Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLOG ITEM 33 1-51 Zoe Ann Lamp ilk + From: JimVeeder[jimveeder @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, 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! Jim Veeder, 206 910 4614 Dear ATT 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 land. I am willing to contribute the funds to build a wonderful light house structure that would be 250 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. 1 Please contact Jim Veeder at 206 910 4614 or 509 276 0000 Sincerely Best Wishes, Jim Veeder 2 'am Z of I 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 NOV 1 8 2013 Property address: 265 Blueberry Hill Quilcene, WA 98376 Regarding: MLA 13-00116: 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 be 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." I have reviewed the applicable code, Chapter 18.42 Personal Wireless Service Facilities, and strongly differ from your conclusion regarding your responsibility to the homeowners on Toandos Peninsula and specifically the community of Blueberry Hill to not take protecting their PROPERTY VALUES into __.. .3 e 1 • consideration in your review and decision regarding the siting of an AT&T 200+foot cell tower in their BACKYARD. It is your DUTY to follow code to protect the rural character, natural beauty, and scenic resources of Jefferson County from adverse 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 OWNERS" (Code 18.42.010 (1). It is your DUTY to follow code "to encourage and facilitate colocation" (Code 18.42.010(4e). It is your DUTY to follow code to ensure that "the number of wireless communication towers shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible through colocation" (Code 18.42.060(1). It is your DUTY to follow code to ensure that AT&T made a "good faith effort to investigate the feasiblity of colocation" with written analysis as to why colocation is not feasible (Code 18.42.060 (3, a,b,c,d,e) It is your DUTY to follow code in regards to Protecting Points of Visual Interest (Code 18.42.090 (2)(a). Protected fromSignificantdegradation (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 points of visual interest(mountains) will not be significantly degraded by the proposal" (Code 18.42.090 (2)(a) It is your DUTY to follow code and require that AT&T prove that: sage of L O I There are no other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less (Code 18.42.090 (2)(c)(i) Colocation or attatchment on an alternative structure within the service area is not feasible. (Code 18.42.090 (2)(c)(ii) DEVELOPMENT ON AN ALTERNATIVE SITE WITH DECREASED VISUAL EFFECTS WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA IS NOT FEASIBLE (Code 18.42.090 (2)(c)(iii) Ms. Hoskins, it is very clear to me that the Jefferson County Codes Chapter 18.42 Personal Wireless Service Facilities makes it your ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY to protect the rural character, natural beauty, and scenic resources of the residential community of Blueberry Hill and the Toandos Penisula from the adverse environmental, noise, and visual impact of a 200+foot AT&T cell tower siting less than 500 feet from our neighborhood. Thank you for/your consideration. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn LU' a : mane 5 of .. ., .... . . . . . HONOWtki 4-41.,42vp '. ''')' --.........-- . No .. ..v rp).4.- . ' - ''' - ' • ---' ----' " Jack Niederkom --ti-w ..-_.: - -.. t;-..\ '--''; Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn .. ',' i.- 68-3567 Awamoa Way . Waikoloa,HI 96738 USA I forever Lisa I forever . ..t U r4e-ttA.AS.01'N CO^ •2 tt' 06 coAmmu,„, 44___ LA04444 L CO * Cnj r- OA v-e-6i)AAA efrit PA o tt_kr t - CD G`e lc =Now, '... C.;L').'t, TO Urans.e tA() W 4 /walri 92:3‘2- • H i i c11:33E.1EP4 392 i pf$ IA ! Si 0 ci 42 Os ICI frt C • • Zoe Ann Lsmp From: jmunn [jmunn @olypen.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:22 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Cc: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: Cell Tower at Coyle Thanks Stacie * Zoe It sure would be nicer for the next door neighbors. Jim From: Stacie Hoskins [mailto:SHoskins @co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:53 PM To: jmunn Cc: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: Cell Tower at Coyle Hi,Jim, The comment period is closed on this case, 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 them of your message. Best regards, Stacie.L'. qaal¢ur4 Planning Manager, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4463 * Fax 360-379-4451 shoskins@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW SAVE PAPER - Please do nat print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary From: jmunn [mailto:jmunn@olypen.com] 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? LU ` I I ItIVi Thanks... 