HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx 17 Comments 11-12-25 to 2-27-26From:Susan Marie
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:Finish of my original complaint s.
Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 10:42:20 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links
if you are not expecting them.
The last sentence should read “ I see absolutely nothing about deflection technology and how you will keep those of
us so unlucky to be so close to the tower safe from large exposure to RF radiation., especially now that Verizon
keeps stepping up the signal strength.”
Thanks.
Sent from my iPad
EX 17-01 Public Comment 2025-11-13_1042
From:Lucy LaRosa
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:A Cell Tower on Forest Hill? No Way!!!
Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 2:22:58 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
RE:
TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION ZON2025-00011
Hi David,
I know this tiny patch of county called Swansonville (formerly known as Forest Hill, as
evidenced by the Forest Hill Cemetery) can appear funky and neglected to an outsiders eye,
but I find it precious and quite lovely. And it’s chock full of good people who cherish
the unique rural character, and that deserves some consideration.
I believe a cell phone tower will destroy that rural vibe, along with the neighbors’ peace of
mind. Why should a single property owner get to benefit at the cost of everyone else?
More importantly, this tower would be dangerously close to many homes; lots of them with
families with young children.
In solidarity with my neighbors on both sides of the Swansonville/PL HOA boundary, I
vehemently oppose the approval of this permit. I believe both our health and property values
depend on it. I’d like this permit application denied!
Please keep me informed regarding this issue.
Regards,
Lucy LaRosa
24 Explorer Ln
Port Ludlow, Wa
EX 17-02 Public Comment 2025-11-13_1422
From:Susan Marie
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless, Mats Mats Bay
Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:10:06 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links
if you are not expecting them.
Dear Mr, Johnson,
I have a number of issues with the proposed tower, the least of which is its very close proximity to my home and to
that of my neighbors.
Exactly how many feet is the tower from my property line? From my house? How much non ionizing radiation
would we be subjected to when we step outside?
The project overview states that a 150 foot monopole with attached antennas will be constructed. It limits the size of
the installation to 50 x 50 feet. Is this still true?
SEPA? How does a tower over 60 feet not need an inspection in a rural area, when towers under 60 feet in a
commercial area require one?
18.52.080 painting. Please explain how a 150 foot monopole with antennas that tower above the tree line can
possibly reduce visual prominence by painting it in non glare gray or earth tones. At very least, the company should
provide camouflage for the entire pole.
Equipment. First the company states it will contain all its equipment in a 50’ x 50’. Is this the compound mentioned
in subsection f?
SEPA
B(c) Is it true the land is only sand and gravel? How do trees survive?
(e) what do you mean “minimal excavation?
(g) 5000 sq ft of impervious gravel surface? Not 50 by 50’
3. (c) water won’t infiltrate 5000 sq ft of land? Where is that land?
4. Plants. There will be tansy ragwort,horsetail, Scotchbloom, thistles and more when you clear the land. Will
pesticides affect runoff, and the aquifer that supplies our water? The ponds close by?
5. Our area is part of many bird migrations such as hummingbirds,
grossbeaks, barn swallows, Canadian geese, etc. Owls live in the area you propose to destroy. Bald eagles are
making a comeback in the area. Ospreys live here.
7. Environmental health. What do you mean by negligible operational noise?
13. Historic preservation. Forest Hill Cemetery?
14. You changed access from only Fleet Street to include Swansonville Road. Where will that access be and why do
you need it?
Remote radio units to enhance signal? I see absolutely o thing about deflect technology and how you will keep those
of us so unlucky to be close to this tower.
EX 17-03 Public Comment 2025-11-13_1910
EX 17-04 Public Comment 2025-11-14_0000
EX 17-04 Public Comment 2025-11-14_0000
From:Debra Macrae
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:Questions regarding application ZON2025-00011 Horizon
Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 9:26:51 AM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi Duane,
Im at 37 Fleet Drive and my property backs up to the property identified on the notice I received
for application ZON2025-00011 and I have a few questions:
- Can you please provide more specific information regarding exactly where they are planning to locate
the tower, fencing, etc?
- Do you know where the access to the property / tower will be?
Thanks,
Debbie
214-505-0433
EX 17-05 Public Comment 2025-11-14_0926
From:A B
To:David W. Johnson
Cc:atbaier@gmail.com
Subject:Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless - Mats Mats Bay
Date:Saturday, November 15, 2025 7:31:03 AM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links
if you are not expecting them.
Opposition to Proposed Cell Tower per Norman Moran
Dear Mr. Johnson;
I am writing in opposition to the proposed cell tower called Horizon
Tower/Verizon Wireless - Mats Mats Bay.
The exact identification and location of the proposed tower is Parcel
number 821081015 Section 8. Township 28N, Range: 1e, Tax b & Tax
26 less Tax 44& 60 located North of Swansonville Road and Fleet
Drive in Port Ludlow, WA. The proposed facility consists of a 150'
monopole tower with Verizon Wireless antennae and ground-mounted
equipment with a fenced leased area.
We live very close to the location of the proposed installation of the
wireless tower. We respectfully oppose the proposed wireless tower on
Fleet Drive and Swansonville and urge you and the Development Review
Division to deny or relocate this project based on its impact to
property values, neighborhood character, and potential health
concerns. In addition, I have noted one contradiction in the
application itself that is concerning and misleading.
1. Property Value Impacts
Numerous real estate studies and community records show that proximity
to large communications towers can negatively affect residential
property values. Appraisers have cited diminished marketability and
reduced buyer interest due to visual prominence and public perception
of health risks. Even a small reduction in property value represents a
significant loss for residents who have invested heavily in their
homes.
2. Aesthetic and Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed tower is visually incompatible with our residential
setting. Its scale, height, possible noise and industrial design would
dominate the land on which the tower is planned, adversely impacting
the nearby homes and open views that define the character of our
community. The tower’s presence would conflict with local land-use
goals and design standards intended to preserve the visual integrity
and livability of the area.
As mentioned, one discrepancy is apparent in the documentation
associated with the proposal. This discrepancy occurs in Exhibit B,
Mats Mats Bay RF Documentation which clearly states that ‘the antennae
height and site location need to provide a line of sight to the
EX 17-06 Public Comment 2025-11-15_0731
roads, offices, and homes where our customers work and reside.’
Therefore, vegetation such as trees and shrubs cannot completely hide
the antennae from homeowners’ view if the antennae are to work
properly. In the Application for Wireless Communication
Facility Horizon Tower Mats Mats Bay, page 6, item (2) (a) Protection
of Points of Interest states ‘Existing vegetation will help screen the
facility from view’. Helping to screen and actually preventing a view
of the tower are not the same. In addition, existing vegetation may
or may not be in place in the future, depending on ownership of the
vegetation and acts of nature.
3. Health and Safety Concerns
While federal exposure limits exist, many residents remain deeply
concerned about the long-term effects of continuous radiofrequency
(RF) emissions. The World Health Organization’s International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF electromagnetic fields
as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This classification
justifies adopting the precautionary principle when locating new
facilities, new buildings, especially within close range of homes,
schools, and vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and
individuals with compromised health.
4. Process and Community Engagement
As a resident living close to the proposed tower, we received no
notice from you or the petitioner. We had a neighbor that brought this
to our attention, and it required us to do research, request
documentation, etc. That only gives us limited opportunity to
participate meaningfully in the reviewing and proposed/opposition
process. Transparency, environmental review, and public input are
essential for infrastructure decisions that directly affect
established neighborhoods. We ask that any consideration of this
project include robust community consultation and independent
verification of the claimed need for this site. In addition, we
participate in a HOA that has regulations for building. Has the
HOA/Board approved the tower?
