Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LOG ITEM 104-119
wnl ��—_�r`b oMnr rs,ro "'°_• ��I"'«,�.o�,., Hnr,H ■ 30Vd 10A ° w N U z Ayi -' - �°Ca� 'g'N m<< g noU'g �� ' 8 � q '#4tini 'nzi" vbm gz ; S Ot'n 6 Am�F p;,;tiUA AO� NA�U�A l% 2 OV nmmm yrA =O r"vb y UOO� ot >AEnam Ag,t 0 ,n'", 2,n,n222� z a NN o oe„,°'"�C, °po �ZO _yca °-y4unO1k,!I., ^7 ro %. w,.'a "-,,-, a h� I a000000 n OC'=2"' 220 p 020 r �..,,thaO , NOOOOOC A rry71 002 2 20A 0. q O OOOOOO,n �z1°= ° ,, oim on° °0 4°ieww2 „SSyll 2<_ "' ^� �_ ^iFFgf hl a'i b O ° myknP 2oF c,�, D�� ,n ;�,n00< a2 ;�o v, asrbmmvtin 0p-�, ,, AFry U2 UO UO,rn40A. OfVV!v(nb2 tioa' vwtiA Nb-o =°�voo amz an ci e n b�.L0-, 0 °0_ F ar,NO '58'00"E-7-7934.67`.-7 •4l - y ° i v ? U goo`' m aiU ro, '8 '"t' 8 8 F=1\ 0 S? D''7 6,. ,"Froi Pot 9 .., Am '--n 0 Ur �r Ur f-§ !yo; m,^'I�,° /('''; mUr a1V! ,'.--4 o0® 00® 00 e 2 2 a F C U ff cn 41'7:o a a n 0 !o (/1 �D � zo c 20-,0 "f", � o0 �, � nN �v a°��nn, o-c �,.� n y L Q F' t-, A,naY2 ° r0 y*VI ® * a '3,n i� aLkN D ® !le.e. - s 7'1 r— Cs1 °0 21r',no '02°O$n 249.68 GgIra Z �NO1 •: ,2 618" O AT, p0r,,2 F3CD� 1'16"E N0741'16E 6 S 11'4!'16 1 6.9 ', '2 O O n VT J <0 D=; ° non �� Ao L� A;2iIA 0 2 0 2 °- " �, V c� oxm rn >o Ja - U a, os ''$=c vA,o�,o; � �' 0 0 o Of �I � oaA ov in iO �ynr Ur a ' ,1� Nu' m,on zia'''',Z {'v °u0 F °b0 o r0 F a2r Ur c) m °oo, za'n n~ • « `a'c • n • DO a s0 TOT CI� ^2+ -2,1r:4 &gory. 0 00 - nV • ®nQ N W 6,1 Ory�O ZOUA z l I FO ,., °00> q „ " b l 2 ><2 O N S rn ob a ((f) (__ tp T =7 U O i�JI4.J6 I I L4 o O v J H v So1223�'W' •- T ■ N0122'38"E 1255.61' o N UN 4 f co • ® • * HIM • • rrl rri nr q D n0 p F“.3 O v,0 C tiO ~ 2 2p r�.,0 y,'^n ,-ova O v a v5, R °$), 2`' $ u°e xo" ° •, rr lii �p ; vii L A!,nF ,n> q ti i^ ° c i F E g° ° m O Y f - o ° ° 2 2 2 VOLUME 71 OF SURVEYS PAGE 58 y2 �_ - Go � vnbj �FOb '�'' P O O 0 A , ry O<, m O - •-:""""'"-----NH 2 n p' O �yR n°cn ~ o o c- M V' 2 ,n 0 ,.A, V H O n `\ ti R V'. ,Un 2 A A,, s a o , -, LOG ITEM s3 T� £ n T p U, 2 --_,..1. U `Pp `\ao n` ,^ # '0 4 2 a ° O . U O ti Page j ofd RAN NOLO r h----A., .1111r-jHo 0 cowl. ,Nf A 4, 30Vd 30A +r '' D z W N q q U n n v ay nr manOa frnAi� im iGa2� h22 �Y�Z' 2 O On02° mA<2 xax vjOZpr ^IO ,,y;O °: 2r �OOy ° 33 2 mom Aomao ,'^`n Gmy° 2 iF)- A"io oAo o> o�n�,n max"' ��so �° n� g�xs �an '^� scv� A 2i mpp Am n- a 'xa ''°n j m 'r" 2i r,'jOC pLO! �2 OgA Frno �^2r.m F<2 o ,n r.'c ini ari4 n2 0= q°L^ y-A.o v, �2°= imA °gin ionc2i mo a� tom° A.`^.,m A o n n�,i`t00tn m m mm�m 2= r2; 2x Am • ta,-3s,A2� mhE ,n,? U� AO p„aN Zmi2 5�= pp O �_ ~np AOm- 2 m §,ig Ov,AV, A2 o a r-z°a �2 ,IA ors$ ,aa „,K my y2 z 2 .,,t, pA N,.z .3On „,a3 mopF oAv,s Lm °am 2�§° mAO �P' �. ADn O mi�O p p OV,� arm ',--1O' r°cF Gy p ,:-., i nAiam2 Ati �l°O A ^�p ;ii grtiWq �p Op � �Fa =mti 2 n m< 2 h., § er ptir G� O Q zm”' °, i = a ,5 Roan; m�z ;bo 'noire om�°, ,pion o �S, kThoA a`o '^�2 m o �y o �� ? Ga ,Aa 0 A�o3 m h z1c0 i'32 2 TA U1 °r m ° 04= U� A ,a n 4 z„'2� yam_ hz2 -ivsi��11° :a �a4o "in 2 nay oi ii°. ("� -�2.A si n 2A O 2 ,q4-6- p-.OZ nnm �-� mo p Al rcg. ;'� °", =gz O cA'^ � �m ao �, LA' `^° off'" 77° mope ,,v, „� A pA;OAO � y2s z m��a ��-, �xco ii, °me2i 2 n irr;1 Ham o f L 02 Z'am n O ;mmp FPS �A2 6" oZ° 'i L;iii n2! 1-ra r-1 m Om 2 m �2 I (�TI�J 2R F r r p cn A O ° � p "°i OSh _n A 2m _ , ,....__ hnm, ,, O x ! O , ,, , ,...z.. O�pry 00 H r O �C T O J. vZ (n :tag Y\ O �/J :Aipa ' T y'a'oio 'V F�.il g o<BOg 2 4 p-m g cI , Z 3 Q B4)- ;°iT �l ( ) 35533 O':A ^�^ 2 c.,- i 2 likl -ry \ I y o�n -minme ;51 m b �y00O 11.4r 1:1 y C44/4, y 2 ?Ii ~I °4 N ;h1. O i Co gzx coo CO } \ i g. L TEM 52° a , OG our I ■ 3odd ion • Aa RF _ ill!! n n x-Rio;g� 2 I1HH a nF2 o.< rnm2 2 � F 2^�;Y m 2 mg„zi ! '7 p ;� z ,n o �,.;jmA � _ � .-.. 32 2 u, flfl o ",DO xo� z oS�y° �-ipo n ,.kj�A 2A< c� �- A�rn 2n,o2i,�� 2 C�n�ti� � o mn n�' 002��m° di:":' 12 4 2p���aS�-(° 3°ov, °'n fyAm -ory=m n m '2mn2 22 2aAr�.�°����S a°maroi no m°2ir°?tt i " zo��O g �anm°�` s A<zn�2"A-a, p2c�in 0Z°� n - 0 0;` oho<t�r$�'= =A?° A p?NT< i h O° m FIA< cti, °020ms�me m01j v",C1 $° eA Q" i t2A^ 2`� v^"�� 6-,>2 „, 2 v, "o � o " � ^+ °o� maAO .. o°can t -_, C'io�;P ,,,oAt� v, n`A^`�. '� Ii'IL OH'° iao� 2n, rt2m ? v� O ti�' ymn2 nm> A pn�n�rra-;cm2 0: Xm ir�„� yi2ti "� o�2�n' �in2 �O� av2i v' 2 z o°�' m2m,n'!^�A��� P!'cn, b A�oA oAz ti moo.vi �_° m L rri O �''zi 2� 2 n,ti �, 11 y0yt c om`�'2'o�Z�� ��a _,........:-....., c,.•. oo aA �mOi °ac0 cos ril ST �° n F i "� _' yt2r 11r Ark A �+ ( u� t,'`� °2 I�Z 9.s r>< C -CSF ; cn ill■ $,..' tCT ��. '^tit`° 2 a` £, l�ry P., n F. n -� t' a O C p.)Nr� 0 o m y o N ° _ . 1!; °E A . �� a Imo pacc,`�1V1 Ir1g % A e . x ix 1).- S i c i o i rF ti O 'n A A ° c c o :� oa ~ °z < p a A g �. P Z i -v_ ° s o Z�p z < A 2 A i oA ' L F , f, N. v l g ? V .. c = o A o S F o ^Ai■'z, U Af m 0 " o a S CC ° n Al' n F , 2 ^2 1# o -°,n co i x r _ c>oo p c A , mo ; o m U 2 2 m , �`/ N n + ..yl 1 i c A CO _. , � -rte q:' n LOG ITEM o z 0 v _ # (© -. 3 of. - . --- 0(v l0L0(\S/2 k jel Cscm(. a o{-�t- - // ,.S per- p-ed- Icy - g - f1 one could get ahoTclofthe crew.Next, I contacted the Forest Service ranger station in Quilcene to notify either my husband or self when the crew was located. Next, I contacted the Sheriffs Office to alert them of the situation. Thanks to the officer who knew just how to handle a panicking parent and made me feel that the communication problem was in good hands. Yes, we absolutely need a phone tower for South County. On June 2013, two weeks after school let out, a young girl died on top of some mountain in Quilcene from a vehicular incident.The child languished for two hours while her friend ran three miles before getting phone service.Yes, we absolutely do need a new phone tower. My friend on Blueberry Hill, you do not live on an island.You are part of a large community calle-Jefferson Quilcene needs County.And most of us us phones. ELIZABETH J HNSON phone tower . Center This one goes out to the whin- ers from Blueberry Hill. Have you folks found your thrill? Apparently this group finds a new AT&T tower annoying in their neighborhood. My family lives in Center, and we have a student who attends the Quilcene School. Our LG phones were no good there, so we have had to add AT&T phones.We do the pre- paid on all our phone service. This summer, we had a scare when our child was working on a trail crew in. the Olympics. My phone messages registered that she was trying to get ahold of me. The crew usually worked in "out of service" areas, so I wasn't surprised when neither our child or the crew boss answered their phones.At that point,I contacted the Pacific Trail Association in Sedro- Woolley who were the supervising agency.They'texted-m--e back that no 105 1 . . Colleen Zmolek From: Kristen Larson <kristen.larson©wirelesscounsel.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:15 PM To: Colleen Zmolek Cc: Kimberly Spongberg; Donna Barrett; Breanne Mocaby Subject: Re: CASE# MLA13-00116 requested information Attachments: AT&T License WPWU989.pdf; AT&T License WPWV527.pdf; AT&T License WQJU645.pdf; AT&T License KNLF247.pdf; AT&T License KNLG843.pdf; AT&T License KNLG844.pdf; AT&T License KNKN210.pdf Good afternoon Colleen, I'm following up on Kimberly's conversation with you on October 3, and on my VM messages this past week to provide the information you requested. I've not heard back from you, but I'm hoping the attached copies of the FCC licenses for the proposed project are in a useable format and contain the information responsive to your request. The FCC call signs and signal types for the proposed project are: KNKN210 (850/Cellular) KNLG844 (1900/PCS) KNLG843 (1900/PCS) KNLF247 (1900/PCS) WQJU645 (700/LTE) WPWVS27 (700/LTE) WPWU989 (700/LTE) On the matter of FAA review of the proposed project,the FAA has not issued a letter because the Airspace Report (previously submitted to the Department) indicates that no registration of the proposed installation is required. Thus, no FAA or ASR/FCC determination has been made here. Of course, a fair number of documents and additional information has been submitted to the County on this project, and there may be additional questions on the information submitted. Could we possibly schedule a brief meeting with you in the near future to ensure the County has received everything it needs to consider the application and that all outstanding issues have been addressed? Please don't hesitate to let us know what more we can do to support efforts of staff here. Thank you for your time and review, Un LOG ITEM OCT 1 4 2014 Kristen. _ (0 40 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY pnne Of. DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Kristen J. Larson Busch Law Firm PLLC 93 S.Jackson St. #75604 Seattle, WA 98104-2818 425-628-2665 Office 608-469-7353 Wireless 206-327-9049 Fax kristen.larson @wirelesscounsel.com www.WirelessCounsel.com From: Kimberly Spongberg<K.Spongberg @velocitel.com> Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM To: Donna Barrett<D.Barrett @velocitel.com>, Kristen Larson <kristen.larson @wirelesscounsel.com> Cc: Breanne Mocaby<B.Mocaby @velocitel.com> Subject: Bangor Canal_BR0266 Update re LU review- 2 items requested by the Planner Hi Donna and Kristen — I just received a call from the Jefferson County Planner, Colleen Zmolek. Colleen let me know that she is still reviewing the materials provided by Kristen, and though she does not have a date for final review completion, she has a goal for mid-November. Also, Colleen asked me to provide the following: -the FCC FRN registration number - help with the FAA recommendation report, (regarding the FAA recommendation requiring no lighting of the tower). Colleen said that typically, she is provided a letter not a report. Kristen, please let me know a time that works best for you to discuss these items. Thank your i111 /0 Kimberly LO G ITEM OCT 1 4 2014 Page qf JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • Kimberly Spongberg Site Acquisition - NSB Velocitel, Inc. 4004 Kruse Way PI, Suite 220 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 913-940-0780 Cell 503-636-2500 x221 503-636-2501 Fax k.spongberg(a7velocitel.com www.velocitel.net The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. LOG rTEM �� � �� �' f�_ 1► � � OCT 142014 3 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ULS License - 700 MHz LoveBand(Blocks C, D) License -WPWU98•T&T Mobil... Page 1 of 1 Ficc Federal FCC Home I Search I Updates i E-Filinq I Initiatives I For Consumers ( Find People Communications —3—z-74w; Commission Universal Licensing System _..._... .�, FCC> WTB> ULS> Online Systems> License Search FCC Site Map ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWU989 - M HELP AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC { New Search Ck. Refine Search Return to Results t:::l Printable Pape Reference Copy „�iky,Map License �J MAIN ADMJIN Call Sign 'WPWU989 Radio Service WZ - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market EAG706 - Pacific Channel Block D Submarket 0 Associated 000716.00000000- Frequencies 000722.00000000 (MHz) Dates Grant 01/24/2003 Expiration 06/13/2019 Effective 02/12/2014 Cancellation 1st :06/13/2019 2nd 1st 2nd FRN 0014980726 Type Limited Liability Company (View Ownership Filing) q AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 P:(855)699-7073 Richardson, TX 75082 F:(972)907-1131 ATTN Reginald Youngblood E:FCCMW @att.com Contact yj x 4 P AT&T Mobility LLC rn Michael P Goggin P:(202)457-2055 l E �V 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 F:(202)457-3073 Washington, DC 20036 E:michael.p.goggin @ att.com I ATTN Michael P. Goggin 'J{!, 014 f LOG ITEMJ 1/0,6, JEFFERSON COUNTY f�I �L DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT T http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/U1sSearc c nse.Jss � -y=2479928 10/6/2014 ULS License - PCS Broadbalkicense -KNLG843 -New Cingular WiSs PCS, LLC Page 1 of 2 Fcc Federal FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filinq I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People ), Communications "44i Commission Universal Licensing System FC > WT E3 > ULS > Online Systems> License Search FCC Site Map ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLG843 - New Cingular [a HELP Wireless PCS, LLC Cts New Search Q Refine Search Return to Results a Printable Pane [3 Reference Copy Map License MAIN ADMIN MARKET Call Sign KNLG843 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market BTA356 - Port Angeles, WA Channel Block E Submarket 0 Associated 001885.00000000- Frequencies 001890.00000000 (MHz) 001965.00000000- 001970.00000000 -- , Grant 06/13/2007 EXpiration 04/28/2017 Effective 02/13/2014 Cancellation Buildout Deadlines ,11,1"-rs..;"4dOIC 1st 04/28/2002 2nd - 1V, Notification ;.° '4■ 1st 05/02/2002 2nd IIrid- FRN 0003291192 Type Limited Liability Company (' itfzv coinen,1)1L) Filing) /47f Viti „ APS,. Licensee 7,rovo- „.°1oo=",, % !,,,lor:•t000.T.4seokk40.too 4,4; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 P (855)699-7073 Richardson, TX 75082 F (972)907-1131 ATTN Reginald Youngblood E:FCCMW@att.com Contact ;;VI-zw •' AT&T MOBILITY LLC --- ECEI tg Michael P Goggin P:(202)457-2055 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 F:(202)457-3073 \,t) JEFFERSON COUNTY Of COIYIMUNITY DEAL OPMENT http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/U1sSearch/licensejsp?licKey=10212 1 4 2014 10/6/2014 ULS License PCS Broadba.icense -KNLG843 -New Cingular Wills PCS, LLC Page 2 of 2 Washington, DC 20036 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com ATTN Michael P. Goggin Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Mobile Type Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. , ....>>... '..... "r Fir..... .$ .. . Demographics Race Ethnicity Gender ULS Help ULS Glossary- FAQ - Online Help -Technical Support- Licensing Support ULS Online Systems'CORES- ULS Online Filing - License Search -Application Search-Archive License Search About ULS Privacy Statement -About ULS- ULS Home Basic Search By Call Sign = ELL I Wireless I ULS I CORES Help j Tech Support Federal Communications Commission Phone: 1-877-480-3201 445 12th Street SW TTY; 1-717-338-2824 Washington, DC 20554 Submit Help Reauest ETVE LOG ITEM oCT 4 2014 Page of JEFFERSON COUNTY EPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVEEOPMENT http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=10212 10/6/2014 ULS License - 700 MHz Lovill3and(Blocks C, D) License -WPWV524IDAT&T Mobil... Page 1 of 1 FCC Federal FCC Home Search 1 Updates 1 E-Filing 1 Initiatives 1 For Consumers 1 Find People (. ; Communications `. .>- ' Commission f ° ,. z ,• A Universal Licensing System FCC> WTB> u', > le Systems > License Search FCC Site Mao ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWV527 - W HELP AT&T Mobility II, LLC ct% New Search ck Refine Search Eip. Return to Results a Printable Pane Et Reference Cony „ir, Man License MAIN ADMIt+I Wr * Call Sign WPWV527 Radio Service WZ - 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) Status Active Auth Type Regular m1 i Market g 4 , Market CMA693 - Washington 1 - Channel Block C Clallam Submarket 0 Associated 000710.00000000 Frequencies 000716.00000000 (MHz) 000740.00000000- 000746.00000000 1 . • a : ..,', g -Dates ' 3 vt * .. „ : ` Grant 01/24/2003 Expiration 06/13/2019 Effective 02/11/2014 Cancellation Buildout Deadl'i st t° �L r ', si'�Y° 4 s3 yr0CS ! ";,;',';',''','W-1-;,i 1st 06/13/2019 2nd i / " ` 3 a it %,• r , .a ' r 1� ,/ r� /0,PA /r � 1st 2nd v .7;, ,,,,ii. somas„, a .i,,.,.., i .galled r.ft t ,. , ,.'