOCUMENTS AND AVIHORIZE THE CONTRACTOR + � TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED LLJ E-- ES-8 SHELTER DETAILS GEOTECH N I CAL: HEREIN.ALL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT C r- ZONING CLASSIFICATION: CC(CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL) -.•Q^ G. B4'h TO REVIEW CCHANGES THE LOCALMODIFICATIONS CAT ONSTHEARTMEN POSE Q O Iry - W 1 v v ANYCHANG60RMODIFlCA710NSTHEVMAYIMPOSE a c, v rn Lo BUILDING CODE: UBC,1997 TB.A' A.` OF WASfj/ ES-9 SHELTER DETAILS v1. DMSMNGISHF PROJECT AREA: 250050.FT. o . �0 7 .. LANDLORD/OWNER DATE COVERSHEET •BUILDING AREA: 322 SO. S'i ' ES-10 SHELTER DETAILS •., CONSTRUCTION TYPE °►; _� -, 1- AT&T DATE PRAWN ID CWK9Iri V-N 4 I•��I fit. f, 0.P. RBA. PROPOSED BUILDING USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS 5•' ES-11 SHELTER DETAILS ,p 27759 PM CAD ME PROJECT N0. OCCUPANCY: 5-2 e 6N CrSTEROGti� - CM OP 0070-08A1 0070.08 EXCAVATION: N/A ' 'O N A L G - Q� EPM SCALE DATE L-1 LANDSCAPING PLAN ESTIMATED VALVE OF CONSTRUCTION: $150 000.00 A;R• , `1,10 AS NOTED JvN 19 FOOD ES of JUL SU-1 SURVEY A-- �-� �� AAA ADPPOVALS ,._.1 rNn DM',ING If EOPYRIOHTFO GENERAL NOTES: �fTHE 50 EPp°PERTyOF ME ormEx.ms vE°DI,cED sauv roR VSE BY THE OWNER AND ITS AfFl4ATES.AEPRODOCIION ORME • i Of TNn DPAWINGAND/pITNE 1. PERMITS,FEES.AND TESTING SHALL BE PAID FOR BY AT&T. wwDDEN°WITH°ovT> iwcmN PERMISSION OFTHEgYNEp 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS WITH N REDLINES SHOWING'AS-BUILT'CONDMON TO AT&T. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE I/BC, 5 5 i o 1997 EDITION. 4. PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE APPROVED BY THE g 9 m //j )� p' THE GOLD SEA STATE LABOR&INDUSTRY,AND CERTIFIED WITH FOUND MONUMENT IN THE GOLD SEAL PER RCW 43-22-455. 0 10 20 40 CASE(6/5/00) �j j I III 5. PER THE RULE CR-103,PREFABRICATED WIRELESS SHELTERS ARE -_J N890438 W N.30THST / EXEMPT FROM INSULATION REQUIREMENTSOF11iE Ei Z r--------3�'�--- .1'�/ _------ N89'0438'W WASHINGTON ENERGY CODE. O -_832.64'ROS-- --.-.------------t' -B ., g o a o ¢I �% PP W/VC / / -- 832.53'MEAS I- b. CONTIWCTORTOPROVIDECLEARINGANDGRUBBINGAS 8 8 8 v & �I O�� / FOUND MONUMENT IN REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF APPROACH o � d I / O / // °GCB ryNry/ CASECb/5/00) ACHAND L� Q' n 000MPOUND. �d 8 p ::.i.i. FOUND REBAR&CAP aal'01'o3.T I FSMTREG NO. > ^e 1. LSN64 i / ° o< 0, ba18'S6' i ti� 19991173000443: ]. •..`.. • • �• • • '%%/: � " s%:. . 3:13. • (� SUMMIT ELEGSIGN / Nn_'; r • <1 '�(/Tj 4'P TOP-ass J:1-"g• ✓ti �x i. e,e..o• •.III '/ iaa: 2. ;a-r�'G�P1' I • • _IV,' ; GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION !Fla"! �' • ° '%j1 I PROPOSED SITE 2oai'li �Q' .� ; •►,,yy 3-(12-161PTOP-254.0' "�HOUSE ..0 0a;..;,,r,; A. :Ir NAD 27 NAD 83 �- RIDGEEL�228.0' �,� v_ i- . J / c°d�:§01 J;Yt: :. t // LAT. 4T3Po4.71r 473ro4.o70- ",K;:;••;>u: // •// I••. N 'Y LONG.1229156.492'-122'12'00.931' a • ELEV.