1 �.1�`'�.r ® `J `� S Jim Munn Broker/Owner Munn Bro's Hood Canal Properties Inc. PO Box 54 Quilcene, WA 98376 www.MunnBros.com 360-301-4700 cell 360-765-4500 office 360-765-2100 fax ��Jl3 I tom 33 2 �' e_ of • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Karl Hatton [khatton @jcpsn.us] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:16 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: RE: Information on 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. Karl From: Zoe Ann Lamp [mailto:ZLamp @co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: 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 MLA13-00116 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 "Inholding Forest". JCC 18.42.080 identifies 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 Wireless Telecommunication Facility. One criterion in JCC 18.42 is a setback from adjacent parcels. The minimum required setback from an adjacent parcel is 145.0' for this 200.0' tower. The applicant proposes to setback the cell tower a minimum distance of 478' 5" from Rural Residential property. Procedural Information • Application received: August 28, 2013 • Staff followed all legal noticing requirements. o Notice Published in the Port Townsend Leader: October 16, 2013 o Notices were mailed on October 15, 2013 to all 9 legal property owners of record to the addresses on file with 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, 2013 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 Hoskins, 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. The 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 Staff will also request the applicant contact Karl Hatton, Director of JeffCom, to assess the potential for collocating on JeffCom's facility on the Coyle Peninsula. The file was scanned last week and is available for the public to view at: http://test.co.j efferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/Browse.aspx?startid=1189481&dbid=1 I hope this information helps. Please contact me if you have questions or need clarification. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlamp@cojefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW 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 NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 9001 (20131104) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. 2 t6 • ,1 http://www.eset.com Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 9001 (20131104) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -_4( of r-4-0- • 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 13-00116] GOT IT! Thanks! On Oct 31, 2013, at 5:04 AM, "Zoe Ann Lamp" <ZLamp@co.jefferson.wa.us>wrote: Ms. Hutchison, Per your request I'm sending this again. 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 13-00116 Ms. Hutchison, Thank you for your comments 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 $995.00; 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. The appeal would be sent or delivered to the DCD office at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA. Again, 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 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 ��� Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlamp@co.jefferson.wa.us 2j 1 -426 S • Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW 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. From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [mailto:kipamia©yahoo.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: 1. I understand that today, 10/30/13, 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 DAYS 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 DETERMINED 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 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 inquiries about this tower. (e-mail 10/19/13 and hard copy 10/25/13) * Is there another contact person that might be more responsive? * A summary of my requests to Mr. Escalona 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-810) 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 2 • *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 5/2012 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? *I NOTICED THAT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE WAS PARTIALLY DETERMINED SO THAT IT COULD ACCOMMODATE THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT OF 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. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn PLEASE SEND ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION, REPORTS, DETERMINATIONS,NOTICES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 FOR TIMELINESS PLEASE ALSO SEND ALL OF THE ABOVE TO MY E-MAIL: kipamia @yahoo.com 808-896-3394 <JCC18.40.330 Administrative Appeals.pdf> LOU j 1 EM 3 '� -Chapter 8.40 PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES/SEPA IMPLEMENTATION Page of 2 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 II 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 18.40.280. 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 II 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 36.70B.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 18.40.780). 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.110(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 197-11-340(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 appe.163all bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; ":T.100 2k) 0610 (v)The desired outcome or changes to the decision; and http://www.codepubl i shi ng.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/html/JeffersonCounty 18/Jeff ersonCounty 1840.html 10/30/2013 Chapter 18.40 PERM I T APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCED U RES/SEPA I M PL EM EN TAT I ON Pace 2 cf,2 (vi)A statement that t ppellant has read the appeal and believe�e 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 § 1] LOG ! EM 3 - ; ; 2 of http://www.codepubl i shi ng.com/WA/Jeff ersonCounty/html/JeffersonCounty 18/JeffersonCounty 1840.ht ml 10/30/2013 • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Philip Morley Sent: Thursday, October 31,2013 6:05 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Cc: Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins Subject: RE: Update on MLA13-00116 AT&T Cell Tower Thank you Zoe. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorlev @co.iefferson.wa.us (360) 385-9100 x-383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:55 PM To: Philip Morley Cc: Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins Subject: Update on MLA13-00116 AT&T Cell Tower Philip, It is my understanding you and the BoCC 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 of the process. Application received: August 28, 2013 Notice Published in the Port Townsend Leader: October 16, 2013 Notices mailed to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of subject parcel: October 15, 2013 Notices and SEPA Checklist mailed to agencies: October 15, 2013 Comment Period Ends: October 30, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. The zoning for the subject parcel is "Inholding Forest". JCC 18.42.080 identifies a cell tower as a Type II Conditional Administrative Use which is a review with public noticing, public comment period, no public hearing. The proposal requires review under SEPA. Staff will review the proposal against the criteria in JCC 18.42 Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The next step is to wait for the public comment period to end. After which, I will compile all of the comment letters and forward them to the applicant and property owner requesting the applicant to review and address them. The decision is made administratively. Appeal of the decision is to the Hearing Examiner. The file was scanned last week and is available for the public to view at: LLA.i I L.,.. http://test.co.lefferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/Browse.aspx?startid=1189481&dbid=l 4 1 • I hope this information helps. Please contact me if you have questions or need clarification. Thank you. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlamp @co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW 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. 2 !, Leit 1I To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 - TC� ON E J NOV - 4 2013 From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn JEFFERSON COUNT! DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAILING address: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 808-896-3394 kipamia @yahoo.com PROPERTY address: 265 Blueberry Hill Quilcene, WA 98376 Attention: Zoe Ann Lamp Regarding: Formal Pleading Comments MLA 13-00116 Proposed cell tower siting at 9395 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 1. I am 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. -ac,se42. 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 Hill. 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 9395 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(13-00019)? �3 • 3 3. Please provide me 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. 5. 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 me 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. 8. 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 Hill(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! -wa at t.wi��.w�. E' f \ v • 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's 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, ?‘Z.-,(4e/,/6244 Vicki Hutchison Niederorn • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [kipamia @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30,2013 5:48 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: MLA 13-00116 To: Zoe Ann Lamp Thank you for your response and clarification of the remaining process in this fiasco. I am hoping that your review of the many comments regarding the siting of a 200+ foot cell tower so close to the established residential community of Blueberry Hill will result in your recommending the denial of this permit. Thank you for your consideration. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn LL) 1 3 LIM 1 33 �;, • Zop Ann Lamp From: Carl Smith Sent: Wednesday, October 30,2013 3:14 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Cc: Stacie Hoskins Subject: RE:Toandos/Coyle cell tower: MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 Zoe: your email was good. I want to get a few more details from you about it when we can discuss it in person. Thanks, Carl From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 1:50 PM To: Carl Smith Cc: Stacie Hoskins Subject: RE: Toandos/Coyle cell tower : MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 Carl, Was our discussion yesterday and my email to Philip sufficient or would you like to discuss the below email specifically? Please advise. Thank you. Zoe Ann From: Carl Smith Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:28 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp; Stacie Hoskins Subject: FW: Toandos/Coyle cell tower : MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 After you have a chance to review this, let's plan to meet to discuss our response. Thanks, Carl From: ken shock [mailto:sailboi(thgmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:53 PM To: Carl Smith; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; John Austin Cc: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn; Bonnie Story; ken shock; Terri Naughton; Mare; Jim Boyer; Larry Hovde; 