The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMLA13-00116 AT&T Add'l info req 2013-11-27rJEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 821 Shendan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 V Web. www.co. efferson.wa.us/comrnuti4ydevelo�pnient Tel, 360,379.4450 j Fax: 360,379,44511 Emall: dcd cojefferson.waxs B ildiijg Permits & Inspections I Deveioprnent Consistency Review I Long mange Planning I watersnea wewarasnrp resource uenrer November 27, 2013 Jill ian Martin Smartlink, LLCIAT&T 14432 SE Eastgate Way. STE 260 Bellevue, WA 98007 RE: Site Address: 9395 Coyle Rd, Quileene, WA CASE #; MLA13 -00116 Project Description- 200' Lattice tower and Associate Equipment /Shelter (AT &T BR0266 Bangor Canal) Dear Jillian: 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) Attached are the comments Jefferson County received on the proposal. Please review each and respond to concerns as appropriate. 2) Please contact Karl Hattori, .Ieff"Com 911 Director. There is a possibility of collocating on their existing tower on Coyle Road. He can be reached by email at khattonrc jcpsn.us or by phone at (360)385 -3788. 3 a Submit a wetland report prepared by a qua.litied professional. Cf the report indicates there are wetlands within 350 feet of the proposed development (proposers lease area, proposed tower and access road/driveway) submit a complete wetland delineation report so buffer widths can be determined. Your wetland biologist should refer to Chapter 18.22 of the Jefferson County Code. 4) At the time of the Preapplication Conference Allison Zike. Smartlink, provided information demonstrating existing cell towers would not provide adequate coverage for AT &T. Consequently, staff waived the Colocation Procedure required under JCC 18.42.060 and JCC 18.42.070 (see attached). lef erson County asks that AT &T now comply with these sections of the code by reviewing, the code and sending the required colocation notice to all wireless providers licensed to provide service within JefTerson County. Provide documentation that AT&T has sent die required notice. If AT &TlSmmartlink receives responses, they shall forward the responses to me for review. Thev will be made part of the application record. 5) It is my understanding AT &T is preparing additional visual simulations. Please submit them for Jefferson County review. Please submit the above information to the Department of Community Development by Februai-Y 25, 2014. Pursuant to Jefferson County Code, JCC 18.40. l 10(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. If you have any questions. please contact Mme at 360 - 385 -9406 or by email at zlampo .jefferson.wa.us. Sincerely, e Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead cc: rile Ronald P. McDermott Page 2 Chapter 18.42 PERSONAI, WIRELESS SERVICE FACIU'rihs Vage t of 4 113.42.060 Colocation policy. (1) The number of wireless communication towers shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible through colocation of wireless communications facilities and attachment of wireless communications antennas to existing alternative structures. (2) Installation of Accessory Equipment Shelters. Any provider who is authorized to colocate on an existing tower or alternative structure as provided above shall also be authorized to install any necessary accessory equipment shelter and related equipment at or near the base of the tower or alternative structure or within the structure; provided, that the equipment shelter and related equipment comply with the development standards (i.e., setbacks, height limitations, bulk, landscaping and screening, etc.) of the applicable zone as set forth in Chapter 18.30 JCC and the wireless facility design standards as set forth in JCC 18.42.090. (3) Preserving Landscaping and Buffering. To the greatest extent practicable landscaping that was required as a condition of approval of a wireless communications facility should not be removed in order to construct an accessory building or equipment for an additional colocated facility if any such landscaping is removed, the applicant shall be required to replace it with the equivalent quantity and type of landscaping in a manner to achieve the original intent. [Ord. 6.99 § 11 18.42.070 Colocation procedure. Colocation of antennas by providers is not always feasible for technical or business reasons. However, if all licensed providers are made aware of any pending tower or antenna permit applications, providers will be able to investigate ail reasonable accommodations and maximize opportunities for colocation. This section establishes a process that will enable providers to equitably share publicly available, nonproprietary information among themselves, with interested persons and agencies. and with Jefferson County at the time the provider schedules a preapplication conference. (1) Preapplication Requirement. A preapplication conference is required for all proposed new towers. (2) Request Letter Requirement. At the time a preapplication conference is scheduled, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed to all other wireless providers licensed to provide service within Jefferson County: Pursuant to the requirements of the Jefferson County Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, Chapter 1r 42 JCC, (wireless provider legal name here) is hereby providing you with notice of our intent to meet with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development for a preapplication conference to discuss our proposal to construct a wireless communications facility tower at (general location and section, township and range). We propose to construct a feet high tower for the purpose of providing (cellular, PCS, etc.) service. Please inform us whether you have any existing or pending wireless facilities located within (distance in feet) of the proposed facility, that may be available for colocation opportunities Please provide us with this information within 10 lousiness days after the date of this letter, Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, (preapplication applicant, wireless provider). Copies of all responses to the request letter shall be submitted to the county and made a part of the application file. (3) To Analyze the Feasibility of Colocation. If a response to a colocation request letter is received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for colocation, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to analyze the feasibility of colocation. This analysis shall be submitted with an application for any new tower. A good faith effort to investigate the feasibility of colocation shall be deemed to have occurred if the applicant submits all of the following information: (a) A statement from a qualified engineer indicating whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by colocation at the potential colocation site; http: / /VV NN.cc)depublishing_co iii /'WA /JeffersoiiCounty /ht nil/. Iefferson�County18 /.1effersanCuuntyI8�?.htnrl 11/26/2013 Chapter 18.42 PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FAC1Ll11ES Vage ! or 2 (b) Evidence that the lessor of the potential colocation site either agrees or disagrees to colocation on their property; (c) Evidence that adequate site area exists or does not exist at the potential colocation site to accommodate needed equipment and meet all of the site development standards; (d) Evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the potential colocation site; (e) Nonproprietary technical information to evaluate the feasibility of colocation. (4) A covenant of good faith and fair dealing shall be a condition of any permit for a new wireless facility tower issued under this chapter. In the event that a dispute arises as to whether an applicant has exercised good faith related to an offer of colocation by another provider, the county may require a third -party technical study at the expense of the applicant. 10rd. 6 -99 § 11 http:llwww.codepublisiling. cam/ WAIJeffersonCounty/ hlml/ JefFer-sonCountyl8 /JeffersonCountyl842,html i l/26/2013 Zoe Ann Lamp From: JimVeeder jjlmveedercraol .corn] Sent: VVednesday, November 20, 2013 10:50 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject Tower to Light House Proposal Dear Ms. Zoe Lamp, Please present this to the ATT Corporation and the cell plan team. Thank you for this consideration. Have a Great Day! Tim Veeder, 206 910 4614 Dear Ali and cell Tower Planners, In regard to the needed cell tower on Coyle Road in Quilcene Washington, a plain tower would be a negative distraction as the immediate neighbor and at the entrance of the 500 acre conservation and education foundation being developed for this Iand, I am willing to contribute the funds to build a wonderful light house structure that would be 25o feet to serve AT &T needs and offer this as suitable laboratory and educational space to the University of Washington Marine Sciences and Forestry departments. This property has 1 mile of Hood Canal waterfront rich in shellfish and sea life and designated forest where we have already planted 10,000 Giant Sequoia trees, and many acres for other suitable for University and NOA uses, This tower would stand as a beautiful tribute to ATT willingness to work with community interest and opinion and support very positive environmental and natural history interests. Rease contact Jim Veeder at 200 910 4014 or 509 270 0000. Sincerely Best Wishes, Jim Veeder 11/9/13 To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attention: Stacie Hoskins, Planning manager/ Responsible SEPA official From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn !Mailing address: 68 -3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 Property address: 265 Blueberry Hill Quilcene, WA 98376 Regarding: MLA 13- 08116: Proposed AT &T 200+ foot cell tower siting at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA Dear Stacie Hoskins: in your role as Planning Manager /SEPA responsible official with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, you stated in the Port Townsend Leader article posted 11%6/2013 titled "AT &T cell tower would he one of the tallest in East Jefferson County ", that your decision would be based on Jefferson County Code and criteria and that PROPERTY VALUE is "not a criteria I can use in the review and decision of the project." 1 have reviewed the applicable code, Chapter 18.42 Personal Wireless Service Facilities, and strongly differ from your conclusion regarding your responsibility to the homeowners oil Toandos Peninsula and specifically the community of Blueberry Hill to not take protectincg their PROPERTY VALUES into nonsideration inynur review and decision regarding tI a siiina o an AT &T�f1+ oot eelX tvver irr Their BACKYARD. It is your DUTY to follow code to protect the rural charact'er . natural beuuV +and scenic resources ogle erson Co__unty- rorr wiyerse environmental,_ noise, and visual impacts (Code 18.42.010 (4b). It is your DUTY to follow code to-protect the "health, safety�and general welfare of the county's RESIDENTS and PROPERTY 011NERS" (Cove 98.42.0 10 (1). It is your DUTY to follow code " #o encouragge and facilitate colocation" (Code 18.42.010(4e). - — It is your DUTY to fallow code to ensure that "the number of wireless communication towers shall be minimized to the c, neatest extent feasible through colocation" (Code ~ 78.42.060(1). It is your DUTY to follow code to ensure that AT &T made a "good faith fort to Investigate the easiblity o coloration" with written analysis as to why coloration is not feasible (Code 18.42.060 (3, a,b,c,d,e) It is your DUTY to follow code in regards to Protecting Poi its of Visual Interest (Code 18.42.090 (2) (a). Frirtected roil 5i ir�ih+cantdegradation_(Code 18.42.090 (2)(a). Mountains -(Code 18.42.090 (2)(a)(i). It is your DUTY to follow code to have AT &T "demonstrate that the irsts of visual interest(mountains) will not be sWni candy degraded by the bra osai"' (Code 18.42.090 (2) (a) It is your DUTY to follow code and rewire that AT&T prove that: Where are no ether locations within the same Marcel where the visual a ects would be less (Code 18.42.090 (2) (c) (i) Colocation or attatch rent on an alternative structure within the service area is not easible. (Code 18.42.090 (2)(c)(ii) DE VEL0PMENT (]N ANAL TERNA TWE SITE WITH D ECREASEI) VISUAL EFFECTS WI THIN THE SERVICE AREA IS NOT FEASIBLE_(Code 18.42 -090 (2)(c)(iii) Ms. —Hoskins it is ve cear to me that theme erson County Cade (�hcrlater &4 2 personal Wireless.-Service Facilities makes it our ABSt]L +UTE RESP+II�'SIBILi"Y to rotect th e rural char-_ titer, natural beauty and scenic resources o�the residential community o luebe — Hill and the Toandes Penisula rom the adverse environrrter�taI, noise- and Y 'Ls uul im -9QCt of c Z 0 i E fO ot A cell tower shin llec s than 50 —eet from our neiahborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Zoe Ann Lamp From: jmunn Umunn @olypen.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:22 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Cc: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: Cell Tower at Gayle Thanks Stacie * Zoe It sure would be nicer for the next door neighbors. Jim From: Stacie Hoskins [ mailto :SHoskins@co.