=208.2'(NGVD 29) VS.216'±(BELIEVUE SOUTH QUAD). • �?``; ry BASIS OF BEARING w • ' ?-1' BLDG ,'n�(�., MERIDIAN:WS.P.C.S.NORTH ZONE NAD 83. Z((• #1321 •;:LO 1CINOFRENTONSURVEYCONTROLPOINTAS: Nkilaill:killitiz J • -.-r,: O ' , •j LS TOP-240.8' VERTICAL DATUM Z TOP4312' °:..' 6-8•ALDERS % NAVD88 O • ' 20'+•HIGH BASIS OF COORDINATES GRADUALLY REMOVE CROWN IN LEANING r� i I' • (7YP.) WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM ACCESS ROAD TO BLEND INTO GARAGE lo` GONG • NORTH ZONE NAD 83 EXISTING CONCRETE PARKING LOT _: •_ El,. 2 TELEPHONE BOOTHS BENCH MARK I . .± !u CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT W ® y m PROPOSED GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD .�1' ?j0 • i/ #341-TOP 5/8•STEEL ROD SET IN CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE 3'E v C O INTERSECTION PARK AVE NORTH AND N.30TH STREET. 'Z j07. TO TIE INTO EXISTING CONCRETE l Y- ELEV-2O126'(NAVD88) PARKING LOT. REFER TO C-1 \ 4p'�� sp` 11 I ® Q Q co i / v ' , I� $ TBM M Y b'FIR TOP-285.9' 4 I ,�`5 F, %GAS VENTS 1/2'REBAR W/RED TRIAD fA fO .fix>y;., d'` R940 i. . CONTROL CAP OEP-2) m N FOUND REBAR&CAP paZ� �pQO ELE1/=213.1' ai f`� �' W LSds 6434 T V Y' ( LQp�� ��Q % LEGEND 11 n CO [7CTENTOF LEASED ARFA zl _ _ "oC �,.0 i X341.8 SPOT ELEV CO •!si;;-rI -'40 v�0�,�bM ���j / PP W/UC POWER POLE W/UNDERGROUND CONDUITS Z y P J O -P- OVERHEAD POWER W xs<>;�*,�.;.>::::.y:'•:' -,I.-�i` LS P PIN FLAG = GROUP OF COTTONWOOD TQ!e's.....Q2IID�'af<" PwIFI AG 10•PINES TOP=2422' O CB-CATCH BASIN TOP-277.8' ,"t y='v�-6- „:. 4 '+:� H2O/Al�.y's ® 13-TELEPHONE STUB ;! �' / 0-- LS-LIGHT STANDARD PIN FLAG �„"I + F. I b FH-FIRE HYDRANT • 111. ; 1/2'REBAR W/RED TRIAD �V1 TREE LINE PROPOSED50'-0'STEEL -, . , r PIN FLAG Lri in >', I CONTROL CAP CJEP-2) -FENCE LINE MONOPOLEC/W NEW ANTENNAS r. �214_ ELEV=213.1' ,tb D/W DRIVEWAYCUI' �� G. 8n �a i N O DECIDUOUS TREES O D,,• .._..,., _ �� Ai c� M-MAPLE ��Q,�� WASH/s`� Z 214 %E= G'r� t iZ'1(%<< i, N' AP-APPLE TREE 0 Q- C.�j 0 �;>: _ M :z:.>:..>'::,r'.< CONIFER TREES :44) �s O2 W O - Y 12'APTOP-234.8' ... <-"..I. zl F-FIR ,a E" LANDSCAPED AREA. CL C-CEDAR r�. 9 - Z p[ P-PINE /•:_ Q Z �? REFER TOL-1 4fr j,. , C Q O r DII'fi'xw FLAG :'`';'_: GRAVEL •P277J9 <v�WICATED ANDREWSHELTER ID32 O•x40-0 PIN FLAG Sr'nND C/W 7'-0' ASPHALT (QK FENCE. REFER TO I GROUPTREESTOP-315.7't // � NA�'ND LAYOUTON A-2.1 Q I 36'FIRTOP-273.5' i I CONCRETE '��`S' Q JUL�ti� SITE PLAN FOUND3 ' Ls••••• ,• L/4'PIPE I �'-`- PRAWN en CN%D RI 212 _ I I ry10 UNDERLYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE ORDER NO.810938-C1 R.P. RAM. _.... �, N89'gd'38'N 64,25' >_ THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF TRACT 41 OF C.D.HILLMAN5 LAKE uDnIE PPOIECT ND. WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEAT LE NO.1,ACCORDING TO PLAT p RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS AT PAGES)63.IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. 