Requested Action
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Division deny the
current application or require the applicant to identify alternative
locations farther from residential properties. At minimum, a
comprehensive environmental and visual-impact review should be
completed before any approval is granted.
Thank you for your consideration and for protecting the health,
safety, and quality of life of our community.
Sincerely,
Ann Baier
PO Box 65055
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
EX 17-06 Public Comment 2025-11-15_0731
atbaier@gmail.com
360-302-0336
EX 17-06 Public Comment 2025-11-15_0731
From:sherisouthern@gmail.com
To:David W. Johnson
Cc:GM@LMCBeachClub.Org; sherisouthern@gmail.com
Subject:Opposition to Proposed Horizon Cell Tower in Port Ludlow
Date:Sunday, November 16, 2025 3:02:38 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
November 16, 2025
To:
David Wayne Johnson
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Development Review Division
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us
Re:
Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless
Mats Mats Bay
Request for Approval of a Type III Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) with SEPA
Determination. On behalf of Horizon Tower, in conjunction with Verizon Wireless, we
are submitting a Type III Conditional Use Permit application for a new Wireless
Communication Facility (WCF) located on an undeveloped parcel in Jefferson
County, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (APN: 821081015). The proposed facility consists of
a 150’ monopole tower with Verizon Wireless antennas and ground-mounted
equipment within a 50' x 50' fenced lease area.
Subject:
Opposition to Proposed Cell Tower applied for by Norman Moran, 41 Fleet Dr, Port
Ludlow, WA 98365. Parcel number 821081015 Section 8. Township 28N, Range: 1E,
Tax b & Tax 26 less Tax 44 & 60 located North of Swansonville Road and Fleet Drive
in Port Ludlow, WA.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We live very close to the location of the proposed installation of a wireless tower. See
details above ( Re: Subject: ). We respectfully oppose the proposed 150-foot
monopole wireless tower on Fleet Drive and Swansonville and urge you and the
Development Review Division to deny or relocate this project based on its impact to
property values, neighborhood character, and potential health concerns.
1. Property Value Impacts
Numerous real estate studies and community records show that proximity to large
communications towers can negatively affect residential property values. Appraisers
have cited diminished marketability and reduced buyer interest due to visual
EX 17-07 Public Comment 2025-11-16_1502
prominence and public perception of health risks. Even a small reduction in property
value represents a significant loss for residents who have invested heavily in their
homes.
2. Aesthetic and Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed tower is visually incompatible with our residential setting. Its scale,
height, and industrial design would dominate the land on which the tower is planned,
nearby homes and open views that define the character of our community. The
tower’s presence would conflict with local land-use goals and design standards
intended to preserve the visual integrity and livability of the area.
3. Health and Safety Concerns
I am a 4 time Cancer survivor and have great concerns living so close to RF
emissions. While federal exposure limits exist, myself along with many residents
remain deeply concerned about the long-term effects of continuous radiofrequency
(RF) emissions. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic
to humans” (Group 2B). This classification justifies adopting the precautionary
principle when locating new facilities, new building, especially within close range of
homes, schools, and vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and
individuals with compromised health - including but not limited to previous Cancers.
4. Process and Community Engagement
As a resident living close to the proposed tower, we received no notice from you or
the petitioner. We had a neighbor that brought this to our attention, and it required us
to do research, request documentation, etc. That only gives us limited opportunity to
participate meaningfully in the reviewing and proposed/opposition process.
Transparency, environmental review, and public input are essential for infrastructure
decisions that directly affect established neighborhoods. We ask that any
consideration of this project include robust community consultation and independent
verification of the claimed need for this site. In addition, we participate in a HOA that
has regulations for building. Has the HOA/Board approved the tower?
Requested Action
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Division deny the current
application or require the applicant to identify alternative locations farther from
residential properties. At minimum, a comprehensive environmental and visual-impact
review should be completed before any approval is granted.
Thank you for your consideration and for protecting the health, safety, and quality of
life of our community. I look forward to a reply via email or phone call to better
understand your next steps in this matter. Thank you again!
Sincerely,
Sheri Southern
58 Keefe Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
sherisouthern@gmail.com / (206) 209-7111
EX 17-07 Public Comment 2025-11-16_1502
cc: Mike Wilson – General Manager, Ludlow Maintenance Commission, Port Ludlow
Beach Club HOA
Sheri Southern – Port Ludlow Resident
EX 17-07 Public Comment 2025-11-16_1502
From:MORNINGSTAR OHMES
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:Horizon tower 41 fleet drive
Date:Sunday, November 16, 2025 4:15:46 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if
you are not expecting them.
Mr. Johnson,
This project should not be approved in this location. This is literally in people’s backyard. This will negatively impact
the environment, health and safety of immediate neighbors, home values, and general quality of life for those of us in
the immediate vicinity.
Locate these towers in more appropriate areas and please don’t disrupt this nice, peaceful neighborhood with a
gigantic humming, radiating eyesore. There are numerous birds of prey and owls that nest in the trees both on and
around said property and have been for many years.
The generator that is getting installed will at a minimum have to run maintenance cycles causing both noise and
carbon pollution.
Then there is the Radio frequency and electromagnetic frequency pollution.
There are serious health and environmental concerns with this.
https://legislature.maine.gov/testimony/resources/EUT20230307Scarato133225242838550080.pdf
https://www.ehn.org/cell-phone-tower-
chromosomes#:~:text=Why%20this%20matters:,that%20account%20for%20evolving%20technologies.
Residents who lived closer to cell towers and were therefore exposed to higher levels of radiofrequency (RF)
radiation had significantly more breaks and disruptions to their chromosomes.
Some previous studies from Germany and other countries have linked proximity to cell phone towers with a
potentially elevated risk for cancer.
Key quote:
“Little is known about chronic (years long) exposure with non-thermal RF [radiation].”
Why this matters:
All wireless devices - including cell phones, WiFi routers, and the towers they depend on for service - emit RF radiation.
While this radiation is different from high frequency radiation (like the type emitted by X-rays), a growing body of
data suggests that RF radiation may still have the ability to alter cellular molecules, potentially increasing the risk for
negative health impacts. As cell towers continue to be constructed within communities in close proximity to residences,
experts encourage more research and updated regulations that account for evolving technologies.
Scientific studies link cell towers to
health harm
There is a large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RF
radiation from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects
including both i) neuropsychiatric complaints such as headache,
concentration difficulties, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive
symptoms, fatigue and sleep disturbance ; and ii) increased incidence of
EX 17-08 Public Comment 2025-11-16_1615
-J.M. Pearce, Environmental Research 2020
A 2022 review examined existing research on people living near mobile phone base stations and found the
majority of studies reported impacts, primarily radiofrequency sickness, cancer, and altered biochemical
markers.
https://ehsciences.org/are-cell-towers-
safe/#:~:text=Cell%20tower%20radiation%20is%20an,parents%20to%20reduce%20children's%20exposure.
Could you please send or direct me to SEPA checklist, Radio Frequency Design Analysis, project permit and send
notice of public hearing.
Thank you.
Phil Ohmes
360-774-6541
cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station.
EX 17-08 Public Comment 2025-11-16_1615
From:kjoyful@1stopresume.com
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:Request for Review of a Type III Wireless Communication Facility - Parcel: 821081015, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 9:28:47 AM
Attachments:Letter to Wayne Johnson - Jefferson County.pdf
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Mr. Johnson,
We have been alerted to a request/proposal for a cell tower (and the possibility for more
towers on that site) in Port Ludlow less than 1,200 feet from our home. Attached is my
request that you and the Division take actions to ensure that the tower is not erected. While I
do understand that cell towers are a way of life, I also have recommendations for alternative
sites in my letter.