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/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 To : Carl Smith - Director Jeffco DCD Jeffco BOCC Carl Smith, David Sullivan, Phil Johnson and John Austin Please pay attention here, there is absolutely no reason to allow a 200ft 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 > lad job. 2S 1 ' : IIP 410 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 be 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 my 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 Shock- General Partner Horizon Holding Family Limited Partnership Captain Cook, Hawaii (please see the attached - I have not spoken to my neighbor-Attorney Gary Williams on this matter, but my action may well be joined with any that he choses to take) Forwarded message From: Gary Williams <gw(a@reyoucovered.com> Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:11 PM Subject: Toandos/Coyle cell tower : MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project BR0266.Pub:Sept.5,2013 Legal No.509820 To: zlamp(/i co.jefferson.wa.us, adamee @adaptengr.com, anisa.a.latif @att.com, SHoskins @co.jefferson.wa.us, CZmolek@co.jefferson.wa.us Cc: kipamia @yahoo.com, Bonnie Story<bonnie(a�storyboardproductions.com>, sailboi a,gmail.com, azzure@embarqmail.com, Mare<msmitch @embargmail.com> Please see attached letter. GARY'WILLIAMS Williams Law Office 252 Blueberry Hill Dr. Quilcene, WA 98376 360-765-0729 http://areyoucovered.com NOTICE:CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY This email and attachments are intended for the named recipients only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information.Any unauthorized use, disclosure,distribution,copying or dissemination is strictly prohibited.If you receive this transmission in error,please notify the sender imrjiediately arid;delete the original. 2 2Q 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 Colleen Zmofek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek cV co.jefferson.wa.us J E F F E R S O N S.' 6 U . E Y WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP RESOURCE CENTER 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. AU e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 4i 2.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:Oo a.m.—4:3o p.m.Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: Richard Hild [mailto:richhild @olypen.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:10 AM To: Colleen Zmolek Cc: Dennis Schultz; ken shock; Scott Wilson Subject: Fwd: MLA13-00116 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 permit 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. I 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 �� /frofit6 I 1571 Cape George Road Port Townsend,WA 98368 360-385-7371 richhild @olypen.com Original Message Subject:MLA13-00116 Comments Date:Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:27:12-0700 From:Dennis Schultz<dschultz @waypoint.com> To:<CZmolek @co.jefferson.wa.us> I urge you to delay issuing permit MLA13-00116. 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 SMP 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 98368 360-379-0338 dschultz @waypoint.com Lulu F U ft- 2 Zoe Ann Lamp From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Wednesday,October 30,2013 10:06 AM To: 'Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn' Cc: 'Bonnie Story' Subject: RE: MLA 13-00116 Attachments: JCC18.40.330 Administrative Appeals.pdf Ms. Hutchison, Thank you for your comments 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 $995.00; 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. The appeal would be sent or delivered to the DCD office at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA. Again,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 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlamp @co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW 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. From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn [mailto:kipamia @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:56 AM 40 1111 , „ . . 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 pr cess for this proposed cell tower: 1. I understand that today, 10/30/13, is the end of the pleading comment period. *WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN THIS REVIEW PROCES.? *WHO WILL BE REVIEWING OUR COMMENTS? *WHEN WILL THIS REVIEW BE TAKING PLACE? *WHEN WILL I BE NOTIFIED OF THE OUTCOME OF I E REVIEW? *HOW MANY DAYS 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 DETERMINED IF THERE WILL B: A PUBLIC HEARING? *HOW WILL I BE NOTIFIED OF THE PUBLIC HEARIN ? 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 DE I ERMINATION? *WHERE DO I SEND MY APPEAL REGARDING THE S PA DETERMINATION? 3. FYI: Adam Escalona of Adapt Engineering has not replied to any of my inquiries about this tower. (e-mail 10/19/13 and hard copy 10/25/13) * Is there another contact person that might be more responsi e? * A summary of my requests to Mr. Escalona are listed belo . 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 stor.ge building(with dimensions including height) *picture or drawing of proposed lighting(FAA styli A(L-864.L-810)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? ""rj° *How far is the nearest cell tower from the proposed site? *Was co-location to the nearest cell tower considered? =� �- "'`_' 2 • • • *Why was co-location not an option? *Why was AT&T's proposal to construct similar tower on 2-acre timber land in 5/2012 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? *I NOTICED THAT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE WAS PARTIALLY DETERMINED SO THAT IT COULD ACCOMMODATE THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT OF 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. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn PLEASE SEND ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION, REPORTS, DETERMINATIONS,NOTICES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa,HI 96738 FOR TIMELINESS PLEASE ALSO SEND ALL OF THE ABOVE TO MY E-MAIL: kipamia(cr�yahoo.com 808-896-3394 LUG' I a- 3 3 3 Chapter 18.40 PERMIT APPLICATIO ' AND REVIEW PROCEDURESISEPA PLEMENTATION Page 1 of 2 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 II 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 18.40.280. 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 II 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 36.70B.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 18.40.780). 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.110(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 197-11-340(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 ap ' hall bear the burden of proving the decision was wrong; (v)The desired outcome or changes to the decision; and http://www.codepubl i shi ng.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/html/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1840.html 10/30/2013 Chapter 18.40 PERM IT APPLICATIf, �l AND REVIEW PROCEDURES/SEF•MPLEMENTATION Page2of 2 (vi)A statement that tFFrappellant 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 § 1] http://www.codepublishi ng.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/html/JeffersonCounty 18/JeffersonCounty 1840.html 10/30/2013 . • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Wednesday,October 30,2013 10:03 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW: MLA13-00116 Comments FYI, see cell tower comment below Colleen Zmofek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(a�co.jefferson.wa.us WATERSHED HIP RESOUR E CENTER Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter+2.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.—4:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: Dennis Schultz [mailto:dschultz @waypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:27 AM To: Colleen Zmolek Subject: MLA13-00116 Comments I urge you to delay issuing permit MLA13-00116. 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 SMP 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. 3 • . Dennis Schultz 250 N Jacob Miller Rd Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-0338 dschultz @waypoint.com LULi ErVi 2 • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Bonnie Story[storyboard.pro @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,October 30,2013 9:23 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: [BULK] Fwd: MLA 13-00116 Hello Ms. Lamp. Thank you for your message yesterday, I was away at work. Welcome back from vacation. I am very 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 98376 (my bedroom and office are 400' from the proposed tower FYI) Forwarded message From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn<kipamia@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:55 AM Subject: MLA 13-00116 To: "zlamp a,co.jefferson.wa.us" <zlamp@co.jefferson.wa.us> 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: 1. I understand that today, 10/30/13, 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 DAYS 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 DETERMINED 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 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 inquiries about this tower. (e-mail 10/19/13 and hard copy 10/25/13) * Is there another contact person that might be more responsive? * A summary of my requests to Mr. Escalona 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-810)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 5/2012 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? *I NOTICED THAT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE WAS PARTIALLY DETERMINED SO THAT IT COULD ACCOMMODATE THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT OF 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. Vicki Hutchison Niederkom PLEASE SEND ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION, REPORTS, DETERMINATIONS, NOTICES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 FOR TIMELINESS PLEASE ALSO SEND ALL OF THE ABOVE TO MY E-MAIL: kipamiacyahoo.com 808-896-3394 �3 • • Bonnie Story StoryBoard Productions http://www.storyboardproductions.com http://back2theland.blogspot.com 360-765-0967 III 3 • • Zoe Mn Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn[kipamia @yahoo.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: 1. I understand that today, 10/30/13, 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 DAYS 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 DETERMINED 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 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 inquiries about this tower. (e-mail 10/19/13 and hard copy 10/25/13) * Is there another contact person that might be more responsive? * A summary of my requests to Mr. Escalona 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-810) 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 detemuining 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 5/2012 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? *I NOTICED THAT THE SIZE OF THE ENCLOSURE WAS PARTIALLY DETERMINED SO THAT IT COULD ACCOMMODATE THE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT OF 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. Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn PLEASE SEND ANY AND ALL COMMUNICATION, REPORTS, DETERMINATIONS,NOTICES TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 68-3567 Awamoa Way Waikoloa, HI 96738 FOR TIMELINESS PLEASE ALSO SEND ALL OF THE ABOVE TO MY E-MAIL: kipamia@yahoo.com 808-896-3394 LUG I I EIS 33 2 Zoe Ann Lamp From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 4:55 PM To: Philip Morley Cc: Carl Smith;Stacie Hoskins Subject: Update on MLA13-00116 AT&T Cell Tower Philip, It is my understanding you and the BoCC 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 of the process. Application received: August 28, 2013 Notice Published in the Port Townsend Leader: October 16, 2013 Notices mailed to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of subject parcel: October 15, 2013 Notices and SEPA Checklist mailed to agencies: October 15, 2013 Comment Period Ends: October 30, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. The zoning for the subject parcel is "Inholding Forest". JCC 18.42.080 identifies a cell tower as a Type II Conditional Administrative Use which is a review with public noticing, public comment period, no public hearing. The proposal requires review under SEPA. Staff will review the proposal against the criteria in JCC 18.42 Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The next step is to wait for the public comment period to end. After which, I will compile all of the comment letters and forward them to the applicant and property owner requesting the applicant to review and address them. The decision is made administratively. Appeal of the decision is to the Hearing Examiner. The file was scanned last week and is available for the public to view at: http://test.co.j efferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/Browse.aspx?startid=1189481&dbid=1 I hope this information helps. Please contact me if you have questions or need clarification. Thank you. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlamp(a�co jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson 'ou rtywby promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. 3 '5 1 7t0 Zoe Ann Lamp From: Colleen Zmolek Sent: Tuesday,October 29,2013 1:23 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: FW: MLA13-00116AT&TMobility Project Just received another comment on the cell tower. Colleen Zmolek Associate Planner, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,WA 98368 360-379-4462 czmolek(aco.jefferson.wa.us E F F E R 3 4 R 0 O V N T Y $ � k WATERSHED HIP RESOURCE CENTER ; Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Our office is open to the public 9:oo a.m.-4:3o p.m. Monday to Thursday,closed Fridays. From: Larry Hovde [mailto:quilbilly @embargmail.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 community!!! 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 1 "c - Of � • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Tuesday,October 29,2013 11:14 AM To: 'Mare Mitchell' Subject: RE: Emailing: cell tower MLA 13-00116 Ms. Mitchell, Thank you. It worked perfectly. I will review your comment and also forward it to the applicant. All individuals providing comments become Interested Parties of Record. All Parties of Record receive copies of all notices and decisions on this project. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlamp@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment, All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW 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. From: Mare Mitchell [mailto:msmitch©embargmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 11:06 AM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Subject: Re: Emailing: cell tower MLA 13-00116 Ms. Lamp: Attached is my comment, sent as PDF file. Thanks for your patience. Marilyn Mitchell msmitch @embargmail.com LUG 1'1 E • • .r • From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:42 AM To: msmitch @embargmail.com Cc: gw @areyoucovered.com Subject: FW: Emailing: cell tower MLA 13-00116 Ms. Mitchell, Thank you for your comment letter. Unfortunately, I am unable to open the document. Could you provide it in one of the following ways? • Copy and paste it into an email message. • Word Document • PDF • Mail a paper copy to me at the below address It can also be hand delivered to this same address during regular business hours. • Fax a copy to me at 360-379-4451 • Scan it and send it as a.jpg or .tif Thank you. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlampAco.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW 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. From: Mare Mitchell [mailto:msmitch @embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:07 PM To: Zoe Ann Lamp Cc: Gary Williams Subject: Emailing: cell tower MLA 13-00116 Dear Ms. Lamp. '� • • S Attached is my comment regarding this project and my request to be kept informed of decisions and hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Marilyn Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 msmitch @embargmail.com 360-765-0736 Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: cell tower Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. LLKi 1 I Erth S _of t9-6 3 • • Marilyn Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 360-765-0736 msmitch @embargmail.