0070-08A2 007o� 5.0'CLFNC IN CONC F G SDA1J= DATE AS NOTED )UN 192000 SITE PLAN (1) A--2 r.zo'o• MD DRAWING IS CCM/GHIED GENERAL NOTES: ANVD THE so EELa°ExttornE AND IrH°LWIKFDsYO THE VSE!'/iNEGWNEAAND NS AEi1W1Ei LELPO WCIION GL VSE • 0: DMWINGAND/ORTHE 1)1 . 1, PERMITS,FEES,AND TESl1NG SHALL BE PAID FOR BY AT&T. 1.170 c 71171:1 AINNEwur�i DEN N °ELNDSIONGFTHEOWNE0. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN ONE SET OF PLANS WITH REDLINES SHOWING AS-BUILT'CONDITION TO AT&T. il 1 §8W imi • 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UBC, 5 5 p 1997 EDITION. 4. PREFABRICATED SHELTER TO BE APPROVED BY THE m WASHINGTON STATE LABOR&INDUSTRY,AND CERTIFIED WITH THE GOLD SEAL PER RCW 43-22-455. 5. PER THE RULE CR-103,PREFABRICATED WIRELESS SHELTERS ARE 50'-0' / EXEMPT FROM INSULATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE LEASED AREA / WASHINGTONENERGYCODE p E. GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 0 E 40'-0' o( �r� \ 0(2)6'-O -< ►f�f�f.�f ��f�*�f�f�.�.J.�.;.�..�;�.J.�. ®SWING GATES /..4. ' ) N>� f .�f�.�.�.�f�f�f�� ', P>f��..a_ �.�f�f�f� ► .f�. ,****4' °I° 01010 ► ;1�rti \\\ 4. gae�• \ \ .ViVf + s ••; "_ �3.2r�r s,...'� �.�.�►�.�.� c � • 1!J 20'-0' / .. ; ?e •; ;;ti=ya`-,'a,• '- •s..,s .►f Q WASHED CRUSHED STONE ��`�� iq ry.`'`_'u%? .' `', P•r:'.;5;*—c'y;;',fir�;_-';v' f�4►.f COMPOUND AREA SLOPED AT2% z ' 51 •,^•�•- :_f;e.;-zt•.T '-`c�:;�v'.�,l}�::?�,?Y;, ram`►���,�� ®TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE Yw a / 5p!O•MONOPOLE C/W ,t .:tn.:.:-:r .. .�/ Z cv � ANTENNA BOOM. REFER TO - A :,Lr•="'-�1 '',C \mia:1/4....2 OA-3 FOR ANTENNA DETAILS ® ''''''..X.' 5�� 7'-0"CHAINUNK COMPOUND N - FENCE dw BARBED WIRE AR a; `/ z �� // /#4k. UNDERGROUND ANTENNA rier-of�1 O ©STOOP T '�ltie, CABLE DUCT BANK //! % V Eli o ), NO I /11 / ® ®H-FRAME %/m I CA PYSVPPLIED/0/ WITH SHELTERr� ,.III 8'-81/2' �.►��: ® y /�/ o �� 3 �f�' J N.. 1r0 10._ i I am fI I1IIL%P i, LA\ REFERTOL-1ICI1'- x '-0'PREFABRICATEDANDREDSHELTER ►; Co • Si • F. loirl A //v I `\� HVACSUPPLIED wr ��l I" I•- �I� � WITH SHELTER \ 1.11 ... er / Q POSMICREOF16 I. EOUAL I, O \``�" rn'P.OF2) O,I �/POST NP.OF16 A TYP, X N NO .....i. ,, , O O , , k. a0 4.• Q 't ......'.. Q Z • - vG' B`gs^ o oOMw a. u, v r- oc EXISTING APPLE TREE _IQ��It OV WA$/1/� 1 DUWINGTma 0 `'' C� COMPOUND y' 6'-0" 28'-0' 6,-0" -(� �j 1 . rs 2 �} LAYOUT /' I/1 � ':•!?: DMWN5Y1 CHICO BE 4 I.- 0 27759 <v GADEIE °La ECTNQ COMPOUND LAYOUT •�s�T£��sTeR�_`v�� 007 0 0°'°� O V/ ` y SCALE DATE 1/4'-1'-0' 'j',o 9 N A l..