I appreciate all the work that you do, but have sincere concerns about the positioning,
aesthetics, property value declines associated with cell towers in residential areas, and
possible health issues associated with a cell tower so close to us.
Thank you for your consideration,
KJ Turley
53 Keefe Ln
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
(503) 332-3738
EX 17-09 Public Comment 2025-11-17_0928
November 14, 2025
Mr. D. Wayne Johnson
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Development Review Division
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us
Re: Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless
Mats Mats Bay
Request for Review of a Type III Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) with SEPA
Determination
Parcel: 821081015, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I am writing as a resident living in close proximity to the proposed wireless communication tower site
near Fleet Drive and Swansonville Road. Just last week I was alerted to the proposed cell tower and
after careful consideration, I respectfully submit my opposition to the proposed 150-foot monopole
tower, and I urge the Development Review Division to deny or relocate this project due to its potential
adverse impacts on property values, neighborhood character, and public health.
Note: While the application documentation references a single tower with nine auxiliary antennas, the
permit request actually allows for multiple carriers and up to four towers with their associated
antennas, which significantly increases the scope and potential impacts of the project.
Impact on Property Values
I did research and reached out to others about the effects of cell towers to property values and the
general aesthetics and there was great concern. Studies and community experiences have
consistently demonstrated that residential properties near large communication towers suffer
diminished marketability, decreased values, and financial loss. This decline reflects concerns over
both the visual intrusion of such structures and perceived health risks, which negatively affect
homeowner investments.
Neighborhood Character and Aesthetics
Port Ludlow is distinguished by its natural beauty and residential tranquility. The scale and industrial
design of the proposed tower would be visually dominant and incongruent with the surrounding
landscape and community character.
Health and Safety Concerns
Although federal guidelines regulate radiofrequency emissions, I am not an expert on what
frequencies are not harmful to humans, animals and the land. Many residents remain apprehensive
about the potential long-term health effects of continuous exposure to signals emitted by wireless
towers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, has
classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B).
This classification warrants application of the precautionary principle, especially near homes, schools,
and vulnerable populations.
I share this concern from personal experience, having survived cancer twice. And, it should be noted
that two neighbors are currently undergoing cancer treatment. Jefferson County’s historically has
elevated cancer rates and the community’s average age of over 56 further heightens these concerns.
The potential health risks posed by this project must not be overlooked. I have notified Jefferson
Heath Department.
EX 17-09 Public Comment 2025-11-17_0928
Community Engagement and Process Transparency
I am also concerned that residents in Port Ludlow and near the proposed site were not directly notified
of this project and had limited opportunity to engage in the review process. Apparently, notices were
mailed out to some residents in our direct neighborhood in a certain radius to the proposed tower in
July 2025. I learned about it last week through a friend of a friend. I did not receive the information
directly, but we live less than 100 feet from some of the homes that were notified and the tower will be
just 1,200 feet from our home. Transparency to all residents, a thorough environmental review, and
meaningful public input are essential when infrastructure developments affect established
neighborhoods. We had to scramble to get this notice over to you by the November 19, 2025,
deadline.
Furthermore, has the local Homeowners Association or community board reviewed or approved this
proposal? While the HOA does not cover the proposed tower erection site, the HOA does have a few
hundred or more homes that will be directly affected. I would hesitate to make infrastructure changes
to the area without the input from the HOA and architectural committee since the tower’s presence
would conflict with local land-use goals and design standards intended to preserve the visual integrity
and livability of the area.
Why Mats Mats?
If I understand it correctly, the planned tower is to assist Mats Mats with their signal strength. There
must be areas closer to the Mats Mats area that are not so close to homes that would be amenable to
supporting the towers.
Recommended Sites for Cell Phone Towers:
There are multiple sites that would be more conducive to a cell tower. Recommendations for cell
tower locations include areas where people volunteer to be and not live and work in immediate
frequency range (I work from home). Suggestions include placing towers near highways that keeps
them away from residential zones while still offering wide coverage, utility corridors (there is one near
Mats Mats), industrial facilities, public works equipment storage sites, landfills, golf courses, etc. or
other non-residential sites should be explored to meet coverage needs while minimizing impact on
residents.
Conclusion and Request
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Development Review Division deny the current
application or require that alternative locations, further from residential properties, be identified. At
minimum, a comprehensive environmental and visual impact assessment should be completed prior
to any decision.
Thank you for your attention to these important issues and for safeguarding the health, safety, and
quality of life of our community.
Your attention to seeing that all members of this community are represented is imperative.
Sincerely,
KJ Turley
53 Keefe Ln
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
503-332-3738
kturley@1stopresume.com
EX 17-09 Public Comment 2025-11-17_0928
From:Doug Balli
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:Re: Type III Land Use Application
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 1:19:52 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
This is all very helpful information and very encouraging in terms of impact! Thank
you for forwarding this information.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: David W. Johnson <DJohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 7:07:11 AM
To: Doug Balli <drballi@msn.com>
Cc: David W. Johnson <DJohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Type III Land Use Application
Thank you for your comments. They will be addressed in the staff report for the public hearing. You
will receive notice of the public hearing when it is scheduled.
Attached are the project application materials.
From: Doug Balli <drballi@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 2:36 PM
To: David W. Johnson <DJohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Doug Balli <drballi@msn.com>
Subject: Type III Land Use Application
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
I am writing in regard to a notice I have received regarding application ZON2025-00011, for the
applicant Norman Moran at 41 Fleet Street, in Port Ludlow.
The 150' tower height is of significant concern to me (and other homeowners in the neighborhood).
Of greatest concern is that there isn't specific information (at least that I can glean) regarding more
precisely where on the 6-acre property the tower will be located. Obviously, the further away from
nearby homes, the less concern there would be. But, I also have questions about access to the site
(during initial build, and for ongoing maintenance - how large and loud will the necessary vehicles
be), noise levels once constructed (generators, fans, electrical equipment), aesthetics (how visible it
will be to surrounding homes/properties), and any projected impact on wildlife (birds and ground
animals in the area). It would also be interesting to know whether alternate sites with less impact
have been considered.
EX 17-10 Public Comment 2025-11-17_1319
Of course I recognize the need for progress and infrastructure improvement for our much-relied
upon cellular and communication networks, but striking the right balance between improvement
and impact is important for those of us who have chosen to live in this beautiful area. Any
information you can provide me will be greatly appreciated. Please also let me know when the
hearing is scheduled so that I (and others) may attend if the answers to the above are still of
concern.
Thank you, in advance, for your quick response.
Doug Balli
90 Explorer Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
drballi@msn.com l 801.541.6379
EX 17-10 Public Comment 2025-11-17_1319
From:Planning
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:FW: Community Health and Environmental Concerns with the Horizon Cellular Tower to Be Installed in Port Ludlow
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 4:13:41 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi David!
Please see the public comment below regarding ZON2025-00011. I have already emailed them to let them know
their comment was received and will be filed and reviewed.
Thanks!
Emily
Emily Calkins
Planning Technician
SDR Lead
Dept. of Community Development
Ecalkins@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4460
Monday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act,
a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who
asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law,
including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 1:36 PM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Community Health and Environmental Concerns with the Horizon Cellular Tower to Be Installed in
Port Ludlow
From: sherisouthern@gmail.com <sherisouthern@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 5:14 PM
To: Environmental Health <eh@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: GM@LMCBeachClub.Org; sherisouthern@gmail.com; DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Community Health and Environmental Concerns with the Horizon Cellular Tower to Be Installed in Port
Ludlow
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
EX 17-11 Public Comment 2025-11-17_1336
November 16, 2025
Subject: Community Health and Environmental Concerns - Proposed Horizon Cell Tower on an
undeveloped parcel in Jefferson County, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (APN: 821081015). The proposed
facility consists of a 150’ monopole tower with Verizon Wireless antennas and ground-mounted
equipment within a 50' x 50' fenced lease area.