. �. 4,4v. ..< , i-ua ,-4,,,,,s IIIIIIIJIIZIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII FRN 0016982233 Type Limited Liability Company (View Ownership Filing) AT&T Mobility II, LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 P:(855)699-7073 Richardson, TX 75082 F:(972)907-1131 ATTN Reginald Youngblood E:FCCMW @att.com Contact a t,,, .. „,,c.,,/..� s tea.>, .4 AT&T Mobility LLC i I Michael P Goggin P:(202)457-2055 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 190 F:(202)457-3073 OCT 1 4 2014 LOG ITF i ,\\ Ict 4 II JEFFERSON COUNTY w"_ri.. r�// of DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/UlsSear idense.js.. c ey=2480272 10/6/2014 ULS License - PCS Broadballik,icense - KNLG844 -New Cingular Wiles PCS, LLC Page 1 of 1 roc Federal FCC Home 1 Search 1 Updates I E-Filinq ' Initiatives 1 For Consumers 1 Find People communications, iv „ Commission - Universal Licensing System FCC > WTB > ULS > Online Systems> License Search I CC Ste Map ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLG844 - New Cingular la HELP Wireless PCS, LLC Ck. New Search O Refine Search [3, Return to Results a Printable Pane 14,1 Reference Cony Map License MAIN ADMIN ilt:!EtE11111 Call Sign KNLG844 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular -- Marker Market BTA356 - Port Angeles, WA Channel Block F Submarket 0 Associated 001890.00000000- Frequencies 001895.00000000 (MHz) 001970.00000000- 001975.00000000 Grant 04/16/2007 Expiration 04/28/2017 Effective 02/13/2014 Cancellation it 1ItP 1.04t4;#"4k:g4:- 1st 04/28/2002 2nd Noulip,atton 11.+ „ 1st 04/30/2002 2nd Itt 4-e2 11111121111111•11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 FRN 0003291192 Type Limited Liability Company (View Ownership Filing) Licensee ,;•;"t, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 P:(855)699-7073 Richardson, TX 75082 F:(972)907-1131 ATTN Reginald Youngblood E:FCCMW@att.com jsm#4,0,0 W4% 6 N 7 •wf„, contact AT&T Mobility LLC Michael P Goggin P:(202)457-2055 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 F_L(202)457-3073 OCT 1 4 2014 LOG If EM JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 1)i‘, ' of DEPT.O COMM http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/U1sSearch/license.jsp?licKey=10213 E 1U0NIPI/6/D2E0VE1L4OPMENT • ULS License - 700 MHz Lo Band (Blocks A, B & E) License - WQJO5 -AT&T M... Page 1 of 2 F _ ( (}} Federal' �+r��p�y� FCC Home Search Updates I E-Filing Initiatives For Consumers I Find People , h Universal Licensing System FCC> WTB> ULS > Online Systems > License Search FCC Site Man ULS License 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) License - WQJU645 �HELP - AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC New Search Os. Refine Search [3, Return to Results a Printable Page lia Reference Coov .r,Mao 1 License MAIN ADMIN E This license has pending applications: 0005799650 Call Sign WQJU645 Radio Service WY- 700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks A, B & E) Status Active Auth Type Regular Market "° fps F " �. �,�;tia i . ,�ems,. ,,,.. Market CMA693 - Washington 1 - Channel Block/ B Clallam Submarket 0 Associated 000704.00000000- Frequencies 000710.00000000 (MHz) 000734.00000000- 000740.00000000 dated s r417)! Grant 01/06/2009 Expiration 06/13/2019 Effective 02/12/2014 Cancellation bull; • ULS License - 700 MHz Loll"Band(Blocks A, B & E) License - WQJ•5 - AT&T M... Page 2 of 2 AT&T Mobility LLC Michael P Goggin P:(202)457-2055 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 F:(202)457-3073 Washington, DC 20036 E:michael.p.goggin@att.com ATTN Michael P. Goggin Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Mobile Type Regulatory Status Common Carrier Interconnected Yes Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. Demographics Race Ethnicity Gender ULS Help ULS Glossary- FAO - Online Help Technical -,,. i sin po p -Technical Support- Licensing Support ULS Online Systems';-ORES- ULS Online Filing- License Search -Application Search -Archive License Search About ULS Privacy Statement- About ULS- ULS Home Basic Search By Call Sign = ;,,..., FCC I Wireless I ULS ' CORES Help ( Tech Support Federal Communications Commission Phone: 1-877-480-3201 445 12th Street SW TTY: 1-717-338-2824 Washington, DC 20554 Submit Help Request LOG ITEM ocT 1 4 201 4 X010 1EFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNVN DEVELOPMENT http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3069541 10/6/2014 'ULS License - Cellular Licerili KNKN210 -NEW CINGULAR WIRE#S PCS, LLC Page 1 of 1 FCC Federal FCC Home Search Updates I E-Filing I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People 4rC1C1Bi� n f Universal Licensing System FCC> WTB > ULS > Online Systems> License Search FCC Site Map ULS License Cellular License - KNKN210 - NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS WHELP PCS, LLC (t New Search a.% Refine Search ' Return to Results a Printable Page Fi:s Reference Copy r;, Map �J License MAIN ADMIN LOCATIONS Call Sign KNKN210 Radio Service CL- Cellular Status Active Auth Type Regular Mark, ,, y, /,,, Market CMA693 - Washington 1 - Channel Block 'A (View Frequencies) Clallam Submarket 0 Phase 12 ates Grant 09/29/2009 Expiration 10/01/2019 Effective 02/13/2014 Cancellation 04/09/1995 None FRN 0003291192 Type Limited Liability Company (Viev Ovinershio Filing) fi+ffr Licensee r s '° NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 P:(855)699-7073 Richardson, TX 75082 F:(972)907-1131 ATTN Reginald Youngblood E:FCCMW @att.com AT&T MOBILITY LLC Michael P Goggin P:(202)457-2055 �j v 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 F:(202)457-3073 Washington, Michael P. 20036 n E:michael.p.goggin @att. o\ Zp14 ()CJ Gip 1F-k-p?" LOG ITEM of http://wireless2.fcc.gov/U1sApp/U1sSearch/liCense.js • ley 1,' 'f/ 10/6/2014 License -PCS Broadbailllicense -KNLF247 -NEW CINGULA•RELESS PC... Page 1 of 1 Fcc Federal FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filinq I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People < • Communications - Commission „ # /m. , , • ,, Universal licensing System r ruircy, , „ CC> WTB > ULS > Online Systems> License Search FCC Site Man ULS License PCS Broadband License - KNLF247 - NEW CINGULAR IM HELP WIRELESS PCS, LLC Ck New Search Q Refine Search D., Return to Results a Printable Page Et Reference CODY .Av),Man License MAIN ADMIN MARKET LOCATIONS Call Sign KNLF247 Radio Service CW - PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular Market Market MTA024 - Seattle Channel Block A Submarket 15 Associated 001850.00000000- Frequencies 001865.00000000 • (MHz) 001930.00000000- 001945.00000000 *it< TP Grant 05/31/2005 Expiration 06/23/2015 Effective 02/13/2014 Cancellation t;%, 41 1st 06/23/2000 2nd 06/23/2005 .;=t„".4" • (' NOtificatf9fDateS , 1st 06/20/2000 2nd 09/09/2002 FRN 0003291192 Type Limited Liability Company (View Ownership Filing) NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 3300 E. Renner Road, B3132 P:(855)699-7073 Richardson, TX 75082 F:(972)907-1131 ATTN Reginald Youngblood E:FCCMW@att.com AT&T MOBILITY LLC Michael P Goggin P:(202)457-2055 \)t 1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000 F:(202)457-3073 LOG ITEM http://wireless2.fcc.gov/1.11sApp/U1sSearch/license.jsp?licKey=8924 10/6/2014 Colleen Zmolek From: Ken Shock<sailboi @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 3:17 AM To: njohnson @ptleader.com Cc: Terri Naughton; Keith Morris; Ray Ortmann; bonnie @storyboardproductions.com; Carl Smith; Colleen Zmolek; Stacie Hoskins; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Subject: Re: Proposed cell tower Coyle Road Attachments: Cell Tower Powerpoint with Picture.pptx Dear all In addition to the public testimony, the decision to not go ahead with the Water District Cell Tower location - was based on the attached power point document. Much of the information in this document applies to the ATT installation next to Blueberry Hill subdivision - I am therefore submitting this for the record, so this information can be considered in the DCD's decision P rocess: Regards, Ken Shock Blueberry Hill Lot#1 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Ken Shock<sailboi @gmail.com> wrote: Dear All Here is an example of responsive government, public hearings and public concerns voiced=people power. Will Jefferson County stand with it's people ? Regards, Ken Shock, Lot #1 Blueberry Hill Subdivision To All, Thank you for sharing your concerns about the proposed cell tower to be located at the Districts Reservoir#1 site. At its meeting held on October 21, 2014, the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 90 instructed the District's Lawyer to advise New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) that following the citizens' receipt of notice of New Cingular's (AT&T's) proposed use and concerns raised thereafter, King County Water District No. 90 has elected not to pursue further leasing negotiations of its property located at 18239 SE 136th, Renton, Washington, for use as a cell tower site in light of the impact to the community. Let me restate for simplicity,the cell tower lease negotiates for the Tank#1 site have been concluded and the District does not intend to put a cell tower at this site. Thank you for sharing your time and your concerns with KCWD90. Thawle You, Darce PetersovL cevterat Ntawager Q� 1 I . • K%wg Cou.wtu Water Di-strict No.90 425-255-9 000 425-277-4128 On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ken Shock<sailboi @gmail.com> wrote: Hello Nicolas Johnson - PT Leader I assume you got my voicemail last week. My family own lot # 1 in Blueberry Hill subdivision. My daughter and her children are to live there, and the house is almost complete - we have over $250,000 cash invested in this. ATT had a whole peninsula full of uninhabited forest land to chose from and they chose to locate adjacent to one of the nicest subdivisions on Coyle peninsula, and our property is the second closest home to their planned installation. Jefferson county have failed to protect us from this hazard to health and property value. Other jurisdictions have legislated these towers much further away from schools and homes Please take the time to listen to this. People now know about the health issue, that is why property values will take a big hit. http://youtu.be/v4HsxNG2-4M Thanks for taking an interest in our horrific situation. Ken Shock, Lot#1 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn <vhniederkorn @gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Johnson, I want to first thank you for being interested in the issues surrounding the proposed AT&T 200' cell tower within a few 100 feet of the residential neighborhood of Blueberry Hill and the negative impact such a monstrous tower would have on those living on Blueberry Hill. My husband, Jack and I purchased our log cabin at 265 Blueberry Hill for our dream retirement home. We planned to move to Blueberry Hill the end of this year but unfortunately Jack passed away before being able to enjoy our cabin in the woods. The whole reason we chose to retire on Blueberry Hill was the fact that we would be surrounded by the natural beauty and peacefulness of the untouched pristine forest which 2 a ( 3 ei will be forever destroyed by such an intrusive tower. The joy of knowing that a beautiful forest awaits me in my retirement is gone. I now will be forced by AT&T and the Jefferson County Department of Community Development to live next to a 200' cell tower which will loom over Blueberry Hill and be a constant eyesore to our neighborhood. Instead of the wonderful forest, I will now see 125 feet of tower reaching above the tallest 80 foot trees as I look out my window, walk my dogs and drive up to my cabin. This tower is devastating to the quality of life of those living on Blueberry Hill community. In reference to AT&T's response to comments: 1. Co-Location with existing tower JeffComm911: If you haven't discussed this option with Bryon Gunnerson, Gunnerson Consulting and Communication Site Services, you may want to contact him or read his report on the county's website since he came to a much different conclusion than At&T in regards to the feasibility of co-location on the existing tower on Coyle. 2.Visual Impact: The pictures/tower simulations speak for themselves.The visual impact of this tower on Blueberry Hill residents will be horrific. I believe these pictures alone should stop the tower from being located so close to an established residential community. 3. Search Ring: I do not believe for one minute that there is not another site that would meet the purpose of AT&T within the search ring that would not be so close to and devastating to an established neighborhood like Blueberry Hill. If you look at At&T's search ring, it extends a long way from Blueberry Hill and yet the 2 other sites that AT&T mentioned as alternate options that they considered were actually within the Blueberry Hill neighborhood. (216 and 356 Blueberry Hill). AT&T states that the CC&R's for Blueberry Hill negated these sites as options so they simply went next door so they would not have the same restrictions but unfortunately for those of us living on Blueberry Hill would have the same negative impact on Blueberry Hill. Luau 1 E . 3 # 1Q Page 3 of r3 • S 4. The proposed property is 20.46 acres. Why does AT&T have to place this awful tower only 478' from Blueberry Hill lot 6? Yes, this distance does meet the county's code but Blueberry Hill is in the country and nobody builds such as monstrous structure so close to neighbors in the country when there are miles and miles of other options. Is it because there is easy access to electricity and infrastructure? I believe that AT&T could move the tower much farther away from Blueberry Hill either on the same property or on another property within the search ring and not have such a negative impact on our little community. 5. Property values will drop significantly and the pool of potential buyers will also drop both of which will have a significantly negative impact on the financial security of the residents of Blueberry Hill. 6. It appears by AT&T's comment that the tower is still subject to "the administrative approval by the County Department of Community Development Director" Let's hope that the Director understands that this site is not appropriate for such an intrusive tower and that he has the strength and fortitude to deny the permit to such a powerful corporation as AT&T. Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss further. 