� . ' Opr AS NOTED JUN,97D00 • iRso} iu��ti ' „„ A-2 .1 MS DIUnWINC Is COPYRIGHTED G MMA—FACE AND rs1ESDLEvnosFnnOFTHE N 0. PR OW IT Is ODUCED SOLED FOE USE BY ME°MEIAND ITS 5a AFFIWES T REPRODUCTION M OSE CMOS DMYBNGAND/OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN ITS FORBIDDEN WDNOUTTNE N Y V-3 PfRWSSION OFTNE S'/PfITEN Da Q FUIVREANTENNAS — W 0.lof o ;v i sm Q ALGON ALP-E 6014 ♦ -1 ANTENNAS(TYP.OF 8) F d tl a LIGHTNING ROD 1 AIPIF/"P : b. De < 0, a ALPHA—FACE ALP 6or4ANTENNAS bA+ /.0� (TYP.OF8) V— Ji•ill 'T-J:rR -- " +rr.LT-i` +I_ 4111 aoa+:` PLAN VIEW OF STANDARD ANTENNA 1 � FTt'- cl Iii POSITIONS & IDENTIFICATION FT/TUREANTENNA ° NTS O (TYP.OF 2) 50'-0'STEEL MONOPOLE w . /• z j/ 1.41E J R Z O W 4111 IA a V EXISTING APPLE TREE • 11'-6'x28'-O'PREFABRICATED I-- .p ,�q., ANDREWSHELTER - I!•) s V , HVA UNTTSUPORD WITH Z —'SHELTER(TYP.OF�) H-FRAME O xr.f. ¢®® f Q/ V ;x >. (\ n. = 1 "- ; i' `% ' . '3.= rya Q :\ I W Z —RR. ri r .-1 r k-'•' _ W 'RI Z .-,u Q 0 W - N1 -1 G X O w S� t ' H DRAWIN G 1INFa T �p .I .•P- c _ ............. � :.:.:. }:tom:^:•�::�::::;:.:::.:y::.:....:::.::::::::.�:... _ . :. T. �- x _ - �.1, .� C •� EASE ELEVATION, =s i 'Y"4 ANDA .....::.:: ANTENNA E 1/ u +i7 -z. O A U w — oi ETAI DETAILS I :::::::. ::::::.::....... .. ...........�..: .: .... :-:-•::� ::•::::..::::::::tt:::t>: s:-:::-::•:::: III _ r IDRANov rv1 IGNxv rv, l:4 e rll1111 N, RP. RB.M. OA 277L'a7 V� CADDIE PPOIECTN0. -�53,��'!ST`ES' \÷ omo Dena orno-0e EAST ELEVATION O tO TONAL �C� OFS SCAIE DATE 1/4'sI'-0' /R : - I() Y AS NOTED TUN 192000 FS Of JUL� -.1- A_3 IIIIPIIIIIIIII."lb _ _._ 41 II fit` �I] • 11..11111, 1131 ,«. Coleman Point +!' i` I • a. SD51 - Looking Southwest I rU_LI • ....------, eit. ... _ . _ _.... 45, 41, .. it )01,-T7 . . , . .., ,, ; f -t,... .. . . .. : • . ...,..,.. % . 4ir, . 1 ... . ir iiir lg. • -..,,,, ,..- .... 4 ___ __ .... .. ___ _ ice` - � . ...diesin simm....... ...... FRALEY / STRICKER • ARCHITECTS • A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION r ex/Li i l6 ____ ______. . : 642164 it ...... . -7.---- A ....,__ AT&T c .i 2 0.- �:.��• _ �• �.�. Coleman Point Chevron f r ,�.. �, .� SD51 !'^ • Ta'► _ Looking South riK c $ue. F- < i1 r "'�F1' I Before • ..... II .._, _ _ ...,,,............ • __, _, -kw ...: After , -> . [neuron ^ ".. tf - ..; r-;,, t . 1 t ,- , 11. illifo • , • - II milt /. i / FRALEY / STRICKER ■ ARCHITECTS • A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ..A• INENE . ... mminob. — INNEMNI1 i.b. it , -'1 WIENIMIN_ AT&T ..II Coleman Point :r , -",••••....-- ' I ••` SD 5 1 ^ Before Looking Northeast After --- ,. . . , ....-- _ • ...... , .., . • . • pi ;•4 • ,..4,,,,..140,, . •! 4. - • ,‘,,1- •,,.. • f!: to,,,1 ,,,.• 1 . . ,., , ..• .ip. v.: - .,. .&-.-• -. • .,, . , .. ..., . , , . • I ,.,.....11 .1.....•4,-.5,•-0-, ,-; . , ,, • .:•=1,-„, • .4 . ... , ittillt sag . 1 1 , ago ..- . k . , • "'-• ,- " ''••41 A . ,..'''' • % r -.. , '6••• . . .4 a g . ' • - 1 i•i'. 144.... .• • )4 r.,•• ., „ •• .1 .... t •'OW ,:ti 0 I- '1. S:". '144,• . ; ,Pi '• X••• „el ••••• Mr Pki•, . .17-.' ;IIK,''' • a 4..' ,k i . 