To: Jefferson County Health Department
cc: Jefferson County Community Development Department
Mike Wilson – General Manager, Ludlow Maintenance Commission of Port Ludlow HOA
From: Sheri Southern
58 Keefe Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
sherisouthern@gmail.com / (206) 209-7111
Dear Jefferson County Health Department,
I am a resident living near the proposed 150-foot Verizon wireless communication tower planned for
Parcel number 821081015 located in Port Ludlow in Jefferson County. I just learned today of the planned
cellular tower in my area and am writing to express my concern and to formally request that the Health
Department review and comment on the potential public health, environmental, and community impacts
of this project before any approvals proceed.
1. Public Health Considerations
While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) establishes exposure limits for radiofrequency
(RF) emissions, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
has classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This
classification warrants a precautionary approach, particularly in areas where families, elderly residents,
and individuals with compromised health (such as cancer patients) reside. I am a 4 time Cancer Survivor
and am afraid of the potentially negative health impacts.
I respectfully ask that the Health Department consider supporting independent RF exposure assessments
and ongoing monitoring should the tower be constructed. These assessments would provide reassurance
to residents and ensure compliance with all safety standards.
2. Environmental and Aesthetic Impacts
The proposed tower would significantly alter the visual character of our neighborhood. At 150 feet in
height, it would be visible for long distances, affecting scenic views and diminishing the aesthetic quality
that defines our community. Towers of this scale are industrial in nature and inconsistent with
surrounding residential and agricultural land uses. Such visual and environmental degradation often
contributes to measurable declines in property value and overall neighborhood appeal.
3. Property Value Concerns
Several studies and community case reports across the U.S. indicate that large communication towers can
lower nearby home values and reduce marketability. Even perceptions of health or safety risks can
influence buyer decisions and erode confidence in local planning decisions.
4. Request for County Health Oversight
Because this project directly affects the health and well-being of Jefferson County residents, I
respectfully request that the Health Department:
Conduct or recommend an independent RF exposure study at nearby residences;
Advocate for a public health review before final siting approval; and
Support policies that prioritize distance buffers between towers and residential for medically
vulnerable populations.
EX 17-11 Public Comment 2025-11-17_1336
Your leadership in safeguarding community health is vital, especially as new technologies and
infrastructure are introduced into residential environments. Please keep residents informed about any
upcoming meetings, hearings, or studies related to this proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheri Southern
58 Keefe Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
sherisouthern@gmail.com / (206) 209-7111
EX 17-11 Public Comment 2025-11-17_1336
From:Kelly Robertson
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:Urgent - Public Comment Re: Horizon Tower Application 41 Fleet Drive, Port Ludlow
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:24:08 AM
Importance:High
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Dear David,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed construction of a large cell tower at 41 Fleet Drive
in Port Ludlow. The Applicant is Norman Moran and Verizon Wireless, ZON2025-00011.
This residential neighborhood in Port Ludlow is not the appropriate location for such large-
scale equipment. I live in the neighborhood and am concerned about potential health hazards
as well as decreased property values from this potential development. The visibility and
proven safety hazards of this equipment would undermine the security, ambiance, and beauty
of our small community, Port Ludlow.
I beg the committee to carefully reconsider the location for this cell tower and its impact on
our beautiful neighborhood and the health of its residents.
Thank you very much for your consideration and any help you can offer,
Sincerely,
Kelly Robertson
100 Explorer Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
EX 17-12 Public Comment 2025-11-18_1124
From:Caitlin Dietrich
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:In response to proposed 5G tower off Swansonville
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:21:48 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hello,
I am writing in hopes that you’ll reconsider the construction of the proposed 5G cell tower off
of Swansonville Road.
I am life time resident of Swansonville and our little community is not happy with the idea of
said tower being constructed right in the middle of the neighborhood.
This will require the cutting of some very old trees and area that lots of wildlife call their
homes. This area also borders the Forest Hill Cemetery, which aptly named given its beautiful
forested location. This is a historical landmark where family’s still come to remember and pay
respect to their lost loved ones.
As a small business owner who operates out of this direct area I deeply understand the need
for better cell reception. But I do not see the need to build such a thing when it means
destroying forests and wildlife areas. There is plenty of logging territory along the hillside
between Swansonville and Oak Bay that already has developed access roads, why not make a
deal with them and build it out there?
Thank you for taking the time to consider this.
-Caitlin Dietrich
EX 17-13 Public Comment 2025-11-18_1421
From:Karin Kroh
To:David W. Johnson
Cc:GM@lmcbeachclub.org
Subject:Opposition to Proposed Cell Tower - Mats Mats Bay
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:37:11 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
November 18, 2025
To:
David Wayne Johnson
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Development Review Division
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us
Re:
Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless
Mats Mats Bay
Request for Approval of a Type III Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) with SEPA
Determination. On behalf of Horizon Tower, in conjunction with Verizon Wireless, we
are submitting a Type III Conditional Use Permit application for a new Wireless
Communication Facility (WCF) located on an undeveloped parcel in Jefferson
County, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (APN: 821081015). The proposed facility consists of
a 150’ monopole tower with Verizon Wireless antennas and ground-mounted
equipment within a 50' x 50' fenced lease area.
Subject:
Opposition to Proposed Cell Tower applied for by Norman Moran, 41 Fleet Dr, Port
Ludlow, WA 98365. Parcel number 821081015 Section 8. Township 28N, Range: 1E,
Tax b & Tax 26 less Tax 44 & 60 located North of Swansonville Road and Fleet Drive
in Port Ludlow, WA.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
We live very close to the location of the proposed installation of a wireless tower. See
details above ( Re: Subject: ). We respectfully oppose the proposed 150-foot
monopole wireless tower on Fleet Drive and Swansonville and urge you and the
Development Review Division to deny or relocate this project based on its impact to
property values, neighborhood character, and potential health concerns.
1. Property Value Impacts
Numerous real estate studies and community records show that proximity to large
communications towers can negatively impact residential property values. Appraisers
have cited diminished marketability and reduced buyer interest due to visual
EX 17-14 Public Comment 2025-11-18_1437
prominence and public perception of health risks. Even a small reduction in property
value represents a significant loss for residents who have invested heavily in their
homes.
2. Aesthetic/Audible Impacts and Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed tower is visually incompatible with our residential setting. Its scale,
height, and industrial design would dominate the land on which the tower is planned,
nearby homes and open views that define the character of our community. The
tower’s presence would conflict with local land-use goals and design standards
intended to preserve the visual integrity and livability of the area. In addition to the
negative aesthetic impact, the audible, low-level buzz or hum of a cell tower is of
great concern. Residents live here for the beauty and quiet of living in the woods. In
the application for this wireless tower, it states, “Noise: The facility produces no
regular operational noise.” In the Supplemental Application, it states, “There is no
significant noise associated with the facility.” Zero noise, or some noise? More
importantly, who has the right to determine what is or is not significant noise? I
believe the residents living near the tower should have the final say in a matter that
will affect their daily life and their home investment.
3. Health and Safety Concerns
I have great concerns living so close to RF emissions. While federal exposure limits
exist, I along with many residents remain deeply concerned about the long-term
effects of continuous radio frequency (RF) emissions. The World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF
electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This
classification justifies adopting the precautionary principle when locating new
facilities, new building, especially within close range of homes, schools, and
vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with
compromised health - including but not limited to previous Cancers. Port Ludlow is a
community overwhelmingly comprised of people well over the age of 60 - a
vulnerable population.