808-896- 3394. Thank you for your time and consideration. Vicki I lutchison Niederkorn Future resident 01265 Blueberry I ill, ; , WA LOG ITEM # i0 4 e oft 0 3 I'VitrA 'A , i , . _ • , ,, 3 :` . E.. .1 +... Ain , , . .. s 11WWIIIII ...: ,,„,,,„„, . MOO• Mal L 0 M 0 0 MC a) C C\1 u) co co 0 R 8 f ct m 0 • 12 ,_. imit O z p 0 ° U ■ Ilim cp 1 z LOG ITEM 1 # 4 0 r 1 Page 3 of l 3 i • (., N cn a) r c u) 0 • 01 uN O O O O F O O QE ' � -0 O 12 Q a U) as TO Q C Coo ° v) 7_Q O 0 OQ O O O Via) a^ ++ C 0 4—, 2 4-;c0 (`;'2 (:),: . *I''.4 0 2 " co co g 2 a) :5 N O -I-a v E v " k a) C(1) BOO 0 v — a� o a - O 4-. 4 � z ca N ca (.47-13 0 N N O 4-I L.L Q a) ur chi),,t V 0 W a � O O O O . Cl) (Ni v p _c 2 O CO O 0_ ...c z C O . I- § .� A A LOG ITEM 0 0 L a) 4-. c m Q Cl)p U as 0 �_+ Co -0 •g >, 0 Q c) ca -t > Q a) 0. R c c)• ca a) Q > o = o -o a) D (n o L cl3 cm -c > co Cl) - oC - ac — Cl) L. ID CU O '§ -0 +_+ 0 E cn O 0 C Cl)' cn ._ L a) o Q -0 ca d F- Cl) co E 0 u L oo C) L U 0 o r' CI - (6 c (::' o a) t c _o O 0 C a) �4 -C V)- a) ÷, .°' 0 3 a) a� a� CO .E c6 _C c O 32' a) > •t O3 N N N C N >I n s O (� P U cn O '- C) C 0 3 a) Cl) v c[s 'i 0 v O ca p E o >, _ _ .0 G> >, c!) a' L O >' ' '3 0 `.1 0) O a) M = 2 p A L +r >+ — CD 0_ c — E C) " .0 (n y Q N O W W a a) X > N .. G) ,C -0 o D v V) a) O O N .(1) L- co G) 0- a) cm 0. = U Q >1 _, - a) c cp CO 2 - � m CU m 3 E 0. °r L N G) .V 0 a d � z a o a 1 � • • • • • • LOG ITEM #______I_Q.1- __, Page.._ ofJ3 • • Cl) L s (I) ■_ ro . i- a _ ta w v «' " 0 r 0 ,.., . ,,„ „, q E w LIE W ._ _ o' ,.= -3 0; a; , 1 0 , '` c, VI Pr) . ) co a� e 4„,,L ' 111 ° , V y UI p�. pro 1.+ A. V --2 et...,,,4„; ...,,,,,.0 '''''':.,V; ...4/,'Q 7,6**'‘rt‘ 7; oa i ` 'N = * O' '�,. O f- . . 7, v ° ; ... • 03 t < ° L c ,, _ ; ;"C s to . 4 W a" .' ' P L. ■ c t. v ' ai v. Utz, VI 0 c CO W s am LOG ITEM # 1Q-1 7, 13 v � of t • • U) O ' vi a) (a ca O •— a) `" O C 7 a) c N a) f 6 }; as O > a) v) _c o - U a) a) N L E N (6 > 5 U) . C `~ (a o C Q a) a) 'a I N o -0 a) .� L Q- c O o co co (B — O c }' a) ° C -a c� U) aa)) o i CO cn U W a) v v c 0- a) N O E c ._ o -0 -C ( O (6 (6 N N -o O C Q U p = 'L.,N C-a C C N O o O c a) U) c N a) _� (a ca Q N .� L ---� L � 2 C A-, o a) O C t6 -O L -0 E c a3.0 E ca U 0 "c ca a) N o n CO o W O N cA +_' O > U j a) a) N a) c6 c _c (a 0 O = c � N C Q (a +, 0) :«_, L- (6 N � .0 L O a) a) D a) -, 4 C OL (n Uo U -0 a) E 0 a) a) Q c C - a) 12 a) L _2 C C N v N 0_ d- a) c r = -0 j o L o C N N o E • O - N U) uj C }' N ca ~ o }, a) a) ca a) U a) C ° E a) .O !.= >' C c� C O U (a U c +� O N C O c� p U a) .Q O (� U) (a --, L �+— C > (6 Q co a) p "c (6 U L N p p 2 C a) X i Q C U C D c p N om-' co) OO E"' N N ` — as C C C (6 0 C u� a) E C O O o (� ,,., = C > C -0 N U X o) _c _c c >� � 2 .O > p N — Q Ll.! C — O U a) L to N cn U C > U (6 (13 k O) U) O p O N 0) >, w -0 L a) >, CD 0 co o L 2 L L c% C C cn C O a) N _c C C Q O (6 U O O 4 - >, co N O C u.,O = - a . cL a) O E a) E a) cn cn > C > a) (a — C U a) ( o " >, >, N -C C O J E o w C,.• to c6 o (a - - O cA O - L - �C (B -o to C O � a) a) — ..� - cn a) � cn U (6 U .4_,� a) CO_ i a) C 41) (6 L CD M N N a) > C U p C E -o a) a) a . W C (6 .� a) •> Q O O CO C C ry C m = CO I U) J = - . -, 0 .E co (/) _ _0 I ._ • . ,_� � i E ‹, ..,: V A'0,-•°,. ' , : i .-„, . r,i —, cry a; Cl) c � , 1 1 , 7:: it,r4,' '' '- ,:, a. _, s , .! 1,s„` � 91:1 J,411 'Ili , . 1r ;� ,,,,,,,,s s.i._-_ .,.. ;7* / ' ', .., "a -1S hS.l 70,4 "t4V °�7 � !t 1 � l '4#1/4i."„T11..j.)‘t ,°„,.''=-i,-ll''.,-” A,„.-.1 ;t1tieSEI (..°2!'„, IY Marc, E ,kt'', ,, ! .''' 'i.;') 1 t ai S F say_ . ?laipth --[^_ ir +X 't • -,I ,,„. , *,, .s, , , ..1 < . . LOG ITEM # 1b1 P qe.... o sof( 3 • 0 • O L aA a) • ++ . LL O E O +•• O O 4J LA }' +-' O N E c o = a) E a) D 0 N O 0 4O-' - •`) v) +-+ = -C c6 L = 0 C a) 0 0 4- E 4 0 F- c U 0 v 15 2 -0 ) U Q o CU =CU Y 0 'D 40 L N CCI . - •t�A -0 a) +-+CU U 7• a-+ c a) a) CIL l"1 a a) a--+ 0 a1 N 8 C L o a) •- �„ +-+ o U f6 O �' fQ al -C > L +.+ a CU+ co N o a) 4-j 0 }; a) N E }' o -c C 0 O ° O a) a L rl c O v c _C d. a) N U _c a) — U .� N co tLO a) ca _ J +-+ `~ CU C a) tw c v ~ i i no p Q O 12 L C 0 - - L c a m a) m :73 v) -a ii -0 0 0.0 +-+ c L- +, N Q C 0 L E o 7' 0 C 3 0 c o V ` -- a) .a UI V a,, a) o v , -0 .o 0 V Y c v a) 0 v .-L7) (11 .L v a) = (B L U O v v c _0 a) W o 96 c L 5z c L ° o}, o c v o c Z ao •ca Cl.) a.+ v . }+cr) v a c a) O c O a) c L v) W a) o N N 4-1 a3 v v Q c °' cc N N O E c N a a) 0 C 0 N p c v ~ E O Qr-i a) — c o -c co c �, _o 0 U L CU I c a) v (0 +J v U i o o i= .c 7_. 0_ - aJ 0 1 - N J -0 t 0 L a) 0 L 0 L O C c ca v v -0 a) 0 '7.'. o O co a) Q, a) o a U c U 0 F- v L._ 1— 0 > 4- i..k.;G ITEM 101 S • Co .-r. , ...-,..r ----,. (I) , !I t.„. A• 4'''k .,. ,.- .. .. s .,. a5 A UV*,,. - ........ ,-",' •.. t•• ,,,, •. - .411.......,4 • :fit,"4.,-, • • • : 0 : .' f • • ,:i.,s, 9: ,••' • • - . . , 0 .° + ' - :''',..' . 0 ,* $4-,'Ai.igi • .4 :•• : ".,*:-',•-*-..' e,V, • • 4. .. , ..., . ...: -0 ...;I...4 „,,7 * t4,''''” • v• r"4 . , • . . - , 74' :•- U4'+ ' CZ i 1L7, Cl) a) , SIM= • ;:•. ,,$.4 ;:• ..\'':',:i..;',: • r Li— ,-,.,,,. . ..... * . , ..... . . i. ----„......,„. a) „ . ., 4 .4 ii . ... . O , - O .. . C O .„. .4.. ..,,...._ .. ,a.;:' O. ' . 4‘ Claikkiiiii ' • 1 t i'llot,,, . .. ... • ... . • • ■111 t . . • 4 =IMMO 1 *eit 1•: . a) IA: ''' • ir ' O . b , • ■. ii '.' 4 t. ..'h .C. LOG ITEIV # 10 7 . . '"-- - - /0 of/ • • o, W 0) O ..0 2 O -C `~ CO c co a). o>, .r.2, __E... --. ==t1 42 2 > c 2 p � O O � p O L � O O yy-, c � > > .. >,% u) � � c� O °� O -- < 2 2 CZ U U a, .(n -U ii.ii -,E >, 0 o O O O A-► CO a) _c - O M U " O L O c� T1) E >, CI W a) cn o cn -t-i; 22 cn O N CO N— LOO ITEM # /07 P.F.-' _ 1 ( ( 3 S • 0 N k ,, w • *' . 4, ' ' ..' , ,* . • , a A.... ,., . ..., , i ,• ,-. „ ,,,, .. , *.. . 1. , . -,;;-•-,., • t , Al.,,„.. '4, ,,,,,,,,i...m,..,v. . I. 4 , - ... , - - - - - . , ..,b, 'I ' ,6. . .. -, T , 1 ti.0,1;• is ili, . , ' ° r - ,1, ,` ft I LOG ITEM i01--- of.13. page_O--- - • 0 C as C U 0 O ° ■■ o - u) Y O O — ID C To L E E O L \ ^C W-, = . C U) Ti • 0 • • • U) O O C 0 .• C O N _A N — C ,o E O E _o (n ... 0 a) ca L C • W, W`` W`` O• C i C 2 O O O O U i i ■ar I i iI (n •Inn U c.)- C N N U) 4) p O U) N co E I- . ! C L •• O N O O N C• O L a o L O• •i• i C • _C • O I U o L 2 N N O '- C 4) U �/� N C E O O I ♦/� C N ÷3' o U (a O C C ' • • 4) "� O L • CO O I C C N O O O C I o X Q) a) C!! N N � O 2 O O _ ÷E'. ♦�/ O N • ca Cl) o E a) E -- C ° O L C 't 0 O N (E . O N O C 0 • U C i \ E • 4) (a O O C i ^U) L O C U a) O C 0 N 'L n) W .'22 O U 'L c • '� U N A+ O > O E N • U \ W U C co L O • 0 (� O p C V/ V�J V—J L C 2 0 \ •• U Y O F (a U O U to > O E C O U O E U � C (a Y W O N • Y O 0 L 5... _ U O U N (C4 U ` O O 'C L N O_ O (a 0 2 OC O 4) 06 1E U) ° 11111 E 4- 4_, 4- --' ,J y■' .1--' +� y--, i-, 4--' 4--' — y-. .- ' .,-� ..J -. � +' O +-� — +� — — +-' -C -C -C 3 ofd..._ • Printed on 10-31-14 Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996 \.r \\ our 312014 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP' (7)Preservation of local zoning authority (A)General authority Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions re- garding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service fa- cilities. (B)Limitations (i) The regulation of the placement, con- struction, and modification of personal wire- less service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equiva- lent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instru- mentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local gov- ernment or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place,construct,or modify per- LOG ITEM ofd . �- Page 167 TITLE 47— LEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIO•EGRAPHS §332 sonal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evi- dence contained in a written record. (iv) No State or local government or in- strumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission' s reg- ulations concerning such emissions. (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this sub- paragraph may,within 30 days after such ac- tion or failure to act,commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.Any person adversely af- fected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. WECONEB OCT 3 1 2014 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOG ITEM Page of �. 1 • lN3Wd013A30 MINIM V103101d30 AINf103 N0S833131 Chapter 35 ilLOZ t E 130 The Telecommunications Act of 191 and Wireless Telecommunication• Ili I o i 35-100 Introduction In the Telecommunication Act of 1996,Congress"struck a balance between the national interest in facilitating the growth of telecommunications and the local interest in making zoning decisions"over the siting of towers and other facilities that provide wireless services. 360 Communications v. Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,211 F.3d 79, 86 (4th Cir.2000). While expressly preserving local zoning authority(47 U.S.C.5 332(c)(7)(A)),the Act requires that decisions denying wireless facilities be in writing and supported by substantial evidence (47 U.S.C. 5 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)).The Act also prohibits localities from adopting regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless services,or unreasonably discriminate against functionally equivalent providers. 47 U.S.C. 5 332(c)(7)(B)(i).The only complete preemption contained in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B) is found in subparagraph(iv),which preempts localities from regulating the placement,construction,and modification of wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions if those facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning emissions. Because section 332(c)(7)does not affect or encroach upon the substantive standards to be applied under established principles of state and local law, Cellular Telephone Company v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 1999),a locality retains its authority to: • Determine the appropriate height,location and bulk of wireless facilities. Virginia Code 5 15.2-2280(2). • Allow wireless facilities,by special use permit,subject to suitable regulations and safeguards. Virginia Code 5 15.2-2286(A)(3). • Deny applications for special use permits if the requisite findings for the granting of a permit cannot be made. See, e.g., County of Lancaster v. Cowardin,239 Va. 522,391 S.E.2d 267 (1990). • Deny applications for special use permits if the proposed uses are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. National Memorial Park,Inc. v.Board of Zoning A ealr of Fai ax Coun 232 Va. 89,348 S.E.2d 248 1986 . f 8 pp f I � ( ) • Prohibit uses,including wireless facilities,within certain zoning districts. Resource Conservation Management,Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Prince William County,238 Va. 15,380 S.E.2d 879 (1989). Of course,the exercise of this authority must otherwise comply with state and local land use laws,and may not violate the limitations set forth in section 332(c)(7)(B). See T-Mobile Northeast,LLC v. Frederick County Board of Appeals, 761 F. Supp. 2d 282 (D. Md.2010) (court didn't reach Telecommunications Act issues because the county failed to comply with the requirements for a special use exception). Moreover,section 332(c)(7)(A)'s preservation of local zoning authority does "not alter the FCC's general authority over radio telecommunications granted by earlier communications legislation."Southwestern Bell Wireless,Inc. v.Johnson County Board of County Commissioners, 199 F.3d 1185, 1191 (10th Cir. 1999) (rejecting the assertion that preserving local zoning authority allows local regulation of radio frequency interference,and holding that such regulation is preempted by federal law and does not violate the Tenth Amendment). A locality may not deny a request for a modification to "an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station."Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act LOG ITEM 35-1 The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook pagea____of Kampmer/May 2014 • • of 2012,5 6409.This section is not part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,and is briefly discussed in section 35-800. Finally,note that the protections to the wireless industry found in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 apply to telecommunications services. Some federal courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that 4G service is not a telecommunications service entitled to the limited protections from local zoning authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, finding that 4G service is a broadband internet information service. See, e.g., Clear Wireless LLC v. Building Department of Lynbrook,2012 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 32126,2012 WL 826749 (E.D.N.Y.2012),and cases and Federal Communications Commission rulings cited therein.This distinction is not critical as far as implementation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is concerned because,as a broadband internet service,4G service is within the definition of personal wireless service facility in the Zoning Ordinance. 35-200 The decision must be in writing The requirement that a decision be in writing is easily satisfied.A letter stamped with the word"Denied,"or writing the word"Denied"on the wireless provider's application,satisfies the requirement.AT&T Wireless PCS,Inc. v. City Council of City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 1998);AT&T Wireless PCS,Inc. v. Winston-Salem Zoning Board of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 1999);Shenandoah Mobile Co. v. Frederick County Board of Supervisors,83 Va. Cir. 113 (2011) (minutes of board meeting suffice as a written denial).There is no need for a locality to issue a written rationale with factual and legal conclusions. Virginia Beach,supra; Winston-Salem Zoning Board of Adjustment, supra;Cellco Partnership v. Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,2004 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 27348,2004 WL 3223288 (W.D.Va. 2004) (explanation for denial is not required;board's adoption of resolution denying special use permit and sending applicant a rejection letter satisfied the Act).However,other federal circuit courts have taken a different view as to what kind of writing is required to satisfy the decision in writing requirement,and the United States Supreme Court may decide the issue in T-Mobile South v. Roswell, Georgia, certiorari granted May 5,2014,an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. If a locality elects to adopt a more formal written opinion to s pport its decision,it need not be adopted at the time of the decision. Winston-Salem Zoning Board of Adjustment,supra(rejecting any assertion that such a practice is pretextual). 35-300 The decision must be supported by substantial evide ce The United States Supreme Court has defined"substantial ev.•ence"to mean"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusio ." Universal Camera v.NLRB,340 U.S. 474,477,71 S. Ct.456,459 (1951). It requires more than a mere scintilla but le.s than a preponderance. 360 Communications v. Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,211 F.3d 79 (4th Cir. 2000). 