'I , 10 ...y.„" -I' " .00 .. ..... 0. , •"; ' t. f .. ---,r ..cr bc. •••. . 4 , . .. . . ..... ..., ... •-, '. iii....--------- . ..0.4 . `-%'-. **4"• - 7 'I, - ' -..4.:4. 1:14:-j„-...1"Tt,.. '4: "1:i.,:"-.4"4"te:'::.--,19"- •'14.;,i;...:.):, ,t•••• t • ,eip• ••Jr. .."1. .kj.• ' ' ( -, E 4''''; • , ip„ , .,,.4.;:11 A. ),,. . , •-:' i 4.4 /i0.-tit .',. •'•„:A'.'.. .,,.',..''t : .,„,%:,:. ' ': 1:4TI:'..."2:-.-,4... % 4., ,; . . ,..... .., ...., , 1_...„. .I.,' :.•‘,ii. .,, .1...:Ii.-k.Y.; , , . . , .• • li:t.44'. • ' -' -‘ ik, it.— . --.# • .. . , 4-, t. . : , II sc, .0 • ' '11-P;r4. 4:I • '44 ,..; 1 .-Ir•'• 'r .! „,,,.t..g.'*11. . I 14 C ..,44 ". * .11 xr i •••• '1, i trill : . '' ;..•••tr.71. 4, `" ', -' ' - ' . • ..,-.;:fo, :.,„,!::. ,.__ . , • - . • •‘.,›"f' 4.•44.;C. ..— - .,„ , - - "'- ._ FRALEY / STRICKER • ARCHITECTS • A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ___AT&T Coleman Point SD51 ' Looking Southeast `- '•• .�'�`I.__�-' r{'�. - ,Before � After - - - -- — a y . r� - •:: t = 4 r r �6i 4i . it r `s. I• ' �- { •.y A! yid �� " �� - .- FRALEY I STRICKER ■ ARCHITECTS ■ A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION • a & _... / 4. • ;.., Coleman Point „4:4•4 I . �— SD51 Before Looking North .ti - :' t: After . .=Ixr. --- 124 ilk.4.11-- 4 / '''' Ilk ' / . f ) • .4r4r it, ifts . - '4.4,;..I. , ,..., ' , "MOM ll 4 � - I ' ' am1�' * . •'.. etfika044,14.,•!•1;. jC' 4111k1V- . . ��`it,L4T►vi _ FRALEY / STRICKER • ARCHITECTS • A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT PANNING 4 June 1997 CITY, OF.RFNT ON JU1 .1 1 1997. Environmental Review Committee City of Renton RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue South +' Renton,WA 98055 Attention: Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: US West I-405 PCS Site (Exit 6 Southbound off-ramp) Project No.LUA-97-041,CU,V,ECF We the attached citizens of Kennydale wish the Environmental Review Committee review our concerns very carefully. Your decision will impact us and other 8 DU/AC (R-8) residential zones in Renton for the rest of our lives. The applicant proposes to obtain a variance to install a PCS wireless communications facility consisting of six (6) antennas mounted on an 80-foot tall support monopole with two equipment cabinets in a residential area. The proposal includes a Variance request to exceed the 30-foot height limit of the Residential-8 DU/AC(R-8)zone. Our major concerns are as follows: Aesthetic Impact The 80 foot monopole with 6 attached antenna(42 inches long,5 inches wide and 4 inches deep). Plans call out for 3 additional antennas installed at a later date. This PCS wireless communication facility will take away the view. We shouldn't have to devalue our property for a commercial venture. Renton Airport Fly Over We are very concerned with the proposed facility effect on