HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Jessica Jones - Appeal of UP17-0002 Menchaca, Clarissa
From: Jessica]onesgessica@NNooesoa.com>
Sent Monday, January 22, 20183-55PM
To: Clerk ofthe Board; Connelly, Bill; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BC}S District 4;Teeter, Doug
Cc: Joyce Johns; K4iche|ema, Mark
Subject: 0P17-0O02comment letter and attachment
Dear Board Members,
I am the daughter of Joyce and Don Johns,the primary appellants for the telecommunications tower, which is proposed
adjacent to their residence at 108 Manzanella Court. Thank you in advance for your time reviewing our numerous
documents vvepresented imthe planning process. Since this information |scontained imthe staff report xvewill not
present it again tomorrow, however we are very willing to answer any questions you may have.
This appeal is about fairness to my parents,and their neighbors, and not allowing alarge company 10dictate what isbest
for Butte County,
Waabsolutely agree that a tower will provided the much needed wireless cellphone coverage for many miles around,
however�lease do not allow AT&T to convince you that this exact 5-acre parcel of land at45ManzaneUaiathe ONLY
location that will work for their coverage needs. AT&T does not care about the impacts ofthis project tnthe immediate
neighbors;AT&T only cares about maximizing their profits with both an easy site where the homeowner approached
them for the tower, and by maximizing the number of homes that will pay for new broadband wireless internet. Moving
the tower a few hundred feet or even a half mile may reduce ATV's profit margin some; however it is cell coverage that
the area needs, not more intermetservice providers. Plus, this project isbeing paid for bythe federal government soa
few customers dropped with amore appropriate siting isvery reasonable.
When asked bythe planning commissioners about moving the tower toalternate locations, AT&T refused tushare the
potential reduction imnumber nfcustomers with them. /\malternate site onnearby agricultural land would bemore
appropriate, and there are much better options in the area than were presented by planning staff. Even mnenfthe
numerous 10 or 20-acre parcels, located throughout the area are more appropriate than a densely populated 5-acre
parcels where itisproposed currently.
At the second planning commission meeting we asked the commission that if they become convinced that 46
Mamzane||ais somehow the only site that will work for a tower,then to at least ask AT&T to put the tower at the north-
west corner of this 5-acre parcel. AT&T clearly stated that the homeowners, the only people who will benefit financially
from this project, donot want ltthere since they will have tolook atit. Now that vvehave had time tnlook atmore
options, if the tower is to be approved in this immediate area then the property at 109 Mission Olive is the ideal site. Kt
is just a few hundred feet from the proposed location at 46 Manzanella, it is within the tallest trees in the area, none of
the neighbors are opposed to this location, and it will eliminate the commercial traffic from the privately maintained
Mamzane||a Court.
Thankyuuogainforyourconsiderationofthisvaryinmportantappea|, amd | reupectfu||yreqmeatthatyoufindinfavorof
this appeal.
Jessica Jones, PE, SE
JKJones Consulting&Engineening
1200 51h Street,Suite#300
Berkeley, CAV471O
510.778.0807
1
jessicag%jonesce.com