4. Process and Community Engagement
As a resident living close to the proposed tower, we received no notice from you or
the petitioner. We had a neighbor that brought this to our attention, and it required us
to do research, request documentation, etc. That only gives us limited opportunity to
participate meaningfully in the reviewing and proposed/opposition process.
Transparency, environmental review, and public input are essential for infrastructure
decisions that directly affect established neighborhoods. We ask that any
consideration of this project include robust community consultation and independent
verification of the claimed need for this site. In addition, we participate in an HOA that
has regulations for building. Has the HOA/Board approved the tower?
Requested Action
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Division deny the current
application or require the applicant to identify alternative locations farther from
residential properties. At minimum, a comprehensive environmental and visual-impact
review should be completed before any approval is granted.
EX 17-14 Public Comment 2025-11-18_1437
Thank you for your consideration and for protecting the health, safety, and quality of
life of our community. I look forward to a reply via email or phone call to better
understand your next steps in this matter. Thank you again!
Sincerely,
Karin Kroh
58 Keefe Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
kekroh@gmail.com / (206) 618-2281
cc: Mike Wilson – General Manager, Ludlow Maintenance Commission
EX 17-14 Public Comment 2025-11-18_1437
From:Hugh Robertson
To:David W. Johnson
Subject:41 Fleet St.
Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 12:29:32 PM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links
if you are not expecting them.
Dear David,
I am writing in response to the announcement about the proposed cellular tower to be erected on the property
adjacent to 41 Fleet St. in Port Ludlow. I am a resident of the neighborhood, at 100 Explorer Ln. I am concerned that
a 150 foot tower so close to our houses is inconsistent with the atmosphere and purpose of the community of Port
Ludlow. All utilities and wires are intentionally undergrounded here; we have no utility poles or light poles of any
kind. A 15-story communications tower is clearly inconsistent with this intention and would significantly alter the
character of the neighborhood.
I urge the cellular company to find a more appropriate location for their tower.
Thank you for your consideration.
Hugh Robertson
EX 17-15 Public Comment 2025-11-19_1229
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: On the cell tower planned for Port Ludlow area
Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 1:49:23 PM
Thank you,Planner of the Day
Jefferson County Community DevelopmentP: 360-379-4450E: planning@co.jefferson.wa.usMonday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: Evie maxwell <eviehm31@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: On the cell tower planned for Port Ludlow area
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Greetings …
I’m Evie Maxwell, the features editor of the Port Ludlow Voice. I’ve been working with our News
Editor (Doug Pulling) on a story about the planned cell tower site in Port Ludlow. I’m hoping this
message will reach Greg Ballard (who Doug spoke to) for a follow up conversation. If at all possible,
I'd like to chat sometime next week on matters concerning the status of the project, any comments
that you may have had on it, where people can go to comment if they wish to, whether there will be
a public hearing etc.
You will see a short note on the cell tower in our February issue (which should be available online on
2/1), but I had to shoehorn it in so I’m hoping to do a more complete job for the March issue.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you
Evie
Evie Haskell Maxwell
eviehm31@gmail.com
Features Editor/Port Ludlow Voice
EX 17-16 Public Comment 2026-01-29_1112
303.619.4444
EX 17-16 Public Comment 2026-01-29_1112
-----Original Message-----
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 9:41 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Please add me onto any contact list for public response meetings etc—Re: the proposed mono
pole implementation in Port Ludlow
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
Thank you!
Susan Cole
132 Gamble Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com
Sent from my iPhone
EX 17-17 Public Comment 2026-02-02_0941
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: Top expert compilation of info re:cell phone towers and cause for community concern
Date:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:51:52 AM
Helpful? Respectfully,Lila Stanfield
Assistant Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
P: 360-379-4472
E: lstanfield@co.jefferson.wa.us
Monday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to thePublic Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt fromproduction to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:13 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Top expert compilation of info re:cell phone towers and cause for community concern
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
On Feb 2, 2026, at 12:17 PM, Joel M. Moskowitz <jmm@berkeley.edu>
wrote:
Hi Susan, I have heard from hundreds of people fighting cell towers. Hereare some resources I have prepared. Joel
Overview of Cell Tower Health Issues
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits
localities from basing their decisions exclusively on
EX 17-18 Public Comment 2026-02-03_0713
environmental effects when ruling on cell tower
applications. The courts have interpreted environmental
effects to include health effects. Thus, official bodies
should not exclusively base their determinations on
health effects because cell tower companies may sue
and win.
Community members should present information on the
health effects of cell tower radiation at official hearings
anyway. Knowledge of these effects may alter the
position of those who are indifferent about having a cell
tower in their neighborhood.
As one wireless safety advocate advised ...
" ... we have the First Amendment. People
opposing cell towers can present health concerns
all they want in these official hearings, and I have
done just that over and over. The official bodies
cannot show they made a decision based upon
this, but you cannot tell me that the information on
health will not affect government body members
who usually live in the community themselves.
They should just finish their public comment stating
'please vote to not approve this application
because this tower has no place in a residential
area, disturbs the appearance and fabric of the
community, and as an eye sore will reduce the
property value and appeal to new home buyers
etc...'
We do not want to help the industry keep health
effects out of the dialogue. Again I have spoken
about health effects at many cell tower meetings."
(Note there are some limits on First Amendment
rights.)
According to wireless safety advocates who have been
successful in blocking cell towers, the following
strategies are critical:
Organize strong community opposition;
EX 17-18 Public Comment 2026-02-03_0713
Provide legitimate reasons to policy makers for
denial of the application (e.g., zoning code
violations, esthetic issues, sound problems,
diminished property values), and
Raise community health concerns with policy
makers.
Some communities have blocked cell towers based
upon potential harm to protected species under
the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
See NRDC links below.
In the past several years, the Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission have been working on
legislation and rules to facilitate the deployment of
hundreds of thousands of "small cell" antennas
throughout the country to pave the way for 5G, the fifth
generation of cellular technology. The industry
anticipates deployment of 800,000 new cell antenna
sites for the 5G rollout.
Following are some resources you may find useful.
Webinar: The Rights of Citizens in the Deployment of
Wireless. Americans for Responsible Technology and
BroadBand International Legal Action Network, Mar 22,
2023. To watch videos or download slides:
https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/
march22webinar
Sharon Buccino. 5G Coming to Your Neighborhood?
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Dec 6,
2019. Updated June 10, 2020.
Sharon Buccino. 5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why
You Should Care. NRDC. September 8, 2019.
Joel Moskowitz. We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is
Safe. Scientific American, October 17, 2019.
Joel Moskowitz. Regulators Steamroll Health
Concerns as the Global Economy Embraces 5G.
The Washington Spectator, September 18, 2020
EX 17-18 Public Comment 2026-02-03_0713
Americans for Responsible Technology
https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/
Physicians for Safe Technology
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-and-city-
ordinances/
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-
effects/
https://mdsafetech.org/5g-
telecommunications-science/
https://mdsafetech.org/legal-issues-and-
cell-towers/
Environmental Health Trust
https://ehtrust.org/science/cell-towers-
and-cell-antennae/
https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-
phoneswireless/5g-internet-everything/
My EMR Safety website covers much of the science.
Here are the most relevant links:
"Radiofrequency Radiation and Your Health: Is 5GHarmful?" (Joel Moskowitz, Federal Mobility Group webinar
/ video & slides, September 2023)
Cell Tower Health Effects
Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to
Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation
Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of
Interior Attacks FCC
International EMF Scientist Appeal -
https://emfscientist.org
International Commission on the Biological
Effects of EMF - https://icbe-emf.org/
Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on
5G
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our
Health?