take-offs and landing from Renton Airport. We have a current problem of planes flying overhead by 45 to 70 feet,causing a flurry of calls to Gayle Reed,Manager of the Renton Airport. This problem might have been caused by the Texaco Gas station sign. Value of Life Currently, very few studies are documented on long term health effects from Electromagnetic Radiation. The technology has not been around long enough for the scientific community to come to agreement on EMR. We do NOT want this tower in our dense R-8 Residentially zoned area.. . . Please add our names as parties of record for this project. We wish to hear from. you in the near future as to the outcome of your review. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, HQMEOWNERS: / tuti&u 4104tal..1. ( 2 il fripet.ale3zAJ 74-kite.AI Li 4 5S2aq, Zi/i ( ' . ge(55;4 I / . 4 141 t-t)", frPe:, ---C, Z---FY - lrill,cid la-M k z Atic klit:t7 L,ra. 1 1 41 g-e,ram) Gtia, . 9s-56.6 0 , 73egeA T. Ihe&gAL /312/ 7ec 26-fA 5r. 4 22, A &dim, 2i)A- - qgos7 St..r TS ,12-ve. K. Piiliarre, ,, - ,*(iii24 1 14 N -2614 ST • eer-E,6 -----‘,} Aa-e /1/ A-11N , GR " CleO fi /2e.A/A4../ 6,4 fkz7c, /4-, t /V 26 a, ,,. . bu 41 ye-x,itte.-4A) o.)etAL, fro5'‘ g3,0-out IAA gem-6 , ga,iati-t4) tayt effos 6 ge4C-7167A. (eh( 9 °a 7)25424 E. .,,,x, A ro i 17/Azedzt-et,-•aet-a. - /. / efe,T / 26 if- 1Z-it) 'I'r,... q go 6-6 /2 t...-r -, c....-A-f rasc 1 fr RI'FL C it? Sj[i=1 Li La III L7:''"j 4 L gY^ • r ll 4 June 1997 DEVELO•P�M�, R.-NT PT�NNW�' u 2 5199r Environmental Review Committee City of Renton RED 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Attention: Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: US West I-405 PCS Site (Exit 6 Southbound off-ramp) Project No.LUA-97-041,CU,V,ECF We the attached citizens of Kennydale wish the Environmental Review Committee review our concerns very carefully. Your decision will impact us and other 8 DU/AC (R-8) residential zones in Renton for the rest of our lives. The applicant proposes to obtain a variance to install a PCS wireless communications facility consisting of six (6) antennas mounted on an 80-foot tall support monopole with two equipment cabinets in a residential area. The proposal includes a Variance request to exceed the 30-foot height limit of the Residential-8 DU/AC(R 8)zone. Our major concerns are as follows: Aesthetic Impact The 80 foot monopole with 6 attached antenna(42 inches long,5 inches wide and 4 inches deep). Plans call out for 3 additional antennas installed at a later date. This PCS wireless communication facility will take away the view. We shouldn't have to devalue our property for a commercial venture. Renton Airport Fly Over We are very concerned with the proposed facility effect on take-offs and landing from Renton Airport. We have a current problem of planes flying overhead by 45 to 70 feet,causing a flurry