}efferson.wa.us] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:53 PM To: jrnunn Cc: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: Cell Tower at Coyle Hi, Jim, The comment period is closed on this rase, and there is not a public hearing as this is an administrative decision. I have forwarded your message with this correspondence to Zoe Ann Lamp, the project planner. Please note that it is at the applicant's discretion for where they apply to place a tower. We can notify thern of your message, Best regards, StWiC .r.'. -17� Planning Manager, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Streel * Part Townsend, \VA 98368 Phone 360 -379 -4463 * Fax 350- 379 -4451 shoskins@eo.iefferson.wa -us Jefferson County DCD lWisston: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by prornoting a vibrant econarrry, sound communities and a healthy environment, All e- rrtiail setit la iNs address will be received by the Jefferson Ccu+lty e -mail systetn and tray he subiecl to Public Disciosum under Chapter 42 56 RCW `SAVE PAPER - Please do tior pint this e -mail unless alasolurely necessary From: jmunn [maitto.Im I Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:14 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Subject: Cell Tower at Coyle Hi Stacie, My client Jim Veeder, owns 485 acres behind the proposed cell tower on Dabob Bay. He is willing to have the tower on his parcel and / or donate $250,000 to make the tower look nicer. ie a lighthouse or? BTW ..ATT did look at his site and it was acceptable too. I was with their agent on Jim`s site, Is there a hearing on the proposed use or somehow he could be heard? Thanks... Jinn Munn Broker / Own ,,r Munn Bro's Hood Canal Properties Inc, PO Box 54 Quilcene, WA 98376 www.Mu nn Bros.corrr 350 - 301 -4700 cell 350- 755 -4500 office 360- 755 -23.00 fax Zoe Ann Lam From. Karl Hatton [khatton Qcpsn.usl Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:16 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: Information can MLA13 -00116 AT &T Cell Tower Thank you for the information. The current tower at Coyle Rd. is 120' tall. I don't know what their technical requirements will be, but if it is recommended that they explore this option, I will put them in touch with our radio tower consultant for application and information. My hope is that maybe we can increase the height at that location, if necessary, and get them the coverage that they need_ Ka rl From: Zoe Ann Lamp [ mailto :ZLampgco,jefferson.wa.us] Scent: Friday, November 01, 2013 3:00 PM To: John Austin; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Philip Morley Cc: Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins; Karl Hatton Subject: Information on MLA13 -00115 AT &T Cell Tower it is my understanding you have received questions and comments about the application for a new 200 ft, cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road. Consequently, I wanted to provide a brief summary and information on the proposal. The zoning for the subject parcel is "Ird-101ding Forest". JCC 18.42.080 identities a cell tower as a Type II Conditional Administrative Use.. This review requires public: noticing: with a public comment ,period and no public hearing. This particular proposal requires review under SEPA. Staff will review the proposal against the criteria in JCC 18.42 Wire[ess Telecommunication Facility. One criterion in JCC 18,42 is a setback from adjacent parcels. The minimum required setback from an adjacent parcel is 145.07 for this 200-- tower, The applicant proposes to setback the cell tower a minimum distance of 478' 5" from Rural Residential property. Procedural 1 of o rmat io n Application received: August 28.2013 • Staff followed all legal noticing requirements. c) Notice Published in the Port Tou nse d Leader: October 16, 2013 a Notices were mailed on October 15, 2013 to all 9 legal property owners of record to the addresses on file -ith the Jefferson County Assessor's office for all parcels within 300 feet of the subject parcel. o Notices and SEPA Checklist were mailed to 22 agencies: October 15. 2013 o The applicant posted the notice on site on October 16, 2{013 using the notice board provided by the county. • Comment Period Ended: October 30, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. The decision is made administratively meaning the decision on this permit will be made by Stacie Haskins, Planning Manager. Stacie is also the SEPA Responsible Official and will make the final SEPA threshold determination. Appeal of the decision and the SEPA threshold is to the Hearing Examiner. "I'he next step in the process is to compile all of the comment letters and forward them to the applicant and subject property owner to respond to the comments. The applicant may do any of the following to address the comments: • Provide additional information • Refute the comments • Propose mitigation • Redesign the proposal State will also request the applicant contact Karl Hatton, Director ofJeffCom, to assess the potential for collocating on JeffCom's facility on the Coyle Peninsula. The tle was scanned last week and is available for the public to view at: http•fltest.co. Jefferson -wa. usl webtinkexternal /Browse.aspx ?startid= l 189481 &dbid =l I hope this information helps. Please contact me if you have questions or need clarification. Sincerely, Toe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, VIA 95368 Phone: 360- 385 -9406 Pax: 361-379 -1473 e-mail:lumt�!;cu.rfferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the duality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant eCOnamy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to [his address will be recaived oy the JeFte+sori County e-mail system and may be sub)ect to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42 yb ROW Please note: The Department of Community Development is open to the ,public 9 :00 a.m. - 4 :30 p.m. Monday - Thursday; Closed Noon - 1 :00 p.m.; Closed Fridays. Information from ESET NOD' )2 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 9001 (.20131104) The message was checked by ESET NOD322 Nntivirus. http://W,wW.eseLcOn'l Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 9001 (20131 104) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. hqp:flwww,qset.co To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 21 Sheridan 5t. Port Townsend, VITA 983+68 From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn MAILING address: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 808- 89+6 -3394 jdpainia ftahooxom PROPERTY address: 265 Blueberry Hill Quilcene, WA 98376 Attention: Zoe Ann Lamp D [E 0 [E 9 V IE FmVO�V El 2013 JEFFERSON COUNTV Regarding: Formal Pleading Comments MLA 13 -00 116 Proposed cell tower siting at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 1, 1 any requesting a formal hearing regarding this siting. I am requesting to be notified of any and all comments, plans, pending and final decisions with ample time to respond to such. 2, It is absolutely outrageous that AT&T cannot find a suitable siting for this 200+ foot tower other than less than 500 feet from an established neighborhood such as Blueberry Hill. I believe that Blueberry Hill is the only established neighborhood the entire length of Coyle road until reaching Coyle. It is unbelievable that Jefferson County is about to permit AT &T to bulldoze their way into our small little community of Blueberry Dill. It is ridiculous that the only place for 15+ miles on Coyle road for the siting of this intrusive 200+ foot cell tower is less that 500 feet away from the community of 7 homes on Blueberry Hill. It is absolutely unbelievable that there is not another siting along Coyle road that would meet the goals of AT&T without the negative impact on any established neighborhood. *Please provide me with all sitings that were considered for this 200+ foot cell tower with an explanation as to why they were not chosen for the project. *Please provide me with the justification for choosing 9305 Coyle road for this siting above other possible choices. *Please provide me with information regarding AT &T's attempt to construct a 200 foot lattice tower finaled 5/12 /2010. Where was this 2 -acre timber harvest siting and what were the reasons that it did not get constructed(l 3 -0 0019)? FA 3. Please provide nee with all cell towers that AT&T could co- locate with instead. of building a new 200 +foot cell tower with the intention of bringing in other carriers in the future to co- locate with them. It is not appropriate to construct a CELL TOWER FARM so close to an established residential community such as Blueberry Hill when there are so many miles of uninhabited area that could be utilized for this purpose that would have negligible affect on any communities. *please inform me if AT &T researched co- location with any other wireless carriers? Please inform me as to why the cell tower that is already on Coyle road is not suitable for co- location. 4. It is ridiculous to suggest that existing vegetation will be able to screen a 200+ foot cell tower no matter how tall our natural trees may grow. This cell tower is going to be a visual blight on the community of Blueberry Hill and all those that travel Coyle road. S. Noise pollution is going to happen with the maintenance of this 200+ foot cell tower and will increase if other wireless carriers co- locate to this siting. *Please inform nee what noise is associated with the operation of such a large cell tower on a daily basis and how AT &T plans to mitigate such noise. Noise travels far in the forest and is not acceptable to those used to the quiet and solitude of living on Blueberry Hill. 6. What color could AT &T possibly pick to match the sky at 200+ feet up in the air? AT &T can not mask or blend this tower into the natural beauty of the current scenery. 7. At 200+ feet any lighting will be a disruption to those of us living less than 500 feet from this cell tower. It will be a hazard to our general well being to have the sky lit up at night by these required lights when it is a dark sky that now surrounds us. At that height light will travel well beyond 500 feet and be disruptive to those of us trying to sleep on Blueberry Hill. B. The setbacks that are planned for this 200+ foot tower may sound sufficient in an urban setting but are completely unacceptable and ridiculous in this rural setting when there are miles and miles of uninhabited land where setbacks would not be an issue at all. How AT &T and Jefferson county can even consider erecting a cell tower so close to the established community of Blueberry Hil1(422'9 ") when it could be erected in a siting that would not be close to any community is beyond belief: 9. AT &T cannot possible blend this 200+ foot cell tower and it will DISTURB THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE SETTING! 3 10. PROTECTING POINTS OF VISUAL INTERST VIEWS It is not possible that AT &T can assure me that the beautiful forest and mountain view that I now have from my home on Blueberry Hill will not be significantly degraded by this 200+ foot cell tower. The pictures that were provided to alleviate any fears that my view would not be destroyed are totally inadequate especially since my home is two stories. *AT&T cannot claim that there are no other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less. *AT&T must prove that there are no colocations opportunities *AT &T cannot claim that development on an alternative site with decreased visual effects within the service area is not feasible. 11. Please explain the comments under Federal Requirements in the General Project Description regarding SPRINT Is site (where is this site and could it be used for colocation)? Please add the above comments and concerns to my previous submission. Thank you, y Vicki Hutchison Niederorn Zoe Ann Lamp From: 'Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [kipamia @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:58 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: Re: "Test" Email [FW: MLA 13- Q0116] GOT IT! Thanks! On Oct 31, 2013, at 5 :04 AM, "Zoe Ann Lamp" <ZLampc co. iefferson.wa.up wrote: Ms. Hutchison, Per your request I'm sending tilis main. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you. Zoe Ann From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10 :06 AM To: 'Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn' Cc: 'Bonnie Story' Subject: RE: MLA 13 -0 0116 Ms. Hutchison, Thank you for your cornrnents and questions. The next step in the process is for me to review the comment letters after the period has closed. I will compile all comment letters and forward them to the applicant and property owner to be reviewed and addressed. The decision is administrative, meaning the decision is made in our office. There is no public hearing. The Planning, Manager, Stacie Hoskins, will sign the decision. She is also the SEPA Responsible Official and will make the Final SEPA Determination. The SEPA determination is made at the time of the decision. As a Party of Record you will receive a copy of all notices and a copy of the final decision. Attached is JCC 18.40.330 which addresses "Administrative Appeals ". The current fee to appeal a Type II decision is $99.00; this fee will likely increase on January 1, 2014 so if you choose to appeal the final decision please contact our office for the appropriate amount. 