6 reviewing the decision of an elected body,the courts will consider the"reasonable mind"to be that of a reasona•le legislator.AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 1998).The c•urts will not substitute their judgment for the governing body's but will uphold the decision if it has"substan '. support in the record as a whole." Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d at 430.The court's inquiry is to ask whether a reasonabl: legislator would accept the evidence in the record as adequate to support the governing body's decision. USCOC of a. RSA #3,Inc. v.Montgomery County Board of Supervisors,343 F.3d 262(4th Cir. 2003). Following is a list of some of the facts found by the courts in e Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,whose jurisdiction includes Virginia,to be substantial evidence under the Ac : • Facility's consistency with the comprehensive plan:The governing bo•y may consider whether the proposed facility is consistent with the comprehensive plan. In Montgomery County the location and design of the applicant's 240-foot tower did not conform to the comprehensive plan or the regional approach for wireless facilities.In Albemarle County,the applicant proposed to construct a 100-foot tower o n a mountain top,and the county's comprehensive plan and open space plan discouraged the construction of s ctures that would modify ridge lines and would contribute to erosion in mountainous areas. See also Crown C. 'le Atlantic,LLC v. The Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County,2002 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 22000 (E.D.Va. 2002) (docu ented concerns about the proposed height and 35-2 The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook Kamptner/May 2014 O • design of the tower and the evidence that the tower could be shorter and still achieve similar functional results,as well as the location of the proposed tower,adequately supported the board's finding that the application did not substantially conform to the comprehensive plan);T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors,672 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2012) (substantial evidence supported the board of supervisors'denial of a special exception for a proposed wireless facility where the county's relevant policy called for facilities that provided"the least visual impact on residential areas"where the facility: (1)would be located 100 feet from two of the neighboring residences;(2)would extend 38 feet above the closest tree;(3)would rise approximately 48 feet above the average height of the existing trees on the adjacent property; (4)was to be located on a site containing concrete pads,with only a few trees and a small,grassy area with dense brush;and(5) called for supplemental vegetation that,when fully grown,would not reach a sufficient height to minimize the tree monopole's visual impact). • Facility's compliance with applicable toning regulations.The governing body may consider whether the proposed facility complies with applicable zoning regulations. In Albemarle County,the proposed tower violated the zoning ordinance's limitations on a structure's proximity to neighboring lots.Although the tower's noncompliance with the zoning regulations was not the only evidence presented to justify the denial of the application,it was a significant factor in the court's substantial evidence analysis. In Montgomery County,the court held that the proposed facility's noncompliance with the county's zoning regulations was,in and of itself,substantial evidence. In T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Howard County Board of Appeals,2013 U.S.App.LEXIS 9079,2013 WL 1849126 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished),the court held that substantial evidence supported the board's fording that T-Mobile failed to make a diligent effort to site the facility on government property as required by the Howard County regulations where it made only telephone inquiries regarding siting the facility at a high school, the inquiries were poorly documented,and there was no evidence of any specifics of the request or a written proposal. • Height of the faci lity.The governing body may consider the height of a proposed facility.Montgomery County,supra (rejecting the argument that the board's decision was impermissibly based solely on aesthetic considerations in violation of Virginia law under Board of Supervisors of James City County v. Rowe,216 Va. 128,216 S.E.2d 199 (1975) since Virginia localities are enabled to regulate the size,height and bulk of structures under Virginia Code§ 15.2-2280(2));see T-Mobile Northeast, supra(county's denial of request to increase height of 100-foot pole an additional 10 feet to allow additional antennas was supported by substantial evidence that the additional height would increase the facility's visibility;substantial evidence included the reasonable concerns of a local residential community and the negative visual impact of the facility on a historic and scenic byway);New Cingular Wireless PCS v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors,674 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2012) (proposed 88-foot treepole/wireless facility in a residential neighborhood,which would extend 38 feet above the closest tree and 48 feet above the average height of the existing trees on the adjacent property was inconsistent with various provisions in the comprehensive plan and its zoning regulations regarding the siting and visibility of wireless facilities). • Design of the facility.The governing body may consider whether the design of a proposed facility is proper,to the extent the design implicates the structure's size and bulk.Montgomery County,supra(the board could properly consider the adverse impacts arising from the applicant's more visually intrusive lattice design). • Location of the facility:The governing body may consider the location of the facility on the lot,since Virginia law expressly enables a locality to regulate the location of structures under Virginia Code 5 15.2-2280(2). See Montgomery County,supra. • Impacts of the facility on surrounding neighborhood:The governing body may consider the impacts of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood.AT&T Wireless PCS,Inc. v. Winston-Salem Zoning Board ofAd ustment, 172 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 1999) (board considered visual impacts of tower on surrounding neighborhood); Celko Partnership v. Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27348,2004 WL 3223288 (W.D.Va.2004) _-_._.-- --- (concerns regarding property values,aesthetics,and fit within h'�{irrounding community are objectively reasonable and constitute substantial evidence AltHS.6iting.ithil board's decision);New Cingular Wireless PCS,supra (concerns that proposed 88-foot treepole)"wireless facility"do not h'1')i 1 j in a residential community such as ours"and would"disrupt the neighborhood a un et LCD LOG ITEM I jj SLOG L �J� t I` 35-3 _, A ��j ' The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook P g 9 e...a.„of. --- -' Kamptner/May 2014 • s • Where structures similar in appearance are regulated differently under the locality's zoning regulations:In T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, F.3d_(4th Cir.2014),the special exception for one of two facilities disapproved by the board of supervisors at issue in the case would have been an 80-foot tall bell tower that would house the antenna.T-Mobile contended that the board's aesthetic considerations were not legitimate because Loudoun County's zoning regulations would have allowed the church to construct a bell tower up to 74 feet in height for its own use,by right.The court rejected this argument and concluded that there was substantial support in the record for the board's action,explaining that: (1) the fact that a church bell tower without a wireless facility was allowed by right did not imply t I at citizens may not have legitimate objections to the tower;and(2) "any zoning decision reflects a balance be , een the benefit provided by the facility and the aesthetic harm caused,and thus a local government might be • • g to tolerate what is aesthetically displeasing for one type of use but not for another." These factors may be presented to the governing body in a n ber of ways,ranging from the testimony of members of the public,to staff reports,to the decision-makers'pe sonal knowledge.Widespread public opposition to the construction of a telecommunications tower also may provide .ubstantial evidence to support a local government's denial of a permit. See Virginia Beach,supra;Petersburg Cellular Partne hip v.Board of Supervisors ofNottoway County,205 F.3d 688 (4th Cir. 2000) (noting that public opposition,if based upon ratonal concerns,provides substantial evidence to deny a permit);Albemarle County,supra(determining that public op osition was a factor that contributed to a finding of substantial evidence); Winston-Salem,supra(same);New Cingular[Vi eless PCS,supra(47 nearby residents signed a petition in opposition and 21 attended the public hearing,and the citizen c.ncerns were reasonably-founded concerns were rational upon which the board could rely).However,public opinion does not mandate a particular local zoning decision under the Act.Montgomery County, supra. Public opposition,in whatever form it may be,must have at East some relevance and materiality to the decision before the governing body.Thus,in T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Ci Council of the City of Newport News,674 F.3d 380(4th Cir. 2012),the court concluded that substantial evidence did not s ipport a city council's denial of a conditional use permit for a wireless facility at a school where the staff report and he planning commission recommended approval of the facility,and at the city council public hearing 6 persons spoke • favor of the application but only 3 spoke in opposition.The court noted that two of the three who spoke in o position only expressed concerns about their property values;other comments in opposition included only brie passing comments about the tower's aesthetics, which were not relevant,concern that workers servicing the tower might pose a risk to students,which was speculative, and concern about potential health effects from the facility,which was not relevant under the Telecommunications Act. The governing body's known experiences also may be a sourc of substantial evidence.Nottoway County,supra; Roanoke County,supra("known experiences"would allow the boar to reasonably conclude that the tower would have an adverse impact on residential property values and would of be aesthetically pleasing). Neither the governing body nor the public is obligated to call„at its expense,experts to opine about the adverse impacts arising from a proposed wireless facility when its effects are reasonably apparent to non-experts. See Virginia Beach, supra("In all cases of this sort,those seeking to build will come armed with exhibits,experts,and evaluations. Appellees,by urging us to hold that such a predictable barrage m. dates that local governments approve applications,effectively demand that we interpret the Act so as al ays to thwart average,non-expert citizens. . ."). 35-400 A locality's regulations or decisions may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless service Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) forbids regulations that prohibit or ave the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services: The regulation of the placement,construction,and modi i cation of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumenta ty thereof. . . shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireles. services. 35-4 The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook Kampmer/May 2014 • S• •This provision provides protection for wireless providers who are unable to enter a new market,but are unable to show unreasonable discrimination by a locality. In order to establish a prohibition under section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II),a plaintiff must show: (1) that the locality has a general policy that effectively guarantees the rejection of all wireless facility applications;or(2) that the denial of an application for a single site is"tantamount"to a general prohibition of service. T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors,672 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2012);360 Communications Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79, 87-88(4th Cir. 2000).To make the latter showing,the wireless provider must demonstrate: (1) that there is an effective absence of coverage in the area surrounding the proposed facility;and(2) that there is a lack of reasonable alternative sites to provide coverage or that further reasonable efforts to gain approval for alternative facilities. T- Mobile,672 F.3d at 266.The effective absence of coverage does not mean a total absence;it may mean coverage containing significant gaps. T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Laudoun County Board of Supervisors, F.3d (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that T-Mobile had failed to show that there was a lack of alternative sites from which to provide coverage or that further efforts to gain approval for alternative facilities would be fruitless). "This cannot,however,be defined metrically by simply looking at the geographic percentage of coverage or the percentage of dropped calls. It is a contextual term that must take into consideration the purposes of the Telecommunications Act itself." T-Mobile Northeast, F.3d at . To establish that the denial of an application constitutes an effective prohibition,a wireless provider bears a heavy burden of proof to establish that the locality's regulation or decision has the effect of prohibiting service. T-Mobile, 672 F.3d at 268.Albemarle County,211 F.3d at 87-88. The simple fact of denial with respect to a particular site is not enough to establish a prohibition of wireless service.Albemarle County,supra. "[T]here must be something more, taken from the circumstances of the particular application or from the procedure for processing that application, that produces the`effect'of prohibiting wireless services."Albemarle County,supra.The wireless provider might show , that the locality has indicated that repeated individual applications will be denied because of a generalized hostility to wireless services.Albemarle County, supra. As noted above,the courts have recognized the"theoretical possibility that the denial of an individual permit could amount to a prohibition of service if the service could only be provided from a particular site,"but noting"that such a scenario `seems unlikely in the real world."'Albemarle County,supra. In T-Mobile Northeast,supra,the court concluded that T-Mobile could not meet its burden of proving that the board's denial of its application was"tantamount"to a general effective prohibition on services by showing only that the rejected alternative sites would not close the entire deficiency in coverage,or would not provide the same level of service as the proposed facility.Whatever those circumstances may be,the prohibition clause does not divest the locality of its discretion,under its site-specific review,to determine whether certain uses are detrimental to a zoning area.AT&T Wireless PCS,Inc. v. Winston-Salem Zoning Board of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 1999) (denial of tower in residential area on lot on which a historic building was located was supported by substantial evidence). In Montgomery County, the board denied the 240-foot tower sought by U.S. Cellular,but approved the construction of a 195-foot tower,which would provide wireless capabilities to a significant area of the county currently without quality wireless service.The court found no prohibition because the board's careful consideration of the application provided no indication that future tower requests would be"fruitless."The court concluded that "[f]ar from seeking to prohibit service,Board members indicated a willingness to ensure coverage for the entire target area.");see also, Cellco Partnership v. Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27348,2004 WL 3223288(W.D.Va. 2004) (no prohibition where board denied application for 127-foot tower and associated facilities where it had previously approved 12 special use permits for towers,wireless service provider already provided service to a substantial portion of the county,and the proposed facilities would duplicate services already provided);Crown Castle Atlantic,LLC v. The Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22000 (E.D. Va.2002) (no prohibition of service even though denial of 140-tower left significant gap in coverage because there was no evidence that further amendment to the current application or seeking approval for a facility at another location would be fruitless). A wireless service provider fails to demonstr, - _ _ . / - :.':y .rohibited the provision of wireless service where: (1) the locality has previ.us apt+.. e '�r� :,o . al6 , , •,�• especially those of the applicant; (2) the wireless service provider already pr. ,' hr.: :: . oug out the < - d(3) the wireless service provider LOG ITEM 'I \ OCT 3 1 2014 #,µ A 35-5 O� JEFFERSON COUNIY The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook (image. Kampmer/May 2014 ii�_ DEPT.OF COP!ti1UN1TY DEVELOPMENT S fails to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists. T-Mobile Northeast,672 F.3d at 268-269. Service that is less than optimal is not the prohibition of service. In New Cingular Wireless PCS v.Fairfax Coung Board of Supervisors,674 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2012),the court rejected the wireless service provider's assertion that the board's denial of a proposed 88-foot treepole/wireless facility had the effect of prohibiting service.The only evidence was the service provider's "mere reference to a competitor's prior experience in seeking to locate undescribed and unknown facilities in different parks."New Cingular Wireless PCS, 674 F.3d 277.The court noted that the service provider had-lot even submitted an application to the local federal park.The court also said that where,as here,the service provider claimed that the board's denial was tantamount to a general prohibition of service,it failed to demonstrate that further reasonable efforts to gain approval for alternative facilities would be fruitless.The service provider merely had argued that obtaining approval of an application from park authorities could"take years to process with no certain of outcome." In T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Howard County Board of Appeals,2013 U.S.App.LEXIS 9079,2013 WL 1849126 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished),the court rejected the wireless service provider's claim that the board's denial of a facility had the effect of prohibiting service where there was evidence tha there was some level of wireless coverage in the area,the provider failed to show that locating the facility at alternative sites would be fruitless,and the board had a strong record of approving conditional use permits sought by this .rovider. An FCC ruling prohibits localities from denying an applicatio where the sole basis for the denial is the presence of other wireless service providers in the area(known as e"one-provider rule"used by some courts).In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarifi Provisions of Section t 32(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review, et al., WT Docket No. 08-165. 35-500 A locality's regulations may not unreasonably discri inate among providers of functionally equivalent services Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)prohibits regulations that unreasona'ly discriminate against functionally equivalent wireless services (i.e.,PCS versus cellular or one wireless company versus another): The regulation of the placement,construction,and modi i cation of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumenta ty thereof. . . shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services . . . Congress intended that localities not favor one technology ov,r another,or favor one service provider over another.However,this limitation does not require that all wireless providers be treated identically.The fact that a decision has the effect of favoring one competitor over another, • and of itself,is not a violation of the discrimination clause.The discrimination clause provides a locali ' with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual,aesthetic,or safety concerns differently to the extant permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivale services. H.R. Conf. Rep.No. 104-458, 104th Congress,2nd Sess. 208(1996). The denial of an application for a wireless facility that is base. on legitimate,traditional zoning principles is not "unreasonable discrimination." T-Mobile Northeast LLC v.Fairfax 1 aunty Board of Supervisors,672 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2012).AT&T Wireless PCS,Inc. v. Council of City of Virginia Bea h, 155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 1998).For example,if a city council approves a special use permit for a wireless facility in . commercial district,it is not necessarily required to approve a permit for a competitor's facility in a residential dis ct. H.R. Cof. Rep.No. 104-458, 104th Congress,2nd Sess.208(1996). Unreasonable discrimination will not be found when the deni complained of was subject to a different application process than the approvals against which it is compar:d or when there is a difference in visual impacts or the aesthetic character of the individual facility. T-Mobile Northeast C v.Fairfax County Board of Supervisors,supra. (even where a prior application from a carrier for a 10-foot height extension,and an application for additional 35-6 The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook Kamptner/May 2014 • antennas,were approved on the same tower,the denial of a 10-foot height extension sought by T-Mobile Northeast was denied). 35-600 A locality must act on a request for a permit within a reasonable period of time Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) requires that a locality act on a request for a wireless permit within a reasonable period of time: A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place,construct,or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality,taking into account the nature and scope of such request. The Act does not define what a"reasonable period of time"is.However,in In the Matter ofPetition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review, et al., WT Docket No. 08-165,the Federal Communications Commission issued a declaratory ruling that a"reasonable period of time" for acting on a request for a wireless permit is 90 days for collocation applications and 150 days for all other applications.The reader should note that the declaratory ruling defines a"collocation"to include changes to the height of a facility not exceeding 10%,regardless of the procedure for approving such a change under the locality's zoning regulations. See of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission,569 U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) (upholding authority of the FCC to issue the declaratory ruling). 35-700 A locality may not regulate radio frequency emissions and interference or base a decision on those grounds One clear area of federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act is the regulation of radio frequency emissions and interference.With respect to radio frequency emissions,47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)provides: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. In T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, F.3d (4th Cir. 2014),the board of supervisors denied a special exception and a"commission permit"for the construction of a wireless facility. Its decision on the special exception included a number of legitimate grounds to disapprove the application,but it also included the possible negative effects of radio frequency emissions as a basis.The district court ordered that the facility be approved,and the board appealed.The Fourth Circuit affirmed,holding that the board's basis for its decision violated the prohibition against regulating on the basis of radio frequency emissions. In so holding,the court concluded: (1) the fact that the board gave valid reasons for its decision,which by themselves would have been sufficient to uphold the disapproval of the special exception,did not immunize the board from its violation of the statutory prohibition of using radio frequency emissions as a basis for disapproval;and(2) the fact that only the board's decision on the special exception,but not the commission permit,referred to radio frequency emissions as a basis for its decision did not validate the board's ultimate decision to disapprove the project because the two decisions were a single regulatory action. Attempts by state or local governments to regulate in the field of radio frequency interference have been found to be preempted by federal law.Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters Inc.,204 F.3d 311 (2d Cir.2000);Southwestern Bell Wireless Inc. v.Johnson County Board of County Commissioners, 199 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 1999). In Freeman,the court struck down a permit condition requiring users of a communications tower to remedy any interference with reception in homes in the area. In Southwestern Bell,the court voided a zoning regulation that prohibited wireless telecommunications towers and antennas from operating in a manner that interfered with public safety communications. LOG ITEM 35-7 The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook Kamptner/May 2014 • . I In In the Matter of Petition of Cingular Wireless, et al., WT Docket No. 02-100,the Federal Communications Commission issued a memorandum opinion and order in an administrative proceeding pertaining to Anne Arundel County,Maryland.At issue was a county ordinance requiring that,prior to county issuance of a zoning certificate, owners and users of telecommunications facilities had to show that their facilities would not degrade or interfere with the county's public safety communications systems.The FCC found that the county ordinance regulating radio frequency interference was preempted by federal law. 35-800 A locality is required to approve certain modifications to existing wireless towers and base stations Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 amends federal law to provide that localities are required to approve requests to modify existing wireless towers and base stations where the modification consists of collocating,removing or replacing transmission equipment and would not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station.This law became effectiv: February 22,2012. The FCC has issued guidance regarding Section 6409.As for hether a wireless provider must submit an application for a proposed change to a facility that the locality mu•t otherwise approve under Section 6409,the FCC concludes that Section 6409 "does not say that a state or local gov.rnment may not require an application be filed." Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Reli' and Job Creation Act of 2012,DA 12-2047,FCC (01/25/13) ("Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)"). Neither Section 6409 nor any other section of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 defines existing wireless towers or substantially change.The FCC attempted to p ovide guidance on these terms in its Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a),but its analysis will only be the subje t of debate in the near future. 35-8 The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook Kamptoer/May 2014 • • Colleen Zmolek From: Kristen Larson <kristen.larson @wirelesscounsel.com> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:16 AM To: Colleen Zmolek Cc: Kimberly Spongberg; Erin Lane Subject: CASE# MLA13-00116: Site Plan with wetlands/critical areas to scale Attachments: BR0266 Bangor Canal-RPCD_20141028 A-1 (wetland update).pdf Good morning Colleen, I've attached a site plan for the proposed wireless installation that contains wetlands/critical areas to scale, as requested. Please don't hesitate to email or call if additional information is needed,and thank you for your time in meeting with us next week. Best, Kristen. Kristen J. Larson Busch Law Firm PLLC 93 S.Jackson St.#75604 Seattle,WA 98104-2818 425-628-2665 Office 608-469-7353 Wireless 206-327-9049 Fax kristen.larson @wirelesscounsel.com www.WirelessCounsel.com LOG ITEM # 110 Page A of c ,1-F- ,-- 10 -• g v Li p 1''1 OCT 3 1 2014 L JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 Drawing:P:\2013\_Telecom\13-203 Smortllnk—880266 Bangor Cana{\Drowings\Construction\13203CD—Al—O.dwg Plotted: Oct 28, 2014—3:18pm N y '-1 m ay OzgO I ' ! aS 1 � m Mr- r- z I .,y 6'i A� O m z ,„ a w mO .. ; (F.00 •2 o C A y . o N it -Zi "...i„.) D Z !; -I -n -I'1 F,;, M A N to M O A A ;j< \ 1Z N me \ Z z 6> _ Z ,I, y I ♦ o^Z D o o y 6. m 0 r D V o z1 - ,, \ m 1, o lm § 1 �I \\ 4 11 € m I \ a 4%.\ fi O �AOy oa 1 m z 3 H m y �,8 \ rq I / \ \ - \ \ 1 \ \ /t v 1 n 1 S 1 „1:2?„,,. 1 ,,,, \\ \\ €\V f .., \ , v, t \ 1 `"ter o �nr I vv ,'f r` \ . O ..-. >E \ mx Cg7Jm m X x �. — I z z Z L : c'mZ A O I I �0y z D z N \: mm�n �' o m \ -aO I \ \ -1-om y 2Z \ Z t \ l / tn6F T N [_ )G) � /``\ \ \ \. Ix= AO \ I t .r m Z v p� \ -1 Z \ I t / Q A O rw I l Q r \ l / \ ^; arm I r7'/ / :9 m 1 ,._co \ �x m\\ !Is::''''''''.1• \ m rn • lr i J, ( \ \ \ It o I I i/ �( j i I 1 8711 /. i c�z I! ,fir / / O 481•-5" ti rll' q%; 1 r /1 / f r, TOWER SETBACK ,` E9 '� i 1��4 \\ UJ _1 —7./ - _ T _ , m o llj t� t to m n ! ":( � �§I n p mo .i 4; ai r,r �:kt D w y u>-�_I 396.XT' I NO/17'OTE �--.._.-,...._._.., _ (E/PROWERIYLJP( '_ 98.87 'mod►- € La "-'_"'.._1 _...._- 3'E 131 _' .^,�" OFD _ _ ■ 77 - e 1 N , ,..., ° i ..t, .T C ) I� \ \ "".r `� I n z L \ 1 • \ i c0iz z Q �a.J �^y �.N /� �\ --I n a (fell-) '.- v tl vv 0 Z_ o \ m 1RUE NORTH .- N \\ \ � Z n ,, r • . * ' " " W .