of calls to Gayle Reed,Manager of the Renton Airport. This problem might have been caused by the Texaco Gas station sign. Value of Life Currently, very few studies are documented on long term health effects from Electromagnetic Radiation. The technology has not been around long enough for the scientific community to come to agreement on EMR. We do NOT want this tower in our dense R-8 Residentially zoned area. �� i7 . . • . . • • Please add our names as parties of record for this project. We wish to hear from you in the near future as to the outcome of your review. Thank you for your. cooperation in this matter. . . Sincerely, . . -HOMEO E /L3 c21/ bOa /3 / 2 /(1- Wi4fg03-10 !•J it-kr,), •ri L Lid J) r•T'YiP 7. • a DEVELOPMENT PLAAININr- CITY OF R:F,\'TO:\ 4 June 1997 JUN 1. 3 1997 Environmental Review Committee R EC i r a. City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Attention: Environmental Review Committee SUBJECT: US West I-405 PCS Site(Exit 6 Southbound off-ramp) Project No.LUA-97-041,CU,V,ECF We the attached citizens of Kennydale wish the Environmental Review Committee review our concerns very carefully. Your decision will impact us and other 8 DU/AC (R 8) residential zones in Renton for the rest of our lives. The applicant proposes to obtain a variance to install a PCS wireless communications facility consisting of six (6) antennas mounted on an 80-foot tall support monopole with two equipment cabinets in a residential area. The proposal includes a Variance request to exceed the 30-foot height limit of the Residential-8 DU/AC(R-8)zone. Our major concerns are as follows: Aesthetic Impact The 80 foot monopole with 6 attached antenna(42 inches long,5 inches wide and 4 inches deep). Plans call out for 3 additional antennas installed at a later date. This PCS wireless communication facility will take away the view. We shouldn't have to devalue our property for a commercial venture. Renton Airport Fly Over We are very concerned with the proposed facility effect on take-offs and landing from Renton Airport. We have a current problem of planes flying overhead by 45 to 70 feet,causing a flurry of calls to Gayle Reed,Manager of the Renton Airport. This problem might have been caused by the Texaco Gas station sign. Value of Life Currently, very few studies are documented on long term health effects from Electromagnetic Radiation. The technology has not been around long enough for the scientific community to come to agreement on EMR. We do NOT want this tower in our dense R-8 Residentially zoned,area. • Please add our names as parties of record for this project. We wish to hear from you in the near future as to the outcome of your review. Thank you for your- cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, HOMEOWN L_ • `7D3 13 b Reny too__ 1 SO,`L Re a7 1 ` O DEVELOPMENT PLANNING fin; JUN ? 3 1997 RECEIVED