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. I 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 loomin g on the horizon. The physical presence of this tower will permanently change the view and impact property values for our whole subdivision. _ • S Jefferson County Community Development Re: MLA 1 3-001 16 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 Mitchell LOU E of • • Zoe Ann Lamp From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn[kipamia @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2013 10:07 AM To: Carl Smith; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson;johnaustin @co.jefferson.wa.us Cc: Zoe Ann Lamp; adamee @adaptengr.com; RobertZeigler @dfw.wa.gov;anisa.a.latif @att.com Subject: Re:Toandos/Coyle cell tower: MLA13-00116/A0857294/Project 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 Community Development Department has shown in allowing this project to proceed this far. ATT has not been able to demonstrate the following: b (i) c (i) c (iv) This siting is on a 20 acre parcel and Coyle road is 15+ miles of minimally inhabited forest land. AT&T cannot possibly have demonstrated that the only siting on 20 acres/15 miles is less than 500 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 THE 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. Thank you, Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn = ` 1 T.� V " wireless telecommunication service can only be provided by development ofthe proposed facility. The proposed self-support tower is not located within 250 feet of a residence. (b)Methods for Protecting Points of Visual Interest,The following options may be used to protect the points of visual interest listed above: (i)Use alternative facility designs and locations on the parcel to minimize the degradation of views from residences to the point of visual interest; (ii)Maintain existing trees and shrubs on the site and/or provide 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 shrubs. AT&T's proposed self-support tower is not located within 350 feet of a residence. The proposed site is located on a portion of the subject parcel that is heavily screened by existing trees and vegetation in order to minimize the visual impact of the site to the greatest extent possible. (c)In the event that it is not practicable to protect the visual points of interest listed above from significant degradation, the applicant for a conditional use wireless communications facility shall minimize the visual effect to the greatest extent practicable and shall also demonstrate through appropriate analysis that: (i)There are no other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less; (ii)Colocation or attachment on an alternative structure within the servic area is not feasible; (iv)Development on an alternative site with decreased visual effects within the service area im not feasible,[Ord.6'99y1] The proposed site is located on a portion of the subject parcel that is heavily screened by existing trees and vegetation in order to minimize the visual impact of the site to the greatest extent possihle Federal Requirements Sprint's telecommunication facility will meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the Federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas, Sprint's site will conform to all FAA/FCC regulations,and because the maximum ERP is less than two thousand /Z'V0Ul watts and/or the height nf the facility is greater than ten meters (l0nu)` an environmental evaluation of radio frequency emissions is exempted per CFR Title 47 Part 24,Subpart E. AT&T has a license from the FCC to provide wireless telecommunication services throughout Washington State. AT&T ~ Dx0Z06Duopv,Canal � K 0l� K K EN, Page 6 �� 2 • S Zoe Ann Lamp From: Zoe Ann Lamp Sent: Tuesday,October 29,2013 9:43 AM To: 'msmitch @embargmail.com' Cc: 'gw @areyoucovered.com' Subject: FW: Emailing:cell tower MLA 13-00116 Attachments: cell tower.wpd Ms. Mitchell, Thank you for your comment letter. Unfortunately, I am unable to open the document. Could you provide it in one of the following ways? • Copy and paste it into an email message. • Word Document • PDF • Mail a paper copy to me at the below address It can also be hand delivered to this same address during regular business hours. • Fax a copy to me at 360-379-4451 • Scan it and send it as a .jpg or .tif Thank you. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Lamp, AICP Associate Planner, DRD Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9406 Fax: 360-379-4473 e-mail: zlamp @,co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW 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. From: Mare Mitchell [mailto:msmitch @embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:07 PM ��� To: Zoe Ann Lamp Cc: Gary Williams '63 Subject: Emailing: cell tower MLA 13-00116 • Dear Ms. Lamp. Attached is my comment regarding this project and my request to be kept informed of decisions and hearing on this matter. Sincerely, Marilyn Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 msmitch@embarqmail.com 360-765-0736 Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: cell tower Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. LO(3 EM