111e- appeal would be sent or delivered to the DCD office at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA. Aaain, thank you for taking the time to provide your comments on this project. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Part Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360 -379 -4473 e -mail: I'lain R ci!codefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DGD 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 thc- Jeffersan Cokinly e-mail system and may be subject [o Public, DisclOSu- Linder Ghapt€ r 4256 RCW Please Rote: The Department of Community Development is open to the public 9:00 a.m. — 4:30 p.m. Monday - Thursday, Closed Noon - 1:00 p.m.; Closed Fridays. From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [mailto:kipamia@ayahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:56 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject; MLA 13 -00116 Dear Ms Lamp: I appreciate your returning my call yesterday and regret not being available at the time. Let me summarize my questions regarding this permit process for this proposed cell tower: I _ I understand that today, 10/30/13, is the end of the pleading comment period. *WHAT IS TI -IF NEXT STEP IN THIS REVIEW PROCESS? *WHO WILL BE REVIEWING OUR COMMENTS' *WHEN WILL THIS REVIEW BE TAKING PLACE? *WHEN WILL I BE NOTIFIED OF THE OUTCOME OF THE REVIEW? *HOW MANY LAYS DO I HAVE AFTER. THE REVIEW IS COMPLETED TO APPEAL? *WHO IS THE HEARING EXAMINER? *WHERE DO I SEND MY APPEAL? *WHEN WILL IT BE DETERMMD IF THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING? *HOW WILL I BE NOTIFIED OF THE PUBLIC HEARING? 2. I have been informed by Robert Ziegler from Fish and Wildlife that he is not responsible for the SEPA determination and he referred me back to Jefferson County. *WHO WILL MAKE THE SEPA DETERMINATION? *WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THIS DETERMINATION TO BE COMPLETED? *HOW MANY DAYS DO I HAVE TO APPEAL THIS "HIS DETERMINATION? *WHERE DO I SEND MY APPEAL REGARDING THE SEPA DETERMINATION? 3. FYI: Adam Escalona of Adapt Engineering has not replied to any of my inquines about this tower. (e -mail 10/19113 and hard copy 10/25113) * Is there another contact person that might be more responsive "? * A suxrmiary of niy requests to Mr. Escalona are listed below. Could you please respond to them or Iiorward theta to someone that could: *picture or drawing of proposed lattice tower *picture or drawing of proposed equipment storage building (with dimensions including height) *picture or drawing of proposed lighting(I~AA style A(L- S64.L -81 with e�:planation regarding brightness, flashing or not color, and distance seen *Ty p e o f fencing *Lacked gate at Coyle or not and if so picture *Signage at Coyle of not and if so picture including dimensions *HOW ARE WETLANDS BEING PROTECTED? 4. My pleading/comment questions are self- explanatory and I am still waiting for answers from Jefferson County regarding the following: *Haw many other sites were considered? *Why were the other sites eliminated *What is the address of all other considered sites? *What other sites on the proposed 20 acre property were ainsidered? *What was the determining factor that the only suitable site on the 20 acre property was only 422 feet from Blueberry Hill? *How far is the nearest cell tower from the proposed site? *Was co- location to the nearest cell tower considered? *Why was co- location not an option? *Why was AT &T's proposal to construct similar tower on 2 -acre timber land in 512012 denied and where was this site? *What is the reference to SPRINT's site under Federal Requirement in the General Project Description and where is this site? *1 NOTICED THAT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE WAS PARTIALLY DETERMINED SO THAT IT COULD ACCOMMODATE THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT OF CO- LOCATING COMPA s1IL -S ON THIS SITE. * How much extra equipment, traffic, noise, antennas, etc. would co- location bring to the Blueberry Hill community? Thank you for your assistance. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn PLEASE SEND ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION, REPORTS, DETERMINATIONS, NOTICES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 68 -3567 Awainoa'Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 FOR TIMELINESS PLEASE ALSO SEND ALL OF THE ABOVE TO MY E -MAIL: kipa nin(a ^yahoo.er +m 808- 896 -3394 <JCC13.40.330 Administrative Appeals.pdf> unaptti to,L+u ter -mlvi1 r nrrt- l�-na lvivr,ary 0.4v I V i 18.40.330 Administrative appeals. In the absence of a specific right of appeal authorized under this UDC, there shall be no right to administrative appeals. (1) Type I Permits. Decisions of the Administrator on Type I permits and decisions regarding the appropriate permit process to be used for discretionary conditional use permit applications (i.e., "C(d)" uses listed in Table 3 -1 in JCC 18.15.040) under JCC 18.40.520, are not appealable to the hearing examiner. However, administrative code interpretations may be appealed as set forth in Article VI of this chapter. (2) Type II Permits_ (a) The administrator's final decision on a Type 11 permit application may be appealed by a party of record to the hearing examiner for an open record appeal hearing as further set forth in JCC 18.44.280. The responsible official's SEPA determination of nonsignificance (DNS) or mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) may also be appealed by a party of record to the hearing examiner for an open record appeal hearing. Administrative appeals of a DS or draft or final EIS are not allowed. (b) All appeals of Type li permit decisions must be in writing, conform with the procedures for appeal set forth in subsection (5) of this section. and be filed within 14 calendar days after the notice of decision is issued. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA, except for a determination of significance (DS), shall be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. (See RCW 36.7013.110(6) (d))_ (3) Type III Permits. (a) The responsible official's DNS or MDNS may be appealed to the hearing examiner by the applicant or anyone commenting on the environmental impacts of the proposal (as further set forth in JCC 18.40.784) The appeal must be in writing, in conformance with subsection (5) of this section, and be filed within 14 calendar days after the threshold determination is issued as set forth in subsection (4) of this section. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA shall be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. (See RCW 36.70B.1 10(6)(d)). Administrative appeals of a DS or draft or final EIS are not allowed. (4) Calculation of Appeal Periods. The appeal periods shall be calculated as of the date the notice of decision is published or, for appeals involving a SEPA determination, from the date the decision is issued pursuant to WAC 107- 11- 340(2)(d). (5) Procedure for Appeals. (a) A notice of appeal shall be delivered to the administrator by mail or by personal delivery, and must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period, with the required appeal fee pursuant to the ,Jefferson County fee ordinance. (b) The notice of appeal shall contain a concise statement identifying: (i) The decision being appealed and the identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal, (ii) The name, address, and phone number of the appellant and his/her interest in the matter; (iii) Appellant's statement describing standing to appeal (i.e., how he or she is affected by or interested in the decision); (iv) The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appellant shall bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; (v) The desired outcome or changes to the decision; and . 1 _ _i_._..Li: 1 ..r,.. AAIA 1 tn&4a cnr'r ni in'hfl Pl kifcrennif^rr lr +i(1PAf) html in/,;;f'/9n1q ve�r�ta 1u.Yvs L-1mvii i rti s -inn 1 iviv nivV i -%L- v 1L-vv 1 13v LUUitL—..x _%_r/A IIVIF'LC1vICJV i h I I N rllg 'LOT Z (vi) A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, signed by the appellant. (c) Any notice of appeal not in full compliance with this section shall not be considered. [Ord. 8-06 § 11 I-,++.,- f1, ^-A—, 6..r... --IA A1A 1 1 1.LF r ../+ _4- Any p fir, ar+_... . -An An i_. wn n ,,...,.- Zoe Ann Lamp From Colleen Zmolek Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:11 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW: MLA13 -00116 Comments FYI, cell tower comment below cot eelz Z171olek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 -379 -4462 czmQlelt co.Lefferson.wa.us ftWA TERSHE1aiE'WAR[? SHIP P ESOl1RGl= ENTER 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. 111 v -mail -wnt to -ed [PN- th(- tffei,;on County r7wy he sul,ject of t'ulylic: U«cic,vtir{° under our office is open to the public 9:00 a.m. —4:=0 P.m. Monday to Thursday, closed Fridays. From: Richard Hild [maitto:richhild @olypen.comj Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:101 AM To: Colleen Zmolek Cc; Dennis Schulte; ken shock; Scott Wilson Subject: Fwd: MLA13- 0011E Comments Dear Ms- Molek, I reiterate Mr. Schultz's comments below and Mr. Shock's comments in Mr. Shock's earlier email to you. The pert-nit for the cell tower should be delayed until all concerned citizens of Jefferson County have been heard on this subject. The thought that for some reason a large corporation is being given preferential treatment in the permit process may be incorrect. However, with a consensus of the folks in Jefferson County being that getting a permit in Jefferson County is a protracted and arduous affair, the speedy process given to a large corporation in the same process does give the impression of some sort Of favoritism. 1 have recently read of something called Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Is this speedy permit process possibly some form of PPP? If it is, what is the quid pro quo between Jefferson County and the permit petitioners? If not, the County should make it very clear publicly to the citizens of Jefferson County that the County does not participate in PPP's. Thank you in advance for your expeditious response in this matter. Respectfully,. Richard Hild 1571 Cape George Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 -385 -7371 richhi Id@ olypen.cc ni - -- - - Original Message - -- 5ubject:MLA13- 0011.6 Comments Date:Wed, 30 tact 2013 09.27.12 -0700 From:Dennis Schultz <dschultz@waypoint.comf To: <CZm o le k @ co. jefferso n . wa . us > I urge you to delay issuing permit MLA13- 110116. There a number of things to reconsider: The effect on neighboring property values, the procedures that were followed ( legal notices, sign posting, views of the area, etc.), and possible legal suits. I recognize that you have a time limit in which to issue this type of permit, but it was rushed through in about a month which gave the adjoining property owners a very short in which to learn about this project which had very little publicity. In a remote area like this, it takes time for news like this to get around. Considering that it usually takes months for a private party to get any kind of construction permit from DCD, it looks like favoritism to a large and influential corporation. DCD has no qualms about requiring private parties to conduct extensive expensive studies before issuing permits. Why haven't you required this applicant to look at alternate sites that would be more desirable for the rural residents of this area? This again shows DCD's total disregard for the interests of rural residents. DCD has again forgotten whose interests they are responsible for representing! This action will probably result in another lawsuit against DCD. The County (DCD) can ill afford the costs of another lawsuit when it is facing the possibility of at least five different suits when the 5MP is passed this year. As President of Olympic Stewardship Foundation, I represent about 400 Families, most of whom live in the rural areas of the Olympic Peninsula. Dennis Schultz 250 N Jacob Miller Rd Port Townsend, WA 98358 360- 379 -0338 cl-schultz@waypoint.com Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Seat Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:03 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW: MLA13 -00116 Comments FYI, see cell tower comment below Cof glen Zmofek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Part Townsend, WA 98368 360- 379 -4462 czmolek co.'efferson.wa.us 1 WAiIH $yIARgSHI� R E 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 r -rn atl sent rr) this addrrss %%,ill u! received 1r1- thv JiAlrrson Fount), E -zn Eil s�!seem .111cl tnay Ire Siib-( t LO 1'uhlir 1)1s6P,-;111- +miler C h4pter t`3 r; TtC'lt' Dur office is open to Lhe public 14:00 a.m. - 4:3o p.m. Monday to Thursday, closed Fridays. From: Dennis Schultz'[mailto : dschul'tz@waypoint.com} Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9;27 AM To: Colleen Zmolek Subject: MLA13 -0 0116 Comments I urge you to delay issuing permit MLA13a00116. There a number of things to reconsider_. The effect on neighboring property values, the procedures that were followed ( legal notices, sign posting, views of the area, etc.), and passible legal suits. I recognize that you have a time limit in which to issue this type of permit, but it was rushed through in about a month which gave the adjoining property owners a very short in which to learn about this project which had very little publicity. In a remote area like this, it takes time for news like this to get around. Considering that it usually takes months for a private party to get any kind of construction permit from DCD, it looks like favoritism to a large and influential corporation. DCD has no qualms about requiring private parties to conduct extensive expensive studies before issuing permits. Why haven't you required this applicant to look at alternate sites that would be more desirable For the rural residents of this area? This again shows DCD's total disregard far the interests of rural residents. DCD has again forgotten whose interests they are responsible for representing! This action will probably result in another lawsuit against DCD. The County (DCD) can ill afford the costs of another lawsuit when it is facing the possibility of at least five different suits when the 5MP is passed this year. As President of Olympic Stewardship Foundation, I represent about 400 families, most of whom live in the rural areas of the Olympic Peninsula. Dennis Schultz 2501 N Jacob Miller Rd Part Townsend, WA 98368 3601- 379 -0338 dschultz @waygoint.conn Zoe Ann Lamp From: Bonnie 'Story [storybdard.pro cr gmail.eoml Seat: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:23 AM To. Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: [BULK] Fwd. MLA 13 -00116 Hello Ms. Lanap. Thank you for your message yesterday, I was away at work. Welcome back from vacation_. I am vexy disturbed that you are only back in the office for the last day of the comment period. Is that business as usual? I believe it would have been quite helpful for us to have access to the Project Manager. In any case, my neighbor Vicki's questions below are the same as mine, so please consider them as mine as well. I wish to be copied on any and all business regarding the proposed site with particular attention to my previous request for a listing of all considered sites, rejected or not. Thank you, Bonnie Story 293 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene WA 9€375 (my bedroom and office are 400' from the proposed tower FYI) -- ------- Forwarded message --- - - - - -- From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn =ki artia ahoo.coll -i> Bate: Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:55 AM Subject: MLA 13-00116 To: "Aam c� }co. eiTersotl. va_us" - zlainLtL .co.iefferson_wa.us> Dear Ms Lamp: I appreciate your returning my call yesterday and regret not be' g available at the time. Let me summarize my questions regarding this permit process for this proposed cell tower: [ understand that toddy. 10/30113, is the end of the pleading comment period. *WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN THIS REVIEW PROCESS? *WHO WILL BE REVIEWING OUR COMMENTS? *WHEN WILL THIS REVIEW BE TAKING PLACE? *WHEN WILL I BE NOTIFIED OF THE OUTCOME OF THE REVIEW? *HOW MANY BAYS DO I HAVE AFTER THE REVIEW IS COMPLETED TO APPEAL? *W- HO IS THE HEARING EXAMINER? *WHERE DO I SEND MY APPEAL" *WHEN WILL IT BE DETERMINED IF THERE WILL BE A PL[BLIC HEARING? *HOW WILL I BE NOTIFIED OF THE PUBLIC HEARING? ?. I have been iriformcd by Robert Ziegler from Fish and Wildlife that he is not responsible for the SEPA determination and he referred me back to Jefferson County, *WHO WILL MAKE THE SEPA DETERMINATION? *WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THIS DETERMINATION TO BE COMPLETED? *HOW MANY DAYS DO I HAVE TO APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION? *WHERE DO I SEND MY APPEAL REGARDING THE SEPA DETERMINATION? 3. FYI: Adam Escalona of Adapt Engxneeringhas not replied to any of my inquiries about this tower. (e -mail 10/ 19/13 and hard copy 1.012 5/13) • Is there: another contact person that might be more responsive'? • A summary of my requests to Mr. Esealona are listed below. Could you please respond to them or forward them to someone that could: *picture or drawing of proposed lattice tower *picture or drawing of proposed equipment storage building (with dimensions including height) *picture or drawing of proposed lighting(FAA style A(L -864.L -410) with explanation regarding brightness, flashing or not color, and distance seen *Type of fencing *Locked gate at Coyle or not and if so picture *Signage at Coyle of not and if so picture including dimensions *HOW ARE WETLANDS BEING PROTECTED? 4. My pleading/comment questions are self-explanatory and I am still waiting for answers from Jefferson County regarding the following: 'How many other sites were considered? *Why were the other sites eliminated `What is the address of all other considered sites? *What other sites on the proposed 20 acre property were considered? *What was the determining factor that the only suitable site on the 20 acre property was only 422 feet from Blueberry Hill? *How far is the nearest cell tower from the proposed site? `Was co- location to the nearest cell tower considered? *Why was co- location not an option? *Why was AT &T's proposal to construct similar tower on 2 -acre timber land in 12012 denied? and where was this site? *What is the reference to SPRINT's site under I~ederaI Requirement in the General Project Description and where is this site? *I NOTICED THAT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE WAS PARTIALLY DETERMINED SO THAT 11' COU LD ACCOMMODATE THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT O)~ CO- LOCATING COMPANIES ON THIS SITE- * How much extra equipment, traffic, noise, antennas, etc. would co- location bring to the Blueberry Hill community? Thank you for your assistance. VL'cki Hutcliisoii Niedt:i-koni Pt -L-ASU SUIT) A\'Y ..\D AI I- CO VINIUNICATION_ R PC}RTS, DU R.IU'lINATIONS. N'C }- flc'L-S Tf ► TI� E FOLLOiVI "-1-C 1DDRFSS: '4\. ail- oloa, HI . FOP T1,%1E1.1 \1!. PI :: ` i. Al,S0 SEND .0 C ()FT1 -iF �I f?l L Tc i vii C -11. 1L; t:i arrriac�vahou.coan Bennie Story StoryBoard Productions lhtt :fOww�v -sto hoard roducti ns_coni http: / /back - theland.�c t,co?n 360-765-0967 Zoe Ann LamP From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:23 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW: MLA13 -001 16ATUMobility Project Just received another comment on the cell tower. cotT Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 -379 -4462 UnIolek co. efferson.wa.us F F K 's u j4A SHt RDSHIP ft�Ar R�s0URCEt ER ie fferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson Co Lin ty by promoting a vibrant economy, .sound communities and a healthy environment. All (-nmil '�Vllt to rh18 addre-w4 -,kill be rvveiN d 1 ;V tlie.iodierswn L'OUMV c- t1raiI y�stt ^in rtnri i7iay I:rt 4i i,jt r -till ['111111L 1 ii�cii >+tor+ ura lc r our office is open to the Public 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 P.m. Monday to Thursday, closed Fridays. From: Larry Hovde [ mailto :quilbillyCcoembargmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:.13 PM To: Colleen Zmolek Subject: MLA13- 00116AT &TMobility project To whom it may concern, DO NOT ALLOW AT &T to build a two hundred foot tall tower in a residential communityfli There is a vast amount of uninhabited land on Toandos Peninsula. i am sure an adequate site away from current residential areas can be found. Thank You, Larry Hovde Marilyn Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 360- 765 -0736 msmitch@)embarcirrail.com Sent by e -mail and U. S. Mail October 28, 2013 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division +621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: MLA 13 -00116 AT &T proposed cell tower Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp Dear Ms. Lamp and Department of Community Development: This letter serves as my comment on this project. I also request notification of any hearings on this matter. 1 also request copies of any and all decisions on this project be sent to me. Comment: This application should not be approved or allowed. A 200 -foot cell tower is an industrial, commercial development in an otherwise rural, forested area. This kind of development is not in keeping with any other allowed uses of the neighboring parcels. Blueberry Hill is a large lot subdivision just south of the proposed site. We moved here in 2005 for the undisturbed quiet of the surrounding woods. This is an area of nice homes, tucked in the private settings, with views of the Olympics and trees. This is a gravel road, with no street lights. We want to maintain our pristine wooded neighborhood. This project would intrude on that tranquility with lights and noise, not to mention the unsightly visible tower looming on the horizon. The physical presence of this tower will permanently change the view and impact property values for our whole subdivision. Jefferson County Community Development Re: MLA 13-00116 October 28, 2013 The physical presence of this tower raises many safety and health concerns about exposure to the electrical and cell transmissions, the science of which is still undetermined, and this too will negatively impact resale value. Too many unanswered questions remain about the full impact of the cell tower to our neighborhood to allow this project to go forward.. Please do not permit this project at this site. Thank you. Marilyn Mitchel Zoe Ann Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [kipamia@yahoo.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 29. 2013 10:07 AM To: Cart Smith; David Sullivan: Phil Johnson; johnaustin@co.jefferson.wa.us Cc: Zoe Ann Lamp; adamee @adaptengr.com; RobertZeigler cttdfw.wa.gov; anisa.a.latif@att.com Subject: Re: Toandoslcoyle cell tower: MLA13- 001161A08572941Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 October 29,2013 Dear Sirs: Please be advised that I am adamantly opposed to the siting of a 200—, foot AT&T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene. My retirement home is located on 265 Blueberry Hill and I will soon be a resident of the community, a concerned citizen and VOTER! i am formally requesting further research into a more appropriate siting for such an intrusive tower that would have negligible impact on any established residential community such as Blueberry Hill. Please stop further progress of this project and redirect efforts toward finding a siting that would not be so harmful to the human environment. Please refer to the Project Description, page 6 as an example of the inadequate compliance that AT &T has shown in choosing this site for a'200+ foot cell tower and thus far the poor judgment that Jefferson County Comnnunity Development Department has shown in allowing this project to proceed this far. ATT has not been able to demonstrate the following: b (1) c Vii} c (iv) This siting is on a 20 acre parcel and Coyle road is 15+ mile =s of minimally inhabited forest land. AT &T cannot possibly have demonstrated that the only siting on 20 acres/1 5 miles is less than 5110 feet from Blueberry Hill or that there is not an alternative site with decreased visual effect within the service area! COULD THIS SITING HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH TIIE ACCESS ROAD AND ELECTRICITY BEING CONVENIENTLY AVAILABLE? THIS IS THE COUNTRY, NOT THE CITY. NO NEIGHBOR WOULD EVEN CONSIDER BUILDING SO CLOSE TO ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. WE ARE TALKING ACRES, NOT FEET! I am looking forward to each of your responses and assistance in the very serious matter. Tlnaink you. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn t wireless telecommunication service can only be provided by development ofthe proposed faculty. The prnposed self- support tower is not located within 250 feet of a residence, (h) Methods for Protecting Points of Visual Interest, The fclloivirtb options enay be used to protectthe po ins at visual interest lister'! abc)ve (1) Use alternative facility designs and locatiols oil the parcel to rnlnlmixe the degradation of views from residences to the point 0fvisual interest, (ii) Maintain vxistingtrees and shrubs an the Site and/orprovide additional landscaping; (iii} Obtain leases or easements for the life of the proposal to protect trees and shrubs on adjoining properties that will screen the proposed facility or to allow the planting of additional trees and shrtixhs. AT &T's proposed self -- support tower is not located within 2SO feet of a residence. The proposed site is located on a portion of the subject parcel that is heavily screened by exkting trees and vegetation in order to niinin -�ixe the visual impact of the site to the greatest ex -tent passible. (c) in the event that it ii not practicable to pratecr_ the visual paints of interest listed above from significant degradation, the applieanr for a cotrditinnal use xvireless communications facility shall minimize the visual ei e t to fire greatest extent practicable and shall also demonstrate rhrnuFh appropriate analysis that: N There are no other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less, (ii) Coloration or attachment ears an alternative struck - -tire w•ithIn the sr.rvice area is not feasible; (tv) i }evelopment on an alternative site with decreased visual cfeL Ls n,iLhin the service area is not Feasible, JDTd. 6 -49 § 1] The proposed site is located on a portion of the subject parcel that is heavily screene =d by existing trees and vegetation in order to minimize the visual irnpact of the site to the greatest extent possible. Federal Requirements Sprint's telecommunication facility will meet 01- exceed currenr standards and regulatiorts of the .FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the Federal gocernnre:nl with the authority to regulate towers and antennns. Sprint's site will conform to all FX /FCC regulations, and Because the maximum ERP is less than two thousand ['l,iltl[]) watts and/or the height of the facility is greater than ten meters (10m), an environmental evaluation of radio frequency emissiOns is exempted per CPR Title 47 art 24, Subpart E. AT &T has a license from the FCC to pi-m ide wireless telecommunication services throughout' Washington State. AT�T VR02' i6 Buuyor canal Page 6 Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:46 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW: Concerns with MLA93 -00115 AT &T Mobility project FYI cotr en zmolek' Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Pori Townsend, WA 98368 360- 379 -4462 czrnolek co. efferson.wa.us WATERSHED VAR'DS"Ip Rl~SaUaCE CeWTJE R 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 il xiirt tr, this, addre. ", v "ill lie rvicei4cd Ily tht ,leficrson Comity c -nintl sN -stem wid Way 1w subject to Public Disclosilre IInd r Chapter ++2,56 RC'W Our suffice is open to the public 9 :00 a.m. - 4 :30 p.m. Monday to Thursday, closed Fridays. From: Scott Shack [mailto :ssshock @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:42 AM To: Colleen Zm4lek. Subject: Concerns with MLA13 -00116 AT &T Mobility project To Whom it May Concern: My family owns property in the Blueberry Hill subdivision adjacent to this proposed cell tower. i agree Fully with the comments expressed by one of the subdivision residents below. This tower should be located elsewhere in the copious Open space of clearcuts on the peninsuta, out of sight and far from existing residences. Best regards, Scott Shock On Tue, Oct 22, ? 1 at 5 :30 FM, Bennie story <st�) board.prolcs rxlail.cc�ln> wrote: T1L11-11, you for your links and documents. Here are my concerns now that t have had a chance to find out more about the project. Concerns with MLA13 -00116 AT &T Mobility Project hu/ /test,co.io ersr�n.w� .�islwet�linkexternalll3ro se,aspx' ?startid =t 1 4451 ;dhid =l p : LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING: In the paperwork it says that "more site photos can be provided if necessary" in a hand- written note can the margin. Well, more photos are necessary. The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry hill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees obscuring the very spot where the tower is being proposed, born my reckoning. Furthermore, the position of the provided photo is irrelevant to the vast majority of homeowners here. The viewpoint needed, where the photo will have the most meaning, is facing north from the UPPER Cul-de- sac of Blueberry Hill Drive. This is quite obvious to anyone actually visiting the site, I have no idea ]mow this was missed. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far) tower. A, rendering based on the view from the UPPER Cul -de -sac will have meaning .tor no fewer than five neighbors. That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive, see a tower 2l3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood, turn around, and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north from the UUPPER Cul -de sac. The single view presently offered from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision, partially obscured by trees as shown., is meaningless. MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: Allison Likc left Smartlink and her replacement Jillian Martin just stepped in October 3rd. This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices:. The project announcement was not posted in the PT header to my best knowledge, which is the newspaper of legal record, but rather in the Peninsula Daily News, which appears to be a mistake. Also there has never been any hind of retluircd SIGNAGE posted on the site at all. I would have seen it. This appears to be the most serious public - notice oversight. I am exposed to the site frequently. if not daily, and at no time have 1, to this day, seen any type of public notice sign. If I had seen it, I would certainly have investigated rnuch sooner thrum my belated Ietter permitted roe. AND: Why was mine the ONLY household in all of Blueberry Hill to receive a LETTER at all, to the best of my knowledge? My several neighbors also are mystified about this. Arc the above issues part of a concerted effort to downplay public information about this project, or just concerted ineptitude? Either way, the result has created an atmosphere of surprise and panic that is totally needless. That is what public notice laws were created to mitigate, correct? This is a remote community. and legal notice requirements such as public- notice signs and letters are very important since we are beyond normal newspaper delivery here. I would like an explanation of how the public notice sign and public notice letters were overlooked, whose fault it was that they were overlooked, and what can be done to mitigate the lack of proper public notice. I would suggest extending the public comment period by two weeks at least. ALTERNATE SITES:. It has been suggested to me by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be requested. I ant hereby demanding that information about alternate sites be provided. The Blueberry Hill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land, nowhere near neighborhoods like mine and well clear of the generally accepted sphere of influence of 1701' that a 200' tower commands. N"v is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full time hones? To save AT&T money, undoubtedly, that reason is not satisfactory when we are located in such an abundance of rural remote alternative sites. LIGHTING: In the language about the project, it is stated that there will be "no" lighting on the tower - "except FAA, required aircraft lighting." WHAT I5 THAT KIND OF LIGHTING? I cannot be my job to research what that may mean for nighttime darkness /light pollution and the activity of migratory birds. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that information, I am demanding that more specifications about the FAA aircraft lighting, written in English that a non - scientist can understand, and an artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off all night, every night, by this proposed ?00' tall tower. LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a roughly estimated $ }0[1,000 each, some more and some less, then $210,000.00 is a rough estimate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value. This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. it may be conservative, as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue - Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20% expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood, that higher figure of lost value would amount to $420,000.00. This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation, with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the I Ith Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker, that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Shoutd this project be approved, it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction. All this, in a place surrounded by forested, isolated locations._. SENSELESS_ Blueberry Hill residents are about to be asked to fork over significant property value so that AT&T doses not have to spend S 1 00,000 to bring power in to a more remote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites, I imagine a few of them is much more appropriate and [much less damaging than this proposed site, but would cast AT&T some more financial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off, I would rather see AT&T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. ABSENCE OF PROJECT MANAGER ZOE ANN LAMP: Is it normal policy to have a project manager unreachable until one day before the close of a comment period? Is that just an accident this time, or does that happen all the time? I feel that a project manager could offer an integrated overview in amanner that clerks cannot... Has someone taken over the role of project manager? What are we supposed to think about Ms. Lamp's absence - until it is essentially too late for her to respond to any concerns? Again, is this business as usual, or are we just unlucky hers? 1 would appreciate your candor about that rather remark -able titning- T17ank you for your consideration_ Sorry to be so gruff but when someone asks me for $60,00() they had better have a very very goad reason. Bonnie Story 10/22/2013 360- 765 -0967 Read more: lr�ttp.11w,,u w.may-dallavas. comlreal- estate - devalued- wl -ietr -cell- towers - are - erected) li":ll ""�vw.nvtimes.com1 2010/ OS/ ?9/ realestate /29Lizo.htmi ?_z= 3 &,adxnnS -1&— ref-- realestateLt 1.xnnlx= l39249 6806- M +c4RSiOfLrAvjrldGSe C1 http:llbrid ewater12atch.coinl oupslpolities- and- electionslplappraiser -t_- mobile- cell - tower - gill- affect ropertv- va l urn http:// briarcliflheiizht &orWbeh /wp-- content/tiploads/ 201111? /ne -Iirs act -of W ireles s- Tnwers- on-Resideritial- Property -V alues -BY -CA RO L -C. -M cDC?N QUGH- PhD.pdf` llttp: / /www.anticelltowerl iwvers.coin /cluestit»is- answers/ 13ti31]lIC '7 ti ip'4 -litip,//www.stoLyboardl2ro(ILicticins-coni litt : /Ibauk-?thelatid.blo s ot.cc�rn 360- 765 -0967 Zoe Ann Lamp From: Carl Smith Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 20 3 3 8:28 AM To_ Zoe Ann Lamp; Stacie Haskins Subject: FW: ToandoslCoyle cell tower: MLA1 3- 001 1 61A0857294/Project BR0266_Pub.Sept.5,2013 Legal No.5a982t1 Attachments: celletter.pdf After you have a chance to review this, let's plan to meet to discuss our response. Thanks, Carl Front: ken shock [mailto:sailboi @g mail . com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:53 PM To: Carl Smith, David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; John Austin Cc: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Bennie Story; keen shock; Terri Naughton; Mare; Jim Bayer; Larry Howie; Richard Hild; !Norman MacLeod; Dennis Schultz; Bud Schindler; Scott Shock; Larry Carter; ellen grus; George Sickel; jim hagen Subject: Fwd: Toandos /Coyle cell tower : MLA13- 00116 /AO857294 /Project BR0266, Pub: Sept. S,2013 Legal No.509820 To: Carl Smith - Director Jeffco DCD Jeffco BOCC Carl Smith, David Sullivan, Phil , lohnson and John Austin Please pay attention here, there is absolutely no reason to allow a 220011 cell tower (the height of a 19 story residential tower) to be built immediately adjacent to one of the few quality subdivisions on Coyle peninsula. The process has been flawed, the notice inadequate - the project has the earmarks of a railroad job. The homeowners in Blueberry Hill subdivision are livid - why has their been no ordinance limiting proximity of cell towers to homes and schools ? ? ?? Why has such a project not been placed before the BOCC prior to any planning action. This tower is to he the tallest structure in Jefferson county, it will be seen from Seabeck to the Canal bridge, and from Quilcene, the Bolton peninsula - down to Blackpoint, strobe lights flashing day and night. The home I built for niy daughter's family on Lot ##1 in Blueberry Hill, .is the closest home to this monster tower, only a few hundred feet away. Our property value will be slammed, and the purposes of building in this remote spot totally degraded• This comes after the DCD forced us to spend over $20,000 and a year of dealings with five state and federal agencies because of the wetland on our property - a wetland that extends well into, and originates within the proposed cell site. Where are the wetland studies for this property ?? Has the Army Corps been brought in ?? State and Federal fish and wildlife ?? Department of Ecology ?? You guys let this go forward and you will all be named in the litigation for damages - a civil suit will be filed. Sincerely, Ken Shod: - General Partner Horizon Holding, Family Limited Partnership Captain Cook, Flawaii (please see the attached - I have not spoken to my nei,,hbor - Attorney Gary Williams orr this matter, but my action may well be