+ m 0O0 l°# pilule P N r w N w w w m y = F D n z 3p nl k -cli w m m z O �� to i 9 ° O $ o � { � r 1 , a ®velocikel z m m-` 'N L' p 3 22 a' s: J �A��t D gm �g9 ccc nr= R p 81 � `�" j Z 0 D n x 4^� F f f g € "g "g a Z a �s complete wireless solutions g I g g g a n g g = 3 Your world. Delivered. m m a to O g 1� a p d g g g g \o= o 2... i v i i i' i i i i i m _ • S • • Colleen Zmolek From: Ken Shock <sailboi @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 6:33 PM To: njohnson @ptleader.com Cc: Terri Naughton; Keith Morris; Ray Ortmann; bonnie @storyboardproductions.com; Carl Smith; Colleen Zmolek; Stacie Hoskins; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Subject: Re: Proposed cell tower Coyle Road - Federal lawsuit going ahead Please add this to the info that the DCD will be using for their decision - it brings up a huge issue for Jefferson County - what are the county's liabilities in allowing this to go ahead ?? Distance from the tower to human habitation is a big issue, as the signal strength falls away in approximately inverse proportion to the Square of the distance. In other words the likely health risks increase approximately exponentially as you near the tower. The planned location is too close to our homes !! Sincerely, Ken Shock Lot#1 Blueberry Hill From: Cher [via Seattle Smart Meter Forum] [mailto:ml-node+s1012071n1383h62Ca n3.nabble.com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:11 AM To: ssshock Subject: [SSM Public] 29 brain tumor lawsuits move toward trial in Washington, DC Aug 11, 2014 Twenty-nine high-profile lawsuits brought by people whose brain tumors were caused by their cell phones are finally moving toward trial. Six of these cases were originally filed in 2001 and 2002. Many of the plaintiffs are no longer alive. On Friday, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg, in the D.C. Superior Court, admitted the testimony of five expert witness for the plaintiffs, and the 12- and 13-year-old cases will now move into the discovery phase. Each of the plaintiffs is asking for more than $100,000,000. There are 46 defendants including Motorola, Nokia, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Cellular One, Cingular Wireless, SBC Communications, Verizon, Vodafone, the Telecommunications Industry Association, the IEEE, ANSI, the CTIA, and the FCC. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth & Morganroth, a law firm in Birmingham, Michigan. For over a decade the industry and the plaintiffs have played tug-of-war with the oldest cases, sending them back and forth between federal and state courts, and fighting over whether the plaintiffs claims were preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In 2009 the D.C. Court of Appeals, in Murray v. Motorola (982 A. 2d LOG ITEM 764), ruled that the telecommunications companies could not be sued over 1 Pa9e._.cLof • • brain tumors caused by cell phones manufactured after 1996. But since all of these plaintiffs had used pre-1996 phones, their lawsuits were allowed to go forward. They were also allowed to go forward on their claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose information about the dangers of cell phones. These claims were brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. In December 2013 and January 2014, testimony was heard from: DR. SHIRA KRAMER, a Maryland epidemiologist; DR. MICHAEL KUNDI, professor of epidemiology and occupational health at the Medical University of Vienna; DR. VINI KHURANA, a neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University in Canberra; DR. IGOR BELYAEV, head research scientist at the Cancer Research institute at the Slovak Academy of Science in Bratislava, Slovakia; DR. WILHELM MOSGOELLER, professor and medical doctor at the University of Vienna Medical School's Institute for Cancer Research; DR. DIMITRIS PANAGAPOULOUS, founder of the Radiation Biophysics Laboratory at the University of Athens; DR. ABRAHAM LIBOFF, professor emeritus of physics at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan; and DR. LAURA PLUNKETT, pharmacologist and toxicologist in Houston. On Friday, August 8, 2014, the testimony of Drs. Kramer, Khurana, and Panagopoulos was disallowed. But the testimony of Drs. Kundi, Belyaev, Mosgoeller, Liboff, and Plunkett was admitted. They will testify at trial about "general causation," i.e. that cell phones can cause brain tumors. The lawsuits now move into the discovery phase, in which each side is compelled to produce documents and answer questions. This is the first time that the industry has had to turn over data. There will then be a fight over the admission of the testimony of witnesses on "specific causation," i.e. doctors and others who will testify that these specific cell phones caused these specific tumors. Friday's decision by Judge Weisberg allowed 13 of the cases, which have been consolidated in one action, to go forward. The other 16 cases are being tried separately, but the parties in those cases agreed to be bound by Friday's decision. In allowing the experts to testify, Judge Weisberg wrote: LOG ITEM 2 Page -�of - "Federal law is the supreme law oft a land, but there is no • constitutional provision that says federal facts are the supreme facts of the land. Federal law can preempt state law, but it cannot preempt scientific fact. The scientific truth, whatever it may be, lies outside of the FCC's regulations about what is "safe" or "unsafe." Arthur Firstenberg Cellular Phone Task Force If you reply to this email,your message will be added to the discussion below: http://seattlesmartmeterforum.com/29-brain-tumor-lawsuits-move-toward-trial-in-Washington-DC-tp1383.html On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Ken Shock <sailboi(a,gmail.com> wrote: Dear all In addition to the public testimony, the decision to not go ahead with the Water District Cell Tower location - was based on the attached power point document. Much of the information in this document applies to the ATT installation next to Blueberry Hill subdivision - I am therefore submitting this for the record, so this information can be considered in the DCD's decision process: Regards, Ken Shock Blueberry Hill Lot#1 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Ken Shock<sailboi @gmail.com> wrote: Dear All Here is an example of responsive government, public hearings and public concerns voiced=people power. Will Jefferson County stand with it's people ? Regards, Ken Shock, Lot #1 Blueberry Hill Subdivision To All, Thank you for sharing your concerns about the proposed cell tower to be located at the Districts Reservoir#1 site. At its meeting held on October 21, 2014, the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 90 instructed the District's Lawyer to advise New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) that following the citizens' receipt of notice of New Cingular's (AT&T's) proposed use and concerns raised thereafter, King County Water District No. 90 has elected not to pursue further leasing negotiations of its property located at 18239 SE 136th, Renton, Washington, for use as a cell tower site in light of the impact to the community. Let me restate for simplicity, the cell tower lease negotiates for the Tank#1 site have been concluded and the District does not intend to put a cell tower at this site. Thank you for sharing your time and your concerns with KCWD90. Thaws yo ix, LOG ITEM # ill 3 Page of. Aarceu Petersov, • • c,eweraL Mat/Laser King Cou.v,tu WaterAistrict No.90 425-255:9000 425-277-4128 On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ken Shock<sailboi(aigmail.com> wrote: Hello Nicolas Johnson - PT Leader I assume you got my voicemail last week. My family own lot# 1 in Blueberry Hill subdivision. My daughter and her children are to live there, and the house is almost complete - we have over $250,000 cash invested in this. ATT had a whole peninsula full of uninhabited forest land to chose from and they chose to locate adjacent to one of the nicest subdivisions on Coyle peninsula, and our property is the second closest home to their planned installation. Jefferson county have failed to protect us from this hazard to health and property value. Other jurisdictions have legislated these towers much further away from schools and homes Please take the time to listen to this. People now know about the health issue, that is why property values will take a big hit. http://youtu.be/v4HsxNG2-4M Thanks for taking an interest in our horrific situation. Ken Shock, Lot#1 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn <vhniederkorn@a,gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Johnson, I want to first thank you for being interested in the issues surrounding the proposed AT&T 200' cell tower within a few 100 feet of the residential neighborhood of Blueberry Hill and the negative impact such a monstrous tower would have on those living on Blueberry Hill. My husband, Jack and I purchased our log cabin at 265 Blueberry Hill for our dream retirement home. We planned to move to Blueberry Hill the end of this year but unfortunately Jack passed away before being 4 LOG ITEM # t Page_ of • able to enjoy our cabin in the woods. The whole reason we chose to retire on Blueberry Hill was the fact that we would be surrounded by the natural beauty and peacefulness of the untouched pristine forest which will be forever destroyed by such an intrusive tower. The joy of knowing that a beautiful forest awaits me in my retirement is gone. I now will be forced by AT&T and the Jefferson County Department of Community Development to live next to a 200' cell tower which will loom over Blueberry Hill and be a constant eyesore to our neighborhood. Instead of the wonderful forest, I will now see 125 feet of tower reaching above the tallest 80 foot trees as I look out my window, walk my dogs and drive up to my cabin. This tower is devastating to the quality of life of those living on Blueberry Hill community. In reference to AT&T's response to comments: 1. Co-Location with existing tower JeffComm911: If you haven't discussed this option with Bryon Gunnerson, Gunnerson Consulting and Communication Site Services, you may want to contact him or read his report on the county's website since he came to a much different conclusion than At&T in regards to the feasibility of co-location on the existing tower on Coyle. 2.Visual Impact: The pictures/tower simulations speak for themselves.The visual impact of this tower on Blueberry Hill residents will be horrific. I believe these pictures alone should stop the tower from being located so close to an established residential community. 3. Search Ring: I do not believe for one minute that there is not another site that would meet the purpose of AT&T within the search ring that would not be so close to and devastating to an established neighborhood like Blueberry Hill. If you look at At&T's search ring, it extends a long way from Blueberry Hill and yet the 2 other sites that AT&T mentioned as alternate options that they considered were actually within the Blueberry Hill neighborhood. (216 and 356 Blueberry Hill). AT&T states that the CC&R's for Blueberry Hill negated these sites as options 5 1(( 5 r • so they simply went next door so they would not have the same restrictions but unfortunately for those of us living on Blueberry Hill would have the same negative impact on Blueberry Hill. 4. The proposed property is 20.46 acres. Why does AT&T have to place this awful tower only 478' from Blueberry Hill lot 6? Yes, this distance does meet the county's code but Blueberry Hill is in the country and nobody builds such as monstrous structure so close to neighbors in the country when there are miles and miles of other options. Is it because there is easy access to electricity and infrastructure? I believe that AT&T could move the tower much farther away from Blueberry Hill either on the same property or on another property within the search ring and not have such a negative impact on our little community. 5. Property values will drop significantly and the pool of potential buyers will also drop both of which will have a significantly negative impact on the financial security of the residents of Blueberry Hill. 6. It appears by AT&T's comment that the tower is still subject to "the administrative approval by the County Department of Community Development Director" Let's hope that the Director understands that this site is not appropriate for such an intrusive tower and that he has the strength and fortitude to deny the permit to such a powerful corporation as AT&T. Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss further. 808-896- 3394. Thank you for your time and consideration. Vicki I lutchison .Niederkorn Future resident of 265 Blueberry I fill, Quileene, WA LOG ITEM # 111 6 Pageof__ __ • • LOG ITEM Page 7 -- _ • 1 Colleen Zmolek From: Ken Shock <sailboi @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:34 PM To: njohnson @ptleader.com Cc: Terri Naughton; Keith Morris; Ray Ortmann; bonnie @storyboardproductions.com; Carl Smith; Colleen Zmolek; Stacie Hoskins; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Subject: Re: Proposed cell tower Coyle Road Dear All Here is an example of responsive government, public hearings and public concerns voiced= people power. Will Jefferson County stand with it's people ? Regards, Ken Shock, Lot #1 Blueberry Hill Subdivision To All, Thank you for sharing your concerns about the proposed cell tower to be located at the Districts Reservoir#1 site. At its meeting held on October 21, 2014, the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 90 instructed the District's Lawyer to advise New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) that following the citizens' receipt of notice of New Cingular's (AT&T's) proposed use and concerns raised thereafter, King County Water District No. 90 has elected not to pursue further leasing negotiations of its property located at 18239 SE 136th, Renton, Washington, for use as a cell tower site in light of the impact to the community. Let me restate for simplicity, the cell tower lease negotiates for the Tank#1 site have been concluded and the District does not intend to put a cell tower at this site. Thank you for sharing your time and your concerns with KCWD90. Tha KIR, You., Darcekj PetersovL c,eweral. Ntawaser ICivi,g Coucvitj Water District No.90 -1-25-255:9000 -1-25-277-4128 On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ken Shock <sailboi(a@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Nicolas Johnson - PT Leader I assume you got my voicemail last week. LOG ITEM Page of 1 My family own lot# 1 in Blueberry 410 Hill subdivision. My daughter and her children are to live there, and the house is almost complete - we have over$250,000 cash invested in this. ATT had a whole peninsula full of uninhabited forest land to chose from and they chose to locate adjacent to one of the nicest subdivisions on Coyle peninsula, and our property is the second closest home to their planned installation. Jefferson county have failed to protect us from this hazard to health and property value. Other jurisdictions have legislated these towers much further away from schools and homes Please take the time to listen to this. People now know about the health issue, that is why property values will take a big hit. http://youtu.be/v4HsxNG2-4M Thanks for taking an interest in our horrific situation. Ken Shock, Lot #1 On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn <vhniederkorn@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Johnson, I want to first thank you for being interested in the issues surrounding the proposed AT&T 200' cell tower within a few 100 feet of the residential neighborhood of Blueberry Hill and the negative impact such a monstrous tower would have on those living on Blueberry Hill. My husband, Jack and I purchased our log cabin at 265 Blueberry Hill for our dream retirement home. We planned to move to Blueberry Hill the end of this year but unfortunately Jack passed away before being able to enjoy our cabin in the woods. The whole reason we chose to retire on Blueberry Hill was the fact that we would be surrounded by the natural beauty and peacefulness of the untouched pristine forest which will be forever destroyed by such an intrusive tower. The joy of knowing that a beautiful forest awaits me in my retirement is gone. I now will be forced by AT&T and the Jefferson County Department of Community Development to live next to a 200' cell tower which will loom over Blueberry Hill and be a constant eyesore to our neighborhood. Instead of the wonderful forest, I will now see 125 feet of tower reaching above the tallest 80 foot trees as I look out my window, walk my dogs and drive up • • to my cabin. This tower is devastating to the quality of life of those living on Blueberry Hill community. In reference to AT&T's response to comments: 1. Co-Location with existing tower JeffComm911: If you haven't discussed this option with Bryon Gunnerson, Gunnerson Consulting and Communication Site Services, you may want to contact him or read his report on the county's website since he came to a much different conclusion than At&T in regards to the feasibility of co-location on the existing tower on Coyle. 