5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave
Health Effects
5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the
EX 17-18 Public Comment 2026-02-03_0713
Hype
5G Wireless Technology: Major newspaper
editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
2020 Report on 5G
5G and Health (Netherlands Health Council)
European Parliament Workshop on 5G
Health Effects
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California
Public Health Department
NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study
Replicates NTP Study
5G Global Protest
5G Day of Action
Comprehensive review papers:
Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from
exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted
by cell tower base stations and other antenna
arrays. Environmental Reviews.18: 369–395
(2010) doi:10.1139 /A10-018. Open access
paper:
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/1
0.1139/A10-018?src=recsys
Balmori A. Evidence for a health risk by RF
on humans living around mobile phone base
stations: From radiofrequency sickness to
cancer. Environ Res. 2022 Nov;214(Pt
2):113851. doi:
10.1016/j.envres.2022.113851.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
abs/pii/S0013935122011781
EX 17-18 Public Comment 2026-02-03_0713
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: https://www.saferemr.com/
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joel-moskowitz-7b817539/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
X: @berkeleyprc
EX 17-18 Public Comment 2026-02-03_0713
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: Safe Distances for Avoiding Mobile Tower Radiation
Date:Thursday, February 5, 2026 9:34:09 AM
Cell Phone Tower. Respectfully,Lila Stanfield
Assistant Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
P: 360-379-4472
E: lstanfield@co.jefferson.wa.us
Monday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to thePublic Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt fromproduction to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 3:42 PM
To: Hugh (concerned About Cell) <hrobertson1@hotmail.com>
Cc: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Safe Distances for Avoiding Mobile Tower Radiation
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Thank you Hugh!
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Joel M. Moskowitz"
Subject: Re: Safe Distances for Avoiding Mobile Tower Radiation
There is little agreement on a safe setback distance. Many biological effects have been documented at very low intensitiescomparable to what the population experiences within 200 to 500 ft (*60–150m) of a cell tower, including effects that occurred in studies of cell cultures andanimals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Effects reported include: genetic,growth, and reproductive; increases in permeability of the blood–brainbarrier;behavioral; molecular, cellular, and metabolic; and increases in cancerrisk. Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagneticradiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays.Environmental Reviews.18: 369–395 (2010) doi:10.1139 /A10-018. Open
access paper: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/A10-
018?src=recsys
The NH 5G Commission recommends 500
meters. https://gc.nh.gov/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final
%20report.pdf
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: https://www.saferemr.com/
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joel-moskowitz-7b817539/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
X: @berkeleyprc
-----Original Message-----
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 8:54 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Physicians for Safe Technology | Cell Tower Radiation Health Effects
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/
Sent from my iPhone
EX 17-20 Public Comment 2026-02-05_0854
From: Evie maxwell <eviehm31@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 5:32 PM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>; plcelltoweropposition@gmail.com
Subject: The cell tower proposal in Port Ludlow
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
Greetings …
I am among the many residents of Port Ludlow who is strongly opposed to plans for
a new cell tower facility being constructed in our midst (ZON2025-00011). As I am sure
you know, we are a semi-rural community which is known for its beautiful setting,
clean air and peacefulness.
The latter has already been torn to shreds by the plan to build a cell tower facility of
(potentially) up to several towers in our midst. According to many studies (including
peer reviewed), this facility will lower the value of nearby homes by anything from
approximately 2% to approximately 20%. That is a big, big hit on neighborhood
pocketbooks. In addition, the tower (or towers) will be a blight on our landscape;
wildlife habitats will be disrupted; and, while we understand that servicing needs are
small for cell towers, there will be inevitable disruptions.
And we are being asked to accept all this in order to improve cell phone services in a
community that is completely separate from our own.
We object. Strongly.
We are in no way against improved cell service; it has become a necessity of modern
life. But we firmly believe that we are not the only potential site for this, and, in fact,
that whenever possible, such installations should go to commercial areas, rights of
way, and numerous other common ground sites where the burden will not be so
heavy.
Further, we note that Jefferson County’s own wireless facilities code clearly states
the importance of protecting rural and scenic resources while accommodating
wireless service. A 150 foot cell-tower with a 50 by 50 foot fenced compound and
heavy equipment does not reflect that balance. It places an industrial scale structure
in a residential area.
EX 17-21 Public Comment 2026-02-05_1732
Please do NOT approve the Horizon/Verizon plan to build a cell tower facility in the
midst of Port Ludlow.
Sincerely,
Evie Maxwell
31 Forester Ln
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
eviehm31@gmail.com
EX 17-21 Public Comment 2026-02-05_1732
From:Susan Sparks
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:Cell Tower placement in Port Ludlow
Date:Monday, February 9, 2026 11:53:24 AM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Mr. Ballard,
My husband and I own a parcel in Port Ludlow that is close to 1000 ft from the
proposed cell tower. The reading that I have done seems to indicate that no
other acceptable sites were considered. I feel that it would be in our whole
neighborhood's interest for other sites to be vetted before this project moves
forward.
Respectfully,
Susan and Thomas Sparks
80 Explorer Ln, Port Ludlow
EX 17-22 Public Comment 2026-02-09_1153
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: Case Number ZON2025-00011
Date:Wednesday, February 11, 2026 8:27:06 AM
Cell Tower. Respectfully,Lila Stanfield
Assistant Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
P: 360-379-4472
E: lstanfield@co.jefferson.wa.us
Monday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to thePublic Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt fromproduction to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: AT&T Mail Service <tomandsuesparks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 12:23 PM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Case Number ZON2025-00011
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
To Whom It May Concern,
My husband and I own a parcel in Port Ludlow that is close to 1000 ft from the
proposed cell tower. The reading that I have done seems to indicate that no
other acceptable sites were considered. I feel that it would be in our whole
neighborhood's interest for other sites to be vetted before this project moves
forward. Many families will be impacted by the decision that will place a cell
tower close to our homes.
Respectfully,
Susan and Thomas Sparks
80 Explorer Ln, Port Ludlow
EX 17-23 Public Comment 2026-02-09_1223
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 6:59 PM
To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Please include/add to record
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
And PLEASE take the precautionary approach in weighing the risks and benefits of the Port Ludlow cell
tower site application and it’s review process as the facts are rapidly changing and being revealed.
New Review Finds U.S. Wireless Radiation Rules Outdated and Weakly Enforced
Inside Towers, January 19, 2026
A new review paper by Theodora Scarato, MSW, director of Environmental Health Sciences’ Wireless &
EMF program, finds that U.S. oversight of cell towers, cell phones, WiFi and wireless radiation is
outdated, fragmented, and heavily influenced by industry.
According to the report, the FCC, which sets exposure limits, says it lacks health expertise and defers to
other federal agencies, yet none have comprehensively reviewed the science or conducted meaningful
health-risk evaluations in over 20 years. U.S. exposure limits, unchanged since 1996, address only short-
term heating effects, not long-term health risks.
The paper documents regulatory capture at the FCC, including a revolving door with industry and a
pattern of industry-funded studies reporting no harm. The U.S. also lacks premarket safety testing, post-
market health surveillance, exposure monitoring, and occupational health protections. As a result, U.S.
radiation limits are among the most lenient globally, while other countries enforce stronger safeguards,
especially for children.
Scarato concludes that restoring public health protections will require independent, transparent,
evidence-based regulation focused on prevention and risk mitigation rather than industry priorities.
https://insidetowers.com/new-review-finds-u-s-wireless-radiation-rules-outdated-and-weakly-
enforced/
--
U.S. cell tower & cell phone radiation policy fails public health, new paper finds
Environmental Health News, Jan 16, 2026
Factsheet: Children and cell phones A new review paper published in Frontiers in Public Health details
the outdated policies and gaps in oversight and enforcement that characterize the U.S.’ regulatory
framework for cell towers, cell phones, Wi-Fi and wireless radiation. The author, Theodora Scarato, is
the director of Environmental Health Sciences’ Wireless & EMF program.