joined with any that he chases to take) Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: Gary Williams <g v f art ucr�� et'ed.crrrn} Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:11 PM f Subject: ToandoslC oyle cell tower: MLA13- 001161AOS57294IPrcject BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2U13 Legal No.509S20 To_ zlampRtojefferson.wa.us, adaineeHiadaptcnLT.com, anisa.a.latifl r3att.corn SHo sk:ins -- w.jefferson,wa_us, C7mole cLoco_jelferson.wa,us - Cc: ki alnia czP -ahoo.cozn, Bonnie Story <boiiilie(di storvlioardproductions.com >, sailboK47) nail.con,, azzureOoembarq mail. corn, Marc = Williams Lave Office 252 Blueberry Hill Drive - Quilcene, Washington 98375 (360) 765 -0729 - gw@areyoucovered.corn October 28, 2013 Jefferson County via email and postal mail Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp Re: MLA 13 -00116 AT&T proposed cell tower Dear Ms. Lamp and Department of Community Development: I live at 252 Blueberry Hill Dr, quite close to the proposed cell tower_ Blueberry Hill is a small residential area directly south of the planned tower. The residents here only recently learned of the proposed tower, and we were told that at least one of the comment periods has already expired. The key notice was published in the Peninsula Daily News, which is not in general circulation here. I'm writing to you to request a delay in approval of the tower and a hearing, so that perhaps litigation can be avoided. The planned tower exceeds two hundred feet in height, and will be illuminated. This will impact a wetland, create light pollution in a now- pristine environment, damage property values and create a health hazard for people and animals. I oppose it. Certainly there must be a location near here which would not encroach on our property. Vast portions of the CoylelToandos Peninsula have been clearcut and are devoid of life. Why not build the tower in one of the clearcuts? Please consider our request for a delay and a hearing, Sincerely, Willi ms Low ffic GA Y WILLI MS Virkr Hutchison Niederkorn <kipamia@yahoo.mrr> czmolek @co.jefferson wa.us z l a m p@ co.leff arson. wa. us " bonniagstorybc oardproduc�ons.c4m" r bonnie @storybaardproductions.com> MLA13- [09116 To Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Atten: Colleen Zmolek Zoe Ann Lamp From-. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Mailing address: 68 -3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, Hl 96738 OCT 18 2013 BOB- 896 -3394 J JEFFERSON COUNTY Property address. L 0FPT. OF COMMUNFrY QEM OTMENT 265 Blueberry Hill Quilcene, WA 98376 Regarding: Formal pleading comments(hard copy to follow) MLA 13 -00116 Type Il Land use application and pending SEPA determination Proposed AT &T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 Dear Ms Zmolek and Ms Lamp: As a concerned property owner and soon to be full time resident of 265 Blueberry Hill, Quilcene, WA, I am submitting my pleading comments for your consideration regarding the proposed AT &T 200+ foot cell tower at siting 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, A_ I am horrified that Jefferson County would even consider approving the construction of a such an intrusive 200+ foot tower so close to an already established residential community such as Blueberry Hill. it is unbelievable that AT &T could not secure a more suitable siting for such a TALL cell tower somewhere along the MILES AND MILES of uninhabited and non residential land on the Coyle peninsula that would not destroy the beauty and serenity of such a small neighborhood as Blueberry Hill. PLEASE provide me with a fisting of all the other sitings that were considered by AT &T for this 200+ foot cell tower and AT &T's reasoning as to why they chose 9395 Coyle Road. Did AT &T look into sharing with the cell tower that is already located on Coyle road? WHY DOES AT &T NEED SUCH A TALL TOWER? A 200+ foot unsightly cell tower would ruin the aesthetic nature of the area surrounding our homes on Blueberry Hill and have an adverse impact on our small community. The 7 homeowners on Blueberry Hill have strived to maintain the natural forested beauty surrounding our homes and a 200+ foot cell tower NEXT DOOR(not much more that the length of a football field away)would destroy the very reason that we chose to live on Blueberry Hill. I agree with Bennie Story that the pictures taken to show that this 200+ toot tower would not be visible from our homes on 'Blueberry Hill and from Coyle road are insufficient. I suggest, as did she, that AT &T construct a 200+ foot temporary tower to show what the visual affect would actually be on our community. In addition many of us have 2 story homes on Blueberry Hill. I would be devastated if instead of a beautiful untouched forest view from my master bedroom, I would now wake up to a 200+ foot cell tower. Property values on Blueberry Hill would dramatically decfine(15% - 20 %) and the pool of potential buyers would significantly decrease in part due to the visual ugliness of a 200+ foot cell tower both from the homes and from the approach to Blueberry Hill from Coyle road and in part due to the public's perception and fear of cell towers being so close to their homes and children. AT &T should be able to locate a siting for this 200+ foot cell tower that does not affect the "next eggs" of those of us that strived all our lives for a secure future and a comfortable retirement in the homes of our dreams, for me that is 265 Blueberry Hill. The Blueberry Hill community and adjacent properties including 9395 Coyle road have protected WETLANDS on their land, habitat to many wildlife including a multitude of birds. The residents of Blueberry Hill went to great lengths to protect the WETLANDS during construction of their homes and continue to protect the WETLANDS and the wildlife the WETLANDS support. A 200+ foot cell tower will have a significantly NEGATIVE impact on the wildlife especially the BIRDS and is of significant environmental concern. How has AT &T assured that the WETLANDS located on 9395 Coyle road will be preserved and protected and that the wildlife and birds supported by the WETLANDS will not be negatively affected by a 200+ foot cell tower? Please be advised that I will be submitting for an ENVIRONMENTAL review of this application with the FCC. OTHER CONCERNS: ACCESS/CRIMINAL ACTIVITY /OFF ROAD ACTIVITY It is of concern to me that access to the siting for the 200 +foot cell tower wifl lead to more traffic and NOISE from both AT &T workers and unauthorized visitors both on the 200+ foot cell tower access road and onto Blueberry Hill. Unwanted access always brings with it the concern of potential criminal activity which is of great concern when living in such a remote community such as Blueberry Hill. LIGHTING POLLUTION Lighting on top of this 200+ foot cell tower is an issue both from an environmental concern for our nocturnal wildlife and birds and from a pollution stand point of our night sky and ability to even sleep without being disturbed by bright lights. Lighting this high has to be confusing to the bird population_ NOISE POLLUTION What exactly will be stared in the 12'x 26 feet ground equipment shelter"? Why does AT &T need equipment for a cell tower? Will there be NOISE from the equipment such as generators? How often will the equipment need to be utilized? �D n DEPT JEFFERSON COUNTY SOUND travels far on Blueberry Hill and excessive NOISE is of great concern. SUMMARY of CONCERNS: *Decline of property value *Fewer prospective buyers *NOISE pollution *LIGHT pollution *WILDLIFE Habitat destruction *Disturbance of protected WETLANDS *Increased traffic *Unauthorized access *Criminal activity *View destruction *Destruction of the natural forest setting and beauty of BLUEBERRY HILL! I appreciate your consideration of my concerns and welcome any questions or comments. Thank you, Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn I JIEFFERSflN �{}111iTY D'M OF "I r1U .ITY DEVELbP4�,E1 f To: DCD Development Review [division Attn: Zoe Ann Lamp, 621 'Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA 98358 Project MLA 13-00115 Parcel 501 101 003 From: Bonnie li. Mary 293 Blueberry hill Quilcene, WA 98376 364- 765 -0967 Regarding: COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSAL Type 11 land use application and pending SEPA determination Proposed AT &T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 Dear Ms. Lamp: EPIEQVE OCT [ 1 21013 Iri 1EFFERSom CQUNIY - LrPT OF MMMII %-+ As a concerned property owner and Immediate neighbor of the project, I am submitting my pleading comments on the environmental irnpact of the proposed AT &T 200+ foot cell tower at siting 93135 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA. Concerns with MLA13 -00116 ATWI' Mobikty LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING: In the paperwork it says that "t-nore site photos can be provided if necessary" in a hand- written note on the margin. Well, more photos are necessary. The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry bill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees ubsWrin; the spot where the tower is being proposed, from my reckoning. Furthermore, the position of the photo is irrelevant to the vast rm iority of homes. The viewpoint where the photo wills have the most meaning and is the most badly needed is facing north from the '.I"t 1 : I , 6 ,if - ,.," , �: ' :!tiebervv t1111 Drivv. This is quite obvious. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far) tower. A rendering biased on the view from the UPPER Ctil -de -sac will have meaning for no fewer- than five neighbors. That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive, see a tower 2j3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood, turn around, and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north froln the UPPER Cul -de -sac. The single view offs =red from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision, partially obscured by trees as shown, is meaningiess. E Lam' 1 PAGE TWO MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: Allison Zike left 5martlink and her replacement jillian Martin 3uststepped in October 3rd. This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices: The project announcement was not posted in the PT Leader, which is the newspaper of legal record, but rather in the Peninsula Daily News, which appears to be a mistake. Also, why was mine the ONLY household in all of Filueberry Hill to receive a LETTER at Al, to the best of my knowledge? Nay several neighbors also are mystified about this. This is a remote community, and legal notice requirements such as public - notice signs and letters become very important. I would like an explanation of grow the public rtatice in the newspaper and public notice letters were overlooked, and whose Fault it was that they were overlooked, and what can be done to mitigate the lack of proper public; notice. I would suggest extending; the public comment period by two weeks at least. ALTERNATE SITES: It has been suggested to nee by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be requested. l mu ItE =reby clernanding that information about alternate sites be provided. The Blueberry [fill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land, nowhere near neighborhoods like mine and well clear of the generally accepted s})here of influence of 1700' that a 200' tower commands. Why is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full -time homes? Tu save AT I' money, undoubtedly. that reasotr is not satisfactory when we are located in such an ahundance of rural remote alternative sites.. LIGHTING; I n the writeups about the project, it is stated that there will be "no" lighting on the tower - "except FAA required lighting." WHAT IS THAT KIND OF LIGHTING? It cannot be my job to research what that may mean For uiglittime darkness and the activity of migratory fords. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that info rmationN. I am demanding that more specifications about the lighting, written in English that a non - scientist can understand, arrel tt} artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off till night, every night, by this proposed 200' tall tower. PAGE THREE LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": EIIEVVE JEFFERSO ^i Coupr'Y;' _—E-1-OF COM MU�,II?Y PrVFI npmvNT `rhe Federal CommUulications.Am of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason For a nitrrliripality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry bill is worth a roughly estimated $300,000 each, sonle more and Borne less, then $210,000.00 is a rough estiniate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value. This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. It nlay be conservative, as the rational Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Ilue - Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 20% expected home sales price reduction can be expected. Frar our neighborhood, that higher figure of lost vaalue would amount to $420,000.00. This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our- situation, with so much alternative open space all around us. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker, that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved, it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction. All this, in a place surrounded by forested, isolated locations. Blueberry Hill Residents are now being asked to fork over significant property value Bra that AT&T sloes not have to spend $100,000 to bring power- in to a snore reinote location. I really am eager to review the list of alternate sites. I imagine a few of them are much more appropriate and natiicl-r less danlagingthan this proposed site, but would cost AT&T sonic more Finacial outlay.. Unless we will all be paid off, I would rather see AT &T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. I need a copy of any decisions or pending decisions made regarding this proposal. In addition, I would like to request a public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Bonnie Story 10 -25 -2013 Read more: littp � / /www- nlagclallavas.coni /real- estate - devalued -wlien -cell- towers- are - erected/ littp:/ /www.rlytimes.cotn/ 2010/ 08/ 29/ realestate /29Liro.html ?_r= 3 &adxnnl =1 &ref =re{llestate&a dxnralx= 1382486806- M +c4RS ClfZrfGvjrl(IGSeQQ lat4):j,lbir idgewater.patch,com /groi -ips /politics- and - elections /i)/1ippraisei-- t-nlobile- cell- tower- will- affect - property- values http://briarcliffheights.org/bch/wp- content /uplo ads/ 2011 /12/The- iiiipact -of- Wireless- Towers- oiz- Residential- Property- Valdes -BY -CARD L -C. -M cDO NO UGH- PhD.pdf ht l� z / %vvvw- alIticelltowL. rlajv_ Fers.Cnnl fcite tiolls -answ t 1 BRAG[tm) Antenna Ranking of Schools hup:// www. magdahavas. com/ wordpress/ wp- content / uploads /2010 /04 /BRAG_Schools.pdf D nr__ JEFFERSON COU'VfY Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmalek Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 4,30 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Cc: Stacie Hoskins Subject FW: ['BULK] Serious problem with ZOE .AKIN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! More comments Cot[.een Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360- 379-4462 czmolelc co efferson.wa.us J f f � ATERSH:D ST ARDSHlt- RES0URCE +CENTER Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant ecanomy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e -mail "unt to this will Im, vvvvivcd Icy ehv ,I1�tC��rs��t� 01tiniv v-1113il ,mLl rnal• lie, sobl ref sr+ Pl l)t,c our office is open to the public 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday, flossed Fridays. From: Terri [rnailto:azzure @embargmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013,4:10 PM To: Colleen Zmolek; jeffbocc Cc: Bonnie Story Subject: Re: [BULK] Serious problem with ZOE ANN LAMP being absent until the 29th!!! Hello -gust wanted to voice my npinic)n as another property owner in the Blueberry Hill subdivision. adjacent to the proposed 200' (are you kidding me' ?) dell tower on Coyle Road. It concerns me that this development has apparently been in the works since last spring, and yet none ol'those directly affected were given a chance to comment until October 1 6th. The two-week window for corrinient closes on October 30th. and the planner assigned to this project is out of the office until October 29th!! I note that there is a sinall public notice posted along Coyle Poad at the entrance to the property where the tower 4v'ill be built. however, this sign is about I' High by 2' wide and hardly noticeable to traffic speeding by at ;a mph. 1 also note that public notice: has been published in the header and the PDN, however. please be aware that neither of those newspapers will deliver to this remote area. I would also like to point out that only ONE property owner on Blueberry I -Till (Bennie Story at 265 Blueberry Hilly received any nailed notice of this projen If the formula used to decide who received mailed notices had something to do with a distance radius from the site, please be infortrted that there are properties within our subdivision that are just as close, ar closer, to tile proposed site as Bonnie is- If there is a distance- related radius that affects mailed notices, 1 would like to know what that distance is. It is patently unfair to allow a project life this to proceed to this stage cif the development process without sufficient notice to those whose views, property values and health may be affected by it. Mature fir trees typically average 40 to 80 feet in height, and this entire area was clear -cut less than 20 years ago. The current vs. proposers views shown on the current application show that the tower will not be visible; obviously this car mot be true. Please delay this project until its impacts on neighbors can be accurately and honestly measured. Thant, you. Sincerely, l erri Murphy - Naughton ?33 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quileene On 10/22/2013 11:46 AM. Colleen Ltnolek wrote: M LA13 -00116 AT &T Mobility Hi Bonnie, Above is another link in case you had trouble with the first link I sent you. Have a great day. Colleen Zmo lek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360- 379 -4462 czmolek co. efferson,wa.us Zoe Ann Lamp Frogs. Bonnie story [storyboard.pro@agmail.caml Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:31 PM To: jillian.martin @srnartlinkllc.com; Colleen Zmolek; Zoe Ann Lamp; Stacie Hoskins; Carl Smith; Jodi Adams; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Ken Shack; Viviann Kuehl; Allison Arthur; Charlie .bermant @peninsuladailynews.com Subject: Concerns with MLA13 -00116 AT &T Mobility project 'Thank you for your links and documents. Here are my concerns now that I have had a chance to find out more about the project. Concerns with MLA13 -00116 ;AT &T Mobility Project ht " wl eblinkextenial /BroNvse.as x?starid= 1189451 &dbid =l I LACK OF KEY SITE PHOTO AND TOWER VIEW RENDERING. In the paperwork it says that "mare site photos can be provided if necessary" in a hand- written note on the margin. Well, more photos are necessary. The photo taken looking to the north from within Blueberry Hill has a row of Leyland Cypress trees obscuring the very spot where the tower is being proposed, from my reckoning. Furthermoret the position of the provided photo is irrelevant to the vast majority of homeowners here. The viewpoint needed, where the photo will have the most meaning, is facing north from the UPPED Cul -de- sac of Blueberry Hill Drive. This is quite obvious to anyone actually visiting the site, i have no idea how this was Ynissed. I insist that another rendering be created of the (presently invisible as shown so far) tower. A rendering, based on the view frorn the UPPER Cul -de -sac will have meaning for no fewer than five neighbors. That is where prospective home buyers would enter the upper portion of Blueberry Hill Drive, see a tower 2I3 as tall as a football field looming over the neighborhood, turn around, and leave forever. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG by providing a rendering for the view looking north trom the UPPER Cul -de- sac. The single view presently offered from inside the Blueberry Hill subdivision, partially obscured by trees as shown, is meaningless. MULTIPLE LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE PROBLEMS: Allison Zike left Srnartlink and her replacement Lillian Martin just stepped in October 3rd. This transition may have contributed to the following multiple absences of legally required public notices: The pra.ect armouncernent was not posted in the PT Leader to my best knowledge, which is the newspaper of legal record, but rather in the Peninsula Daily News, which appears to be a mistake. Also there has never been any kind of required SIGNAGE posted on the site at all,. I would have seen it. This appears to be the most serious public- notice oversight. I am exposed to the site frequently, if not daily, and at no time have 1, to this day, seen any type of public notice sign. If I had seen it, I would certainly have investigated much sooner than my belated letter permitted me. AND: Why was mine the ONLY household in all of Blueberry Hill to receive a LETTER at all, to the best of my knowledge? My several neighbors also are mystified about this. Are the above issues part of a concerted effort to downplay public Information about this project, or just concerted ineptitude? Either way, the result has created an atmosphere of surprise and panic that is totally needless- That is what public notice laws were created to mitigate, correct? This is a remote community, and legal notice requirements such as public-notice signs and letters are very important since we are beyond nonual newspaper delivery here. I would like an explanation of how the public notice sign and public notice letters were overlooked, whose fault it was that they were overlooked, and what can be done to mitigate the lack, of proper public notice. I would suggest extending the public comment period by two weeks at least. ALTERNATE SITES: It has been suggested to me by legal counsel that a listing of alternate sites be requested. I am hereby demanding that information about alternate sites be provided. The Blueberry Hill neighborhood is surrounded by vast holdings of undisturbed working forest land, nowhere near neighborhoods like: mine and well clear of the generally accepted sphere of influence of 1700' that a 200' tower commands. Why is what is likely the tallest structure in all of Jefferson County being shoehorned in next to several full-time homes? To save AT&T money, undoubtedly. that reason is not satisfactory when we are located in such an abundance of rural remote alternative sites. LIGHTING: In the language about the project, it is stated that there will be "no" lighting on the tower - "except FAA required aircraft lighting." WHAT IS THAT KIND OF LIGHTING? I cannot be my job to research what that may mean for nighttime darkness/light pollution and the activity of mi- gratory birds. It is the job of the applicants and the County to understand and convey that inforniation. I am demanding that more specifications about the FAA aircraft lighting, written in English that a non-scientist can understand, and an artist's rendering be provided about what type of candlepower will be thrown off all night, every night, by this proposed 200' tall tower, LOSS OF HOME VALUES AND ESTIMATED "TAKING": The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. If each existing home in Blueberry Hill is worth a rougbly estimated $300.000 each - some more and sonic less, then $210,000.00 is a rough estimate (10%) of what this project will cost this neighborhood in reduced property value. This damage percentage has been established in case law where tall towers are nearby and visible from homes. It may be conservative, as the National Association of Realtors and the The Bond and Hue - Proximate Impact Study of 2004 reports that closer to a 201,/o expected home sales price reduction can be expected. For our neighborhood, that higher figure of lost value would amount to $420,000.00. This is simply untenable and unimaginable for our situation, with so -much alternative open space all around Lis. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a denial of a Cell Tower application based upon testimony of residents and a real estate broker, that the Tower would reduce the values of property which were in close proximity to the Tower. Should this project be approved, it is suggested that we seek relief on our property taxes due to this value reduction. All this, in a place surrounded by forested, isolated locations... SENSELESS. Blueberry Hill residents are about to be asked to fork over significant property value so that AT &T does not have to spend $100,000 to bring power in to a more remote location.. 1 really am eager to review the list of alternate sites, I imagine a few of them is much more appropriate and much less damaging than this proposed site, but would cost AT&T some more financial outlay. Unless we will all be paid off, I would rather see AT &T spend the money to do their project in a less destructive manner. ABSENCE OF PROJECT MANAGER ZOE ANN LAMP. Is it normal policy to have a project manager unreachable until one day before the close of a comment period? Is that just an accident this tune, or does that happen all the time? I feel that a project manager could offer an integrated overview in a manner that clerks cannot... Has someone taken over the role of project manager? What are we supposed to think about Ms. Lamp's absence - until it is essentially too late for her to respond to any concerns? Again, is this business as usual, or are we just unlucky here'? I would appreciate your candor about that rather remarkable timing. Thank you for your consideration. Sorry to be so gruff but when someone asks me for $60,000 they had better have a very very good reason. Bonnie Story 10/22/2013 360 - 765 -0967 Read more: lift :Ilwww.trta Tdahavas.cot 'real- estate- deti °altoed- when -c ell- when- are - erected/ hit :I,www.zr times. coon`/201 f= rea1estate &adxnn1a= 138248 68[]6- Iyl +c4RSiC3trtvv CQQ littp.11britlewater_pats l�. coral pro usr'pnl itics- and- electic)rtslp /a[apraiser- t -mobi l cool/- tower - will -a ffee.t-prc►perty- values htt :libriarclifthei _, its.or /`bch/t - conteiit /ii iloads /201 1112 /The -Irn act -of- Wireless- Towers -on- Residential - Pro rty VaFues-I3Y- CAROL- C.