2.Visual Impact: The pictures/tower simulations speak for themselves.The visual impact of this tower on Blueberry Hill residents will be horrific. I believe these pictures alone should stop the tower from being located so close to an established residential community. 3. Search Ring: I do not believe for one minute that there is not another site that would meet the purpose of AT&T within the search ring that would not be so close to and devastating to an established neighborhood like Blueberry Hill. If you loo k at At&T's search ring, it extends a long way from Blueberry Hill and yet the 2 other sites that AT&T mentioned as alternate options that they considered were actually within the Blueberry Hill neighborhood. (216 and 356 Blueberry Hill). AT&T states that the CC&R's for Blueberry Hill negated these sites as options so they simply went next door so they would not have the same restrictions but unfortunately for those of us living on Blueberry Hill would have the same negative impact on Blueberry Hill. 4. The proposed property is 20.46 acres. Why does AT&T have to place this awful tower only 478' from Blueberry Hill lot 6? Yes, this distance does meet the county's code but Blueberry Hill is in the country and nobody builds such as monstrous structure so close to neighbors in the country when there are miles and miles of other options. Is it because there is easy access to electricity and infrastructure? I believe that AT&T could move the tower much farther away from Blueberry Hill either on I EM � q QI • • the same property or on another property within the search ring and not have such a negative impact on our little community. 5. Property values will drop significantly and the pool of potential buyers will also drop both of which will have a significantly negative impact on the financial security of the residents of Blueberry Hill. 6. It appears by AT&T's comment that the tower is still subject to "the administrative approval by the County Department of Community Development Director" Let's hope that the Director understands that this site is not appropriate for such an intrusive tower and that he has the strength and fortitude to deny the permit to such a powerful corporation as AT&T. Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss further. 808-896- 3394. Thank you for your time and consideration. lutchison Niederkorn jutttre t lilt!, Quilrene fir' LOG ITEM Page -�-- -- 4 Colleen Zmolek From: Stacie Hoskins Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:58 AM To: Colleen Zmolek Subject: FW: MLA 13-00116 ATT Tower on Coyle Road Original Message From: Terri [mailto:azzure @embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 6:15 PM To: Stacie Hoskins;Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Ken Shock; Keith Morris; Ray Ortmann; Bonnie Story Subject: MLA 13-00116 ATT Tower on Coyle Road Dear Ms. Hoskins: I have finally completed a comprehensive reading of the "responsive letter" from the applicant's attorneys, dated August 13, 2014. That letter is "responsive", I suppose, only in the legal sense, as it seems remarkably unresponsive in the moral and social sense. There are many issues that seem doubtful to me, but there are two in particular I find particularly offensive. First, in Section Ill, the applicant through its attorney refuses to provide a balloon test, which had been requested in order to truly ascertain the visual impact of a 200' tower on the surrounding area. Applicant states that this will not be done because Jefferson County does not require it to do so. Really?!!! My response to this is that the applicant is morally bound to provide such tests, because the "photo simulations" that have been provided are complete frauds, as anyone with common sense will know. The tower is 200'tall; the trees in the area are 80' high at most! The idea that the tower will not be seen is completely nonsensical. Second, in Section V (c), the applicant's attorney states that AT&T need not address any issue "based on potential health effects of RF emissions or declining property values based on concerns about those potential health effects" because the issue is"preempted under federal law". That's just fine. If the health of Jefferson County residents doesn't matter, what about the lost property values based on a monstrously ugly telecommunications tower looming over our neighborhood? How are we to recover those? Please let me know as soon as possible what the next step will be in this process. Sincerely, II�, Terri Murphy-Naughton 233 Blueberry Hill Drive Coyle Peninsula NOV 1 2 2014 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5315/Virus Database: 4189/8551 - Release Date: 11/10/14 LOG ITEM 1 # / 110 Page ®f j • • Colleen Zmolek From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 4:37 PM To: Colleen Zmolek Subject: MLA13-00116 AT&T Cell Tower Wetland Review Colleen: I have reviewed the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by GBE Environmental LLC (dated March 24, 2014) and a site plan (sheet A-1) with a revision date of October 28, 2014. The wetland delineation report identifies five wetlands, all of which are shown on the site plan. Three of the wetlands are on the AT&T property and two are offsite to the east. Based on our November 12, 2014 site visit, I agree with the delineation of the on-site wetlands and with the wetland ratings. The proposed cell tower construction area is located outside of the wetland buffers; therefore, no wetland mitigation is required to construct the cell tower. Donna Frostholm _Associate Planner/WetlandSpecialist Jefferson County Department of Community DeveCopment 621 Sheridan Street Tort Townsend, Washington 98368 c r st.ho(rrc;a%t o dfcr.v?..(4.titi,a.l,cs DCD is open from 9:00am—12:00pm and 1:00pm—4:30pm Monday through Thursday;DCD is closed on Friday. All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. NOV 1 4 2014 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • ITEM 1 (l5 Pape J of i • • Colleen Zmolek From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:47 PM To: David Alvarez Subject: Cell tower on the Coyle Hi David, I am reviewing a proposed cell tower on the Coyle Peninsula, MLA13-00116. I have received comments that suggest a new replacement tower should be built on another site. I am reviewing the application to determine if the requirements of the JCC are being met. JCC 18.42.060&070 states that the number of cell towers shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible through colocation. The applicant has submitted engineering that collocate on the existing tower would not accommodate adequate coverage. My question is, do I have to review an alternative sites? The alternative is to build a new tower on a site that would not meet current JCC requirements. Stacie suggested it is similar to SEPA where at the project level we are not required to review alternatives. Do you have case law examples for staff's responsibility to review the application submitted, not alternatives. Thank you, Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolekCc�co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter,P1.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.-4:3o p.m. Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. etivitv...A-1(2%).)d, ( C� COM � �� IDI 111 NOV 1 4 2014 �JJ JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 LOG ITEM Page , of Map Output Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Ma• r i i II 1 i T I 1 i Selected features I; Township Lines ' i 4 JC_Roads " 1 Parcels-H of f • 2013 Aerial Photos i ` k' i i 11475 3-atdedtr,-c -,,a-i Cart',Calt.3.Sor•cocs rt5 _.__—- ..-_ s ?` FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited b the method and accurac of its collection. Wed Nov 12 09:06:18 2014 LOG ITEM # 113 .... , Page t of, ■ http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=... 11/12/2014 , Map Output • • Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map / _:. . _.,, .� te .. __ �_"=�1'=-- __ .r;. _ �:,. ..�c•_.. Wel 400 f ° f ____r 7 1_._, Legend r', r 9e Selected Features JC Roads . N Parcels H l Contours L w I _ •1 ... ,.„... n .. 10 Faa1 Con tau, '-- 5 V ~`--, 50 Foot Csniaur / ∎} \') 10M Hillshade 4 - emu is ti,,, .mil V21 ,,,-, ..'7.i:5.,::, L '.7 ..,.) \1.t.3-.10-..WI It,.c^ii u't w rf t,crr.':1:,cr'.:,:K�.i�tS 0 . . .. 12541 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Wed Nov 12 09:11:41 2014 LOG ITEM 113 a 1,ttp://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=... 11/12/2014 Map Output • 0 Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map .h I t ,,,, i 'i, ,_,4 le'.-; / , „�► _ � Legend 17- Selected Features CP —' < Township Lines JC Roads • 'i Parcels-H /AI ' m Wetlands _____ li '''''' vp 2 "*° 7*44,*s • i ,:,.,:kd:r..a'arsm Carta;Carrra Sav ce,GO ,_===d./11 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Wed Nov 12 09:04:28 2014 LOG ITEM #,1115_,,,,--- Page 3_ _ ..5 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=... 11/12/2014 4 i Map Output • • Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map irlii% )1 311 A ---......--_-_, 1111111711 gill ih. ll r .f t„, , WI __ Legend s Selected Features S- I f Township Lines CP r .' JC_Roads Parcels-H DNIR FP Stream n. Jf Classification le 2 f F-Fish 113124,31 _ !,A„r N Non lush IIab,t 1 -- -' 8 '�- la,/• NR Non fish 11a6nalPonennui UUU f^' Ns Non tesh Habd.,1 Soasenal \\ S InvanIonod Shoreline I ..›I '''- Mar crwdcd sr er.esm County Central Sereces Gla .. t_3• aStill-- _._..-.._._.._.. FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Wed Nov 12 09:04:58 2014 I,O ITEM t 13.. http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=... 11/12/20 14 Map Output ip Page 1 of 1 ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map �i __I j Legend } 7w Selected Features I J /; Township Lines <_ JC_Roads e .r" Parcels-H Landslide Hazard 1 Sides Ntgh ' !._NI adarala _ _^N *f Shg hi ._ 'gip --- FEMA FIRMS i A N i xsaa • c"h' { Aiacr saedsd cy:*lbsian Ca;sny Cant Sere�c CIS .... ........_.---6i lib'11 ...... FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Wed Nov 12 09:05:29 2014 LOG ITEM # ti3 Page—.�. .0 , http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=... 11/12/2014 • • kSssON cap JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `_ 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,WA 98368 I Web:www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment �sHl Nc''t° Tel 360.379.4450 I Fax:360.379.4451 I Email:dcd @co.jefferson.wa.us SquareONE Resource Center I Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning Att.) \C/" • Qctober 13, 2014 41.41\\ NoVle Kristen Larson keetval.D. Busch Law Firm PLLC . 93 S Jackson Street#75604 rn4'�� ,2. -to 4 Seattle, WA 98104 ,g RE: SITE ADDRESS: 9335 Coyle Road, Quilcene, CASE #: MLA13-00116/ZON13-00039 Dear Ms. Larson: The Department of Community Development is in the process of reviewing your application. The following information is needed to continue review of your project. 1) Submit a paint chip for the color the proposed cell tower will be painted. The paint chip must met the requirements in JCCC 18.42.090(1)(a. 6--Provide documentation that the FAA does not require lighting on the propo d c 11 to a two meet the requirements in JCC 18.42.090(1)(c). At, / �,��� �N�r.�bG�.> 1. — 3) Provide documentation that the equipment e closure is the size practicable to meet the requirements in JCC 18.42.090(1)(1)(i). 4) Identify how the proposal is meeting the requirements in JCC 18.42.090(1)(ii). ?-7 5) Identify the lighting, if proposed,to be placed on the equipment enclosure and provide documentation showing how it meets JCC 18.42.090(1)(j). 6) Provide information on the signage to be placed on the enclosure showing how it is meeting JCC 18.42.090(1)(k). 7) Provide information documenting how the roof mounted antenna on A-3 of site plan meets the requirements in , N. CC 18.42.090(1)(m). P i2 UJ ProvidV&T Telecommunications provider FCC registration Number(FRN). 442.4.■&_,_ qeo submit the above information to the Depart ent o mmunity Development by July 23,2014. Pursuant z, to Jefferson County Code,JCC 18.40.110(3)and(6), if the applicant does not submit the additional information or does not request additional time to submit the required information within the ninety(90)calendar day period,the application will be considered abandoned and therefore withdrawn and the applicant shall forfeit the application fee. The Department of Community Development shall not be responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending expiration. I Sincerely, 31130 AlINf1WW03 301d30 Colleen Zmolek AdN(103 N0Sd33331 Associate Planner f I • • cab JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 I Web:www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment 9StiI No'° Tel 360 379.4450 I Fax: 360.379.4451 I Email:dcd(a co.jefferson.wa.us SquareONE Resource Center I Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning October 13, 2014 Kristen Larson Busch Law Firm PLLC 93 S Jackson Street#75604 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: SITE ADDRESS: 9335 Coyle Road,Quilcene, CASE #: MLA13-00116/ZON13-00039 Dear Ms. Larson: The Department of Community Development is in the process of reviewing your application. The following information is needed to continue review of your project. 