EX 17-24 Public Comment 2026-02-12_1859
In short:
The FCC has regulatory authority over cell tower and wireless radiation limits in the U.S., but
lacks in-house expertise on health and states it defers to other agencies such as the FDA, CDC,
NIH or EPA. However, none of these agencies have reviewed the full body of scientific evidence
and have conducted little to no meaningful oversight or health-risk evaluation.
Human exposure limits for wireless radiation have not changed since 1996 and protect only
against short-term heating effects, not the health impacts of long-term exposure.
The FCC exemplifies regulatory capture through undue industry influence, with a decades-long
revolving door between the agency and industry leadership. This paper documents how
industry-funded research more often reports no effects from exposure.
The U.S. lacks premarket safety testing, post-market health surveillance, compliance audits,
exposure measurement and monitoring programs, and has no occupational health program in
place to monitor modern workplace exposure and mitigate risk.
U.S. limits for cell tower radiation are among the highest (most lenient) in the world, while
many other countries have more robust measuring and oversight programs as well as specific
safeguards for children, such as banning cell towers at schools.
Key quote:
“To rectify the current situation, government oversight must balance industry power. A strong
regulatory framework must be built that rests on transparency and robust evidence-based evaluation,
free of industry influence. Prevention is the cornerstone of public health, and the U.S. needs to move
toward a risk mitigation approach.”
EX 17-24 Public Comment 2026-02-12_1859
Why this matters:
Wireless exposure is increasing due to the rapid expansion of cell towers, 5G, and now 6G networks.
Without transparent oversight, independent monitoring, or meaningful public disclosure, communities
are unable to assess their real-world exposure or make informed decisions about infrastructure placed
near homes, schools, and workplaces.
This paper documents how the issue is not only about the mounting scientific evidence on health risk,
but whether 1996 regulations have kept pace with technological expansion, and how heavily today’s
policy has been shaped by industry influence. Unlike other environmental pollutants, cell tower
radiation is subject to minimal regulatory oversight. With federal proposals moving forward in 2026 to
fast-track cell tower deployment, local communities may have little ability to influence where and how
wireless infrastructure is built. The U.S. The Department of Health and Human Services stated that it will
launch a study on cellphone radiation, building on Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr's concerns that cell
phone radiation poses health risks such as neurological damage and cancer.
What you can do:
The paper concludes with a set of policy recommendations and can be downloaded and shared with
local, state, and federal officials. The paper, along with our fact sheets, are key resources you can use to
advocate for transparent oversight, updated health-based standards, and policies that prioritize public
health over industry convenience.
EX 17-24 Public Comment 2026-02-12_1859
www.ehn.org
Related EHN coverage:
Yale Study: Wireless radiation at Bluetooth exposure levels increased the expression of autism-
related genes in laboratory models
Wireless radiation exposure linked to DNA damage
EX 17-24 Public Comment 2026-02-12_1859
Cell tower radiation linked to higher reports of health issues, study finds
More resources:
Regulatory Gaps in U.S. Wireless Radiation Policy: Public Health Implications and
Recommendations for Reform
Science on the health effects of wireless radiation
Environmental Health Sciences' Wireless & EMF Program Resources
Scarato, Theodora for Frontiers in Public Health vol. 13. Dec 18, 2025
https://www.ehn.org/cell-tower-radiation-policy
--
U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed
reforms
Scarato T. U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and
proposed reforms. Front Public Health. 2025 Dec 19;13:1677583. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583.
Abstract
The current U.S. regulatory framework governing non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR) used in all
wireless technology is outdated and lacks adequate protection, oversight, and enforcement. The U.S.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was given regulatory jurisdiction by the U.S. Congress in
1996 over RFR exposure standards setting even though FCC has no in-house expertise regarding health
or environmental effects from RFR. FCC is a licensing/engineering entity that relies on other government
agencies for guidance on ambient exposures and devices. However, all relevant civilian public health and
environmental agencies have been defunded from non-ionizing radiation research activities and
oversight. Thus, current regulations have remained unchanged since 1996. Human exposure limits are
designed to protect against short-term high-intensity effects, not today's long-term chronic low-
intensity exposures. Scientific evidence indicates that children's thinner skulls, unique physiology, and
more conductive tissues result in significantly higher RFR absorption rates deeper into critical brain
regions, which are still in development and thus more sensitive to environmental insults. However,
current policies offer no safeguards for children/pregnancy or vulnerable populations. Growing research
also indicates risks to wildlife, especially pollinators. In 2021, a U.S. federal court mandated that the FCC
show proper review of growing scientific evidence, after a cursory FCC re-approval of limits in 2019, but
FCC has yet to respond. This paper explores regulatory infrastructure deficiencies, including the absence
of monitoring/oversight, premarket safety testing, post-market surveillance, emissions
compliance/enforcement, occupational safety, and wildlife protection. Compliance tests for cell phones
do not reflect real-world consumer use and can therefore camouflage exposures that exceed even FCC's
outdated limits. Other countries enforce stricter limits, robust monitoring, transparency measures, and
compliance programs with additional policies to protect children. Also discussed is the chronic revolving
door between FCC leadership and the wireless industry, resulting in a state of regulatory capture. Policy
recommendations for common-sense reforms are made for reinvigorating independent research,
developing science-based safety limits, ensuring pre- and post-market surveillance, and improving
EX 17-24 Public Comment 2026-02-12_1859
oversight/enforcement, as well as implementing risk mitigation to reduce exposures to children,
vulnerable groups, and wildlife.
Open access: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-
health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1677583/full
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: https://www.saferemr.com/
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joel-moskowitz-7b817539/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
X: @berkeleyprc
EX 17-24 Public Comment 2026-02-12_1859
EX 17-25 Public Comment 2026-02-13_0000
EX 17-25 Public Comment 2026-02-13_0000
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: Swansonville Cell tower
Date:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 7:44:38 AM
Cell Tower Respectfully,Lila Stanfield
Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
P: 360-379-4472
E: lstanfield@co.jefferson.wa.us
Monday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to thePublic Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt fromproduction to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 1:54 PM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Swansonville Cell tower
Hopefully someone can help
From: Calvin Lehman <clehman@jamestowntribe.org>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 8:00 AM
To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Swansonville Cell tower
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Jefferson County DOD:
I want to voice my strong opposition to the proposed 150 foot cell phone tower site located on
Swansonville Road and Fleet Drive.
As a resident of Port Ludlow I moved here to live in a "village in the woods by the sea". An
intrusive industrial structure is not what I envisioned when buying my home. I live close to the
proposed site, and I fear my home value would be affected negatively. This is unfair to
everyone who has moved to this neighborhood for its intrinsic natural beauty.
Please consider more appropriate locations for this tower, one not so close to a residential
area.
Thank you,
EX 17-26 Public Comment 2026-02-13_0800
Calvin Lehman
Public Safety & Natural Resources
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Desk: 360-582-5797
Cell: 360-460-5178
EX 17-26 Public Comment 2026-02-13_0800
-----Original Message-----
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 11:16 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Questions —???
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
Re:Port Ludlow cell tower—
Could you please provide us w/ graphics/graphs/#’s that show the range of coverage (if implemented),
AND for future proposed additional antennas etc?
Also the frequencies LEVELS that are in the planned design for current permit application and for
proposed future added proposed added projects ?
Thank you!