- McDON,DUGH- PhD.1?dt hltp: lJww�� '.antic;elltotiverlEtwyers.cc }tai ' cluesticstis- a��stversP' Bonnie Story StoryBoard Productions litt :I,Iwwt�F.sto board rc�ducticros.t one hit .il��ack2 #heland,blo s �ot.eom 360 - 765 -0967 Zoe Ann Lamp To Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Atten: colleen Zmolek Zoe Ann. Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Mailing address: 68 -3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 808- 896 -3394 kinam ia k ahoo.com Property address: 265 Blueberry Hill Qullcene, WA 98376 Regarding: Formal pleading comments( hard copy to follow) MLA 13 -00116 Type 11 Land use application and pending SEPA detemunation Proposed AT&T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 Dear Ms Zmolek and Ms Lamp: As a concerned property owner and soon to be full time resident of 265 Blueberry Hill, Quilcene, WA, I am submitting my pleading comments for your consideration regarding the proposed AT&T 200+ foot dell tower at siting 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcen.e, WA. Vicki Hutchison Niederkam [kiparnia @yahna.com] From: Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:33 PM To: Colleen Zmolek Cc: Z ©e Ann Lamp Subject: MLA13 -00116 To Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Atten: colleen Zmolek Zoe Ann. Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Mailing address: 68 -3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 808- 896 -3394 kinam ia k ahoo.com Property address: 265 Blueberry Hill Qullcene, WA 98376 Regarding: Formal pleading comments( hard copy to follow) MLA 13 -00116 Type 11 Land use application and pending SEPA detemunation Proposed AT&T cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 Dear Ms Zmolek and Ms Lamp: As a concerned property owner and soon to be full time resident of 265 Blueberry Hill, Quilcene, WA, I am submitting my pleading comments for your consideration regarding the proposed AT&T 200+ foot dell tower at siting 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcen.e, WA. I am horrified that Jefferson County would even consider approving the construction of a such an intrusive 200+ foot tower So Close to an already established residential conlnlunity such as Blueberry Hill. It is unbelievable that AT&T could not secure a more suitable siting for such a TALL cell tower somewhere along the MILES AND MILES of uninhabited and ton residential land on the Coyle peninsula that would not destroy the beauty and serenity of such a small neighborhood as Blueberry Hill. PLEASE provide me with a listing of all the other sitings that were considered by AT &T for this 200+ foot cell tower and AT&T's reasoning as to why they chose 9395 Coyle (toad. Did AT &T look into sharing with the cell tower that is already located on Coyle road? WHY DOES AT&T NEED SUCH A TALL TOWER? A 200+ foot unsightly cell tower would ruin the aesthetic nature of the area surrounding our homes on Blueberry Hill and have an adverse impact on our small community. The 7 homeowners on Blueberry Hill have strived to maintain the natural forested beauty surrounding our homes and a 200+ foot cell tower I" E. T DOOR(not much more that the length of a football field away )would destroy the very reason that we chose to live on Blueberry Hill. 1 agree with Bonnie Story that the pictures taken to show that this 200+ foot tower would not be visible from our homes on Blueberry Hill and from Coyle road are insufficient. I suggest, as did she, that AT &T construct a 200+ foot temporary tower to show what the visual affect would actually be on our community. In addition many of us have ? story homes on Blueberry Hill, I would be devastated if instead of a beautiful untouched forest view from my master bedroom, I would now wake up to a 200+ foot cell tower. 2 Property values on Blueberry Hill would dramatically deeline(15% - 20 %) and the pool of potential buyers would significantly decrease in part due to the visual ugliness of a 200+ foot cell tower both from the homes and from the approach to Blueberry Hill from Coyle road and in part due to the public's perception and fear of cell towers being so close to their homes and children. AT &T should be able to locate a siting for this 200+ foot cell tower that does not affect the "next eggs" of those of us that strived all our lives for a secure future and a comfortable retirement in the homes of our dreams, for me that is 265 Blueberry Hill. The Blueberry Hill community and adjacent properties including 9395 Coyle road have protected WETLANDS on their land, habitat to many wildlife including a multitude of birds. The residents of Blueberry Hill went to great lengths to protect the WETLANDS during construction of their homes and continue to protect the WETLANDS and the wildlife the WETLANDS support. A 200+ foot cell tower will have a significantly NEGATIVE impact on the wildlife especially the BIRDS and is of significant environmental concern. How has AT &T assured that the WETLANDS located on 9395 Coyle road will be preserved and protected and that the wildlife and birds supported by the WETLANDS will not be negatively affected by a 200+ foot cell tower? Please be advised that I will be submitting for an ENVIRONMENTAL review of this application with the FCC. OTHER. CONCERNS: ACCESS/CRIMINAL ACTIVITY /OFF ROAD ACTIVITY It is of concern to me that access to the siting for the 200 +foot cell tower will lead to more traffic and NOISE from both AT &T workers and unauthorized visitors both on the 200+ foot cell tower access road and onto Blueberry Hill. Unwanted access always brings with it the concern of potential criminal activity which is of great concern when living in such a remote community such as Blueberry Hill. LIGHTING POLLUTION Lighting on top of this 2110+ foot cell tower is an issue both from an environmental concern for our nocturnal wildlife and birds and from a pollution stand point of our night sky and ability to even sleep without being disturbed by bright lights. Lighting this high has to be confusing to the bird population. NOISE POLLUTION What exactly will be stored ill the 12'x 26 feet ground equipment shelter? Why does AT&T need equipment for a cell tower? Will there be NOISE from the equipment such as generators`' How often will the equipment need to be utilized? SOUND travels far on Blueberry Hill and excessive NOISE is of great concern. SUMMARY of CONCERNS. *Decline of property value *Fewer prospective buyers *NOISE pollution. *LIGHT pollution *WILDLIFE Habitat destruction *Disturbance of protected WETLANDS *Increased traffic *Unauthorized access *Criminal activity *View destruction *Destruction of the natural forest setting and beauty of BLUEBERRY HILL! 4 I appreciate your consideration of my concerns and welcorne any questions or comments. Thank you, Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent, Monday, October 21, 2013 1:21 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW: cell tower application A0857294 Forgot to cc you on the below email. Coffee-n Zniole.fi Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 - 379 -4462 czmolek coy Lefferson.wa.us ft F r€ a w o n 4 v n WARESQt1FtCE LENTIR 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 W this L(WT"s Nuill be received b-V the Jefferson County a -mail system and may be sul.�Iect to Public Disclosure tinder chapttr +k2.,56 RC1W Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m. — 4:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday, closed' Fridays. From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1 :20 PM To: 'Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn' Subject: RE: cell tower application A0857294 Hi Vicki, I have forwarded your email to the planner reviewing the proposed cell tower at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene. The proposed application MLA13- 00116 will be reviewed by Zoe Ann Lamp. Zoe Ann's contact information is phone number is 360- 385 -9406. Entail z1amp@cojefferson.wa.us Zoe Ann is currently out of the office for the week of October 21 and will return on October 29. Zoe will be the person to answer your questions. If you would like to review the file please let me know and I will have it ready for your review. CnL[ee_11 motek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 -379-4462 czmolek co.Leffersomwa.us 6 e€ f t R WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP RESOURCE CENTER Jefferson County DCD fission: To preserve and enhance the quality cif life in Jefferson County by promotfnq a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to rhjis aWdress gill be rectnved by tilt jef�ffsljn COUntY e- rntril system and trios' be sul]jt-t-t tci f,[,[)Iic Di901CIsure urldel- chapwr f. 5t; R.CNV Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.- 4:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday, closed Fridays. From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [mallto:kipamia yahoo,com} Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 6:31 PM To: Colleen Zmolek Subject: cell tower application A0857294 To: Development Review Division Jefferson County Department of Community Development I am writing in regard to the proposed AT&T cell tower location at 9395 Coyle road, Quileene, WA, application ## A0857294. My home is located at 265 Blueberry Mill, Quilcene, WA very close to this proposed AT &T Cell tower Sitlnb. The small residential community on Blueberry Hill(7 homes) would be negatively affected by having a cell tower so close and I wish to express my concern and objection to this proposed location. The residents of Blueberry Hill have strived to maintain a pristine forest setting and we have preserved the natural beauty of the land surrounding our homes. A cell tower would ruin the aesthetic nature of the area and have an adverse impact on this small community. Property values would significantly decline for all homes on Blueberry Hill in part due the the the public's perception and fear of cell tower sitings causing health hazards as well as to the visual blight of such a cell tower on the beautiful forest. It is unbelievable that AT &T could not find a siting that is not so near to a residential area. There are miles and miles of uninhabited forest off Coyle road where a cell tower would have little affect on any communities. A public area surrounded by dedicated forest land that 2 would izot inipact a neighborhood such as Blueberry Hill would be 1-x better option than 9395 Coyle Road. Do you know if other sitings have been considered and has AT &T considered sharin(y a siting with an already established tower? In addition to property value decline and aesthetics, I am concerned that the access road to the proposed cell tower siting may open up the area to more traffic and potentially criminal activity. our bird population would also be negatively affected by a cell tower which would be of environmental concern. Please advise my as the best approach to fill out an appeal request and if and when there may be a public hearing on this application. Thant: you for your assistance. ,Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn 68 -3567 A.wamoa way waikoloa, HI 96738 808 -896 -3394 3 Zoe Ann Lamp From: Leanne Jenkins [tjenkins@jamestowntrlbe.org) Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 10:01 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: Notice of Application and SEPA Notice for MLA 13- 00116 Proposed New Cell Tower I have received the packet, and I do not think we will have any comments. I do note that on Page 6 of the Project [description under "Federal Requirements" (bottom of page) they reference Sprint's telecommunication facility. i think they skipped a step in "search and replace." 0 Leanne From: Zoe Ann Lamp Z mailto :ZLamp @co.jefferson.wa.usj Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9,49 AM Tai: WDFW SEPA DESK; Ecology SEPA Unit; sepahelp @ecy.wa.gov; Leanne Jenkins; WDNR SEPA Subject. Notice of Application and SEPA Notice for MLA 1.3 -00116 Proposed New Cell Tower .Attached is a noticing packet for a Notice of Application and Pending SEPA Determination for a proposed wireless communications facility at 9395 Coyle Rd, Quilcene (Jefferson County }, Please confirm receipt. The comment period ends 4 :30 p.m. on October 30, 2013. Please. contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 6211 Sheridan Street Part Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360- 385 -9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e -mail: z1atmpgcc ' eff� erson -wa. uS Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of Fife 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 Jeffersott County e-mail system and may be sut lect to pitblic- Disaosure under Chaptei 42 56 RCWb` Please note: The Department of Community Development is open to the public 9:00 a.m. — 4:30 p.m. Monday - Thursday; Closed Noon -'1:00 p.m.; Closed Fridays.