1) Submit a paint chip for the color the proposed cell tower will be painted. The paint chip must met the requirements in JCCC 18.42.090(1)(a. >)2 'r."ide documentation that the FAA does not require lighting on the proposed cell tower to meet the r-qu rements in JCC 18.42.090(1)(c). 3) °rovide documentation that the equipment enclosure is the smallest size practicable to meet the requirements in JCC 18.42.090(1)(f)(i). —34) Identify how the proposal is meeting the requirements in JCC18.42.090(1)(ii). 5) Identify the lighting, if proposed,to be placed on the equipment enclosure and provide documentation showing how it meets JCC18.42.090(1)(j).< 6) Provide information on the signage to be placed on the enclosure showing how it is meeting JCC 18.42.090(1)(k). 7) Provide information documenting how the roof mounted antenna on A-3 of site plan meets the requirements in JCC18.42.090(1)(m). 8) Provide AT&T Telecommunications provider FCC registration Number(FRN)./_r' Please submit the above information to the Department of Community Development by July 23,2014. Pursuant to Jefferson County Code,JCC 18.40.110(3)and (6), if the applicant does not submit the additional information or does not request additional time to submit the required information within the ninety(90) calendar day period,the application will be considered abandoned and therefore withdrawn and the applicant shall forfeit the application fee. The Department of Community Development shall not be responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending expiration. • 1N31,11d013A30 AlINfWW00 3O Id3O Sincerely, ( 1 1 40 AINf100 NOS833J3r *fru 9 /ION I Colleen Zmolek ? '` �, Associate Planner - I � /�,. � - ��L�' � 'I . C,orNo Oicr-plldU — Ws" - en CM., • • Michelle Farfan From: Anne Sears [sears @olympus.net] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:30 PM To: Janet Berry; Rose Ann Carroll; Michelle Farfan Cc: Renee Talley Subject: RE: Communication Towers When the tower was constructed, it was on only considered on County Right of Way as far as I can tell. The easement was not purchased until recently, so the permit for a tower would have shown it was placed on County right-of-way right next to that Vettleson property below. My sense is that the County may not have required permits for something like this on their own right-of-way in 1986, but I don't know that for sure. Anne From: Janet Berry [mailto:jberry©co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:54 PM To: Rose Ann Carroll; Michelle Farfan Cc: Renee Talley; Anne Sears Subject: RE: Communication Towers My diggings have revealed current information for the Coyle location as: Owner: Vettleson (adjacent easement or something) Address: 8630 Coyle Rd APN: 601023007 Regarding the Sheriff's tower: Address: 81 Elkins Rd APN: 901111009 Anne's question is spot-on Were permits even required/obtained way back in the late 1980s? Janet From: Rose Ann Carroll Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:47 PM To: Rose Ann Carroll; Michelle Farfan Cc: Renee Talley; Anne Sears; Janet Berry Subject: RE: Communication Towers Per Michelle, we need to get some better info for the Coyle location. Parcel number, property owner, address, --- need something to work with. From: Rose Ann Carroll Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:21 PM LOG ITEM To: Michelle Farfan Cc: Renee Talley; 'Anne Sears'; Janet Berry # Subject: RE: Communication Towers Page o Page 1 • • • ■ Michelle any thoughts ---- Pis see below. So far, I am stumped. But am forwarding this on to my "go to gal" (Michelle Farfan) for historical items. RAC From: Anne Sears [mailto:sears@olvmpus.netj Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:48 PM To: Janet Berry; Rose Ann Carroll Cc: Renee Talley Subject: RE: Communication Towers Rose Ann and Janet, Not sure if this will help, but attached is a copy of an easement acquired where the Coyle tower is located. The tower is located partially on this easement and the County right-of-way right next to it. (see map on last page of document.) I believe the Tower could have been placed there around 1986. Were permits required for towers at that time? Anne From: Janet Berry f mailto:jberrv©co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:33 AM To: Rose Ann Carroll Cc: David Shambley; Stacie Hoskins; Anne Sears; Renee Talley Subject: Communication Towers Hi Roseann, I've been asked to establish the ownership of two communication towers: one at the Sheriff's Office (this one around 1984) and one on Coyle. Here are my findings and my questions, and I hope you can give me additional direction: 1) I've searched through what I have available to me, but I don't know the Coyle address and all the possible permits that might have been issued. 2) There is 5" worth of old permits by address for the Sheriff's location, but those don't appear to address County ownership. 3) I do have a listing of development reviews from both DCD and PW, but that came up empty. However, could these towers have been called something else at the time— like microwave dishes, repeater stations, etc. I'm thinking that there could be other avenues for me to explore. Thank you very much for any help, Janet 1 I8 3 ... 2 • • No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 /Virus Database: 2114/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 /Virus Database: 2114/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 LOG ITEM Mn l 3 FROM :Jeff Co Fire No 2 FAX NO. :3607653960 Dec. 13 2006 01:21PM P3 L' fN - , ..^ JEFFERSON COUNTY ,A . ! `' :.. .. •.�. CANNING AND BUILDING f * ,r BUIX,D G DEPART/WENT 1);, t' r' _ �:wx '. 1'O. Sox 1220 ! µ} .-- ' it .�.L M1 I� ^ Port 7bwn�ond, Washington 98468• •="� `'_. te Planning(206)385-9140 Building(206)386-9141 'E ''ERSON(:)0NTy coui oU6E • FAX(206)`?85 A?57 Cram Ward, Director April 20, 1993 Mel Mefford ,!�?1?3 24 Jefferson County Sheriff's, ems+, 1 c' 87 Elkins Road �>Ff s Depart>nent v Port Nadlock 'z' i WA 98339 IF. K. 4) �,.y�+ (_rS+ Re: Coyle Peninsula �i�, . ,� a radio relay tgwer. �, _' t r �, Dear Mel: Y•∎ .: •r '� �� Craig War ���.,�'�`�!',���`�; found that ,it Zoning fp Administrator, has r 1(a)-(d) of the A s t Mire requirements)reviewed section your application and County Emergency Administrative 10 Zoning Ordinance, and section IX, subsection A review nce, No. 1--0106_91. 12 of the Jefferson • indicates that the relevant provisions indicates a new replacement tower of the be County's the Emergency radio tower Ordinance,Coyle processed fisting radio rawer on Coyl administratively by the Section 1 "Expansion,ExParisio that ���e n, Alteration hat "th conforming expansion, alteration, or Change in Use, " (page ordinance. " nonconforming use change in g 28) states Due to the is subject to use of any existing the Zoning Administrator ambiguity inherent the provisions define and clarify language. in this sweeping to this Y this lan ua gated administrative ping $t$tement, In this g ge' rules to further minor regard, section IX expansion, alteration f the administrative mor �strativc rules Administrative administratively by the change in states that a tiles Zoning Administrator use may bcs rt_ ra__r en t^ ) ;ce.rdin. our (see Pages 17 and 18pof othe a.•licatio h-s :.- : , a. . eve. • l '' 1 • 0 FROM :Jeff Co Fire No 2 FAX NO. :3607653960 Dec. 13 2006 0122PM P5 4RY 03 93 16:43 BAKER CON6TRLICTION INC. P,1/3 BAKER CONSTRUCTION, INC. MOD716(11) P.O. Box 327 BREMERTON, WA 98310 LETTER ' (206) 377.3535 FAX (206) 377.4809 /...?' 7 7:ev ' 4'.40'i•'a 64...".#9 ee -co TO &/1/4 V 4 . Subject 5. t,(141C i 4-- ,•,--) Date •3 P-1-7 90,4-' p.3 dC2 49 130A/e/l.),S V 4-01- / •+-- J /7/ per, > ` SooceS ..,41- 40'r.."4"a C.?•!'7', tz,--1 - B-0-- f.-ti//4' 490y 7<oton.d eq "%too...,"7'„r 4i , 91 S"..C., It r■Oz.4"-- 7-..-p A^ ) 4 . re. " '''•"1:-$ 4' el,'go Kr."-?...vi-4. -5 • Ze 4/e ec .eerl-vi".440 c' n'''/A/ - :24_4,4,,er • „...&-„‘,..„0, ex, ,, Pe....--eve--/ s' ('...f)e er c,. c,01- P4cr4,09/e-e,..,0 6 esC/414 4 4E- /9470 -V'., ;• 7-6 ,44 /.C' ePe•t-'`'-‘71c/.1.40101,1C.6- .44.4ex) .' 0.-p•-.44*-c."-dY /130A1-4) / ‘ oecno? LOG ITEM 1 ) Page . 2- of5 ,_. ,--7 ......., A 2 / FIKINFrr ,:ef"...: . Plon*e reply .-: No reply neconOrtrY .-4,--0*--ay.-<-- ..7..S • .-")'2'.."'et'...1”-""'" ... • FROM :Jeff Co Fire No 2 N FAX NO. :3607653960 Dec. 13 2006 01:21PM P2 E XHIBIT A STATEMENT OF WORK PART VI. EMS COMMUNICATIONS PRO Y1A`CTS This section of the contract describes the scope of work related to the improvement/development of Emergency Medical Services communications in specilled.areas of the Northwest Region, Sub-Part B. Jefferson County The CONTRAC'T'OR shall use,the funds under.this.sub-part for the purpose of improving EMS communications of the Jefferson County's area of responsibr7ity. To fulfill the purpose of this contract, the CONTRACTOR shall perform according to the Jefferson County Communications Improvements Proposal, dated December 10, 1992. Th©CONTRACTOR shall perform the following: 1. Purchase and install one(1)Med Net Repeater with antenna and one(1) Fire Net Repeater with antenna,one(1)repeater shelter and one(1) 100 foot tower for the Coyle site,by May 3,1,1993. 2, Make payment for costs for PL, 911 conversion and FCC fees and applications, until May.31,.1993. 3. Relocate and install North Repeater and Antenna to the Port Townsend Water Tower site,by May 31, 1993. 4. Purchase and install Mod 3 Base Station at Jefferson General Hospital,by May 31, 1993. 5. Ensure that the repeater sites are installed in compliance with all applicable laws, policies and practices. he NORTHWEST REGIONAL EMS AND TRAUMA for those CARE COUNCIL shall reimburse the CONTRACTOR services identified herein,in an amount(s) not to exceed$86,500.00 opirefryspowesuosorerme •.ertrilwmpolimi, mak All jn da.mast M spe tdgd+ 'AIN$0 1993..: MAXIMUM PAYABLE BY THE NORTHWEST REGIONAL EMS AND TRAUMA CARE COUNCIL UNDER PAATVI,`SU)Eli;,'ART A OF THIS AGREEMENT IS $86,500.00. Q■ kike avl n � LOG 11-EN1 2 # 3 of ,::: • • FROM :Jeff Co Fire No 2 FAX NO. :3607653960 Dec. 13 2006 11:56AM P1 Itemized Inc/Exp Account Report 5/ 1/93 Through 6/30/93 Page 1 'W REGIONAL EMS COUNCIL-All Accounts /24/93 P Date Acct Num Description Memo projectCir Amount INCOME/EXPENSE EXPENSES PART VI: SUB-PART B 6/30 Payable 579667 MOTOROLA, INC. COMMUNIATION G '93 JE --5,492.80- 6/30 Payable 8295 MANOR ENGINEERING, INCOMMUNICATION '93 JE -385.46- 6/30 Payable 5253004 GREEN TREE COMMUNICATCOMMUNICATION '93 JE -6,112.26=- 6/30 Payable 6093045 GREEN TREE COMMUNICATCOMMUNICATION '93 JE -3,449.60 6/30 Payable 6093046 GREEN TREE COMMUNICATCOMMUNICATION '93 JE -754.60- 6/30 Payable 127658 PRIMUS ELECTRONICS COCOMMUNICATION '93 JE -1,619.50- 6/30 Payable 589085 MOTOROLA, INC. COMMUNICATION '93 JE -3,665.64-- 6/30 Payable 61593 MANOR ENGINEERING, INCOMMUNICATION '93 JE -2,269.50- 6/30 Payable 559688 MOTOROLA, INC. COMMUNICATION '93 JE --175.63- 6/30 Payable 1013 BARER CONSTRUCTION, 'COMMUNICATION '93 JE -50,922.56- 6/30 Payable 556434 MOTOROLA, INC. COMMUNICATION '93 JE -101.33'~ 6/30 Payable 6093047 GREEN TREE COMMUNICATCOMMUNICATION '93 JE -2,371.60- 6/30 Payable 214370 CONTAINER STORAGE, INJEMS #013 '93 JE -4,377.76- 6/30 Payable 1839 ERIC BARTH ELECTRIC JEMS 0014 '93 JE -3,234.00-6/30 Payable R 48792 OMNICRON ELECTRONICS JEMS #015 '93 JE -567.76 ) TOTAL SUB-PART B :6,500.0'0 TOTAL PART VI -86,500.00 TOTAL EXPENSES -86,500.00 TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSE -86,500.00 LOG ITEM #_111_______ Page i of 5"' P -..` Pr • r HA NU. :.5bb(b .5yb0 •c. 13 2006 01:20PM P1 SHORT FORM CONTRACT 1cturn to: Anise Grant,Administrative Assistant PROJECT TITLE: Emergency Medical Services Northwest Regional EMS Council 4841 Auto Center Way*202 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (x) Initial Bremerton,WA 98312-4388 Telephone: (206)479-3631 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS The Jefferson EMS Council now known as the CONTRACTOR shall provide the goods/services set forth in the following Statement of Work: 'Ibis agreement between the NORTHWEST REGIONAL •, m•GENCY MEDICAL SERI CES AND TRAUMA CARE COUNCIL and the CONTRACTOR is to provide funds to the latter for the continuing development of an Emergency Medical Services and Trauma Cara System. In the context of this agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall perforru activities described herein and in the Statement of WorklEithibit AI. w Subject to its other provision,the period of performance under this contract,shall be from R execution through June 30.1993,unless sooner terminated:ga.providodhcrein. The Special Terms and Conditions contained in the text of this contract instrument and the attached general Terms and Conditions anal]govern all rights and obligations of the parties to this contract with the exception of: aagiaph 7.e,Treatment of Assets Uatise,of the General Terms and Conditions,but'hrcluding'tha Special Terms and Conditions owl',•• .1, a,'bit d3 and as stated in tt i ' C I r, ..c . 11 IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF: ) Northwest Regional EMS and Trauma Care Council shall pay to the Contractor for those services provided herein as follows: All allowable and allocated costs pursuant to those amounts outlined in Exhibit A following payment procedures outlined in Exhibit The total payment to the Contract for services provided under this contract shall not exceed ,500.00. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT The Contractor shall submit invoices on a timely basis at the intervals prescribed and on forms provided by Northwest Regional EMS and Trauma Care Council. In the event of an inconsistency in this contract,unless otherwise provided herein,the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order.'(a)Applicable Federal and State Statutes and Regulations,(b)Special tents and Conditions, (c) General Terms and Conditions, (d)any other provision of the contract whether incorporated by reference or otherwise. This agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise,regarding the subject matter of this agreement shall exist or bind any of the parties hereto„ This contract shall be subject to the written approval of the Northwest Regional EMS and Trauma Care Council and shall not be binding until so approved. Only the Contracting Officer or his/her designee by written delegation made prior to action,shall have the expressed,implied,or apparent authority to alter.amend,modify,or waive any clause or condition of this contract, Furthermore, any alteration,amendment,modification, or waiver of any clause or condition of this ill contract is not effective or binding unless made in writing and signed by the Contracting Officer. 5.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: Northwest Regional EMS and Trauma Care Council and the Contractor have signed this r i., agreement. 1 • :'.•rtG4tra ature Date ify:/Zut •::.:•.•:,:•• • N. . Regional 't a`,• Signature ' Date I $ I '9 2 : I. • I % • / • • • • • it , ■.lihr......:.:64 _. _Ip ,.........•.•.•.•.•.•. __.: L i i t IVi 1 f of