Susan Cole
Sent from my iPhone
EX 17-27 Public Comment 2026-02-13_1116
From:DCD Front Staff
To:Greg Ballard
Cc:Jeremy Williammee; Chelsea Pronovost
Subject:FW: Support for Proposed Cell Tower on Parcel 821081015 Upper Fleet Port Ludlow Development Review
Division, Greg Ballard
Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:21:46 AM
From: 4 INDOG <4indog@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 1:00 PM
To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Support for Proposed Cell Tower on Parcel 821081015 Upper Fleet Port Ludlow
Development Review Division, Greg Ballard
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
We strongly support the cell tower in the proposed Port Ludlow location, as the current cell
service is inadequate for modern household digital needs. Most residents will not have
visual access of the tower as the tree canopy in the entire area is extremely dense, so a
sight based argument would not be valid for nearly all PL residents.
Susanne and Wayne Evert, 103 Cascade Lane, PL WA 98365
EX 17-28 Public Comment 2026-02-15_1300
From:DCD Front Staff
To:Greg Ballard
Cc:Jeremy Williammee; Chelsea Pronovost
Subject:FW: Proposed Cell tower in Port Ludlow
Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:20:55 AM
From: Dan Thirkill <dant135@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 4:15 PM
To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: plcelltoweropposition@gmail.com
Subject: Proposed Cell tower in Port Ludlow
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Concerning the proposed 150-foot Cell Tower to be in Port Ludlow, located near upper Fleet
Drive. We have an amazing community with a splendid display of nature in Port Ludlow.
Intrusive towers are not desired. Yes, improved wireless service is a needful plus, but if no
true review including better locations has taken place, that needs to be a priority.
Thanks for your effort in ensuring all appropriate avenues and solutions are considered.
Dan Thirkill
EX 17-29 Public Comment 2026-02-15_1615
FEB 2 3 2026
lUewdo1eM o ~,un wwo8
~uno8 uosJa11 er
9ZOZ f Z 83.:J
Jefferso n County
Co mmu nity Development @-~~ Je ffe rso n Co un ty De partm e nt of Comm u nity Develop m en t Q
RE: Opposition to Proposed Cell Tower on Parcel 821081015 Upper Fleet Port~ . ~~
Development Review division
Greg Ballard
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA. 98368
CC:
PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee
46 Village Vl/.ay PMB 118
Port Ludlow, WA. 98365
February 17, 2026
Elyse Cregar
Rachel Clark
142 Camano Ln
Port Ludlow, WA. 98365
Email: elysecr@icloud.CQ.fi
Mobile phone: 208-301-0077
Dear Mr. Ballard and PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee Members,
Thank you for alerting us to the plans by Horizon TowerNerizon to build a cell tower in North
Bay, neat Swan.sonville and Fleet Roads. My family and I often walk through these
neighborhoods. We are aghast at the idea of completing these proposed plans by a large
corporation that has no ties to our lovely community, as far as we know.
Regardless, many Port Ludlow residents have worked all their lives to enjoy the gorgeous
land and water habitats of this unique peninsula. They contribute to the health of this
community and its land. Did I mention the quiet and peace of our surroundings? Who is
requesting this invasive structure? What is the justification?
Have these companies conducted environmental impact studies? How~ill homeo"wne/s
be affected by the disruption and have they been told they will be "compensafeit?''-f ;· • •
understand the companies lease the land they use for a cell tower, and costs can r~n
hundreds or thousands of dollars each month.* Who sees that money?
EX 17-30 Public Comment 2026-02-17 CREGAR
A small amount of research shows the Horizon Tower Corporation list of corporate
department heads and their short biographies: Horizon Towers
https://www.horizontower.com/about/
What are their "strategic objectives?" I see the biographies focus on department heads'
corporate backgrounds in developing corporate structures and corporate "key business
functions" but where do WE and our chosen habitats fit in? Do they fit in?
These folks at the top list their personal accomplishments in corporate project
developments but I get no sense of their personal values or interests. Do they consider Port
Ludlow residents as stakeholders? Or do they see this cell tower proposal as a pre-
determined "benefit" to our lives because it will offer more efficient cell service? My family
lives about a mile or two from this proposed site. Our cell service is efficient and fast. So,
what's the problem?
Who does benefit? These companies can write all they want about the "benefits "of this, or
any cell tower located inappropriately. Follow the money: land lease costs, building costs,
long-term maintenance costs, truck and other traffic during construction, potential health
effects, costs to habitats (one reason people choose to live in and support the values of
this part of the country.)
I hope these concerns are addressed in detail by company representatives with specific
answers to these and more questions. Mainly, the questions of WHERE, WHY, WHO PAYS
and WHO RECEIVES, WHAT (prior studies will be performed?) should be publicly
addressed.
Thank you for alerting us to this potential cell tower project development.
Yours sincerely,
~ cd M
E~~
Rachel Clark
EX 17-30 Public Comment 2026-02-17 CREGAR
A search with these terms: "How much profit to Verizon for cell tower maintenance Ludlow,
WA. 98365" Al Results below from a quick search:
1. Tower Rental and Maintenance Costs (Expenses, Not Profit)
• Monthly Lease Payments: Verizon typically pays between $1,250 and $3,500+ per
month per tower site to the property owner or tower manager.
• Operational Costs: These leases often cover maintenance, power, site construction, and,
in some cases, the eventual removal of equipment.
.. Urban. vs. Rural: In ·high-density urban areas,; costs canexceed $5,000 pt:ir month,·while
rural sites are generally lower.
2. Strategic "Profit" via Divestment (Saving Costs)
Verizon makes money on towers not through maintenance profits, but by selling their towers to
third-party managers to reduce overhead.
• $3.3 Billion Deal: In 2024, Verizon entered a deal with Vertical Bridge to manage 6,339 of
their towers. This allows Verizon to shift the responsibility and costs of maintenance to an
independent operator, thus increasing their own efficiency and lowering long-term
expenses.
• Trend: Verizon has historically sold towers to firms like American Tower to unlock cash
and reduce the burden of maintaining infrastructure.
3. Efficiencies in SG
To reduce the high costs of traditional macro-cell towers, Verizon is increasing its use of small cell
nodes, which can be significantly cheaper to operate ($270 per year) compared to traditional
macro sites ($50,000+ per year).
Summary: For Verizon, cell tower maintenance is a substantial, necessary capital
expenditure (15-25 billion annually for network infrastructure, including leases). Their "profit"
comes from optimizing these costs through leasing instead of owning, and by using cheaper,
smaller technology where possible.
EX 17-30 Public Comment 2026-02-17 CREGAR
EX 17-31 Public Comment 2026-02-17 WEISMEYER
EX 17-31 Public Comment 2026-02-17 WEISMEYER
From:DCD Front Staff
To:Planning
Cc:Greg Ballard; Mo-chi Lindblad
Subject:FW: Cell Tower proposal on Parcel 821081015, Port Ludlow, Wa
Date:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 3:19:05 PM
From: Jennifer Levcun <jenniferlevcun@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:01 AM
To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Cell Tower proposal on Parcel 821081015, Port Ludlow, Wa
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 9:59 AM Jennifer Levcun <jenniferlevcun@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tower February 16, 2026 Jefferson County Department of Community
Development Re: Opposition to Proposed Cell Tower on Parcel 821081015 Upper
Fleet Port Ludlow .
Development Review Division,
Greg Ballard 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Phone 360 379 4450
Email dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
Re: Horizon Tower/Verizon Wireless Mats Mats Bay ZON2025-00011 Proposed
Cell Tower Request for Review of a Type III Wireless Communication Facility
(WCF) with SEPA Determination Parcel: 821081015, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
To Jefferson County Development Group & Mr. Greg Ballard,
I am writing as a resident living in close proximity to the proposed wireless
communication tower site near Fleet Drive and Swansonville Road in Port Ludlow.
I have just been alerted to the proposed cell tower and after careful consideration, I
am submitting my opposition to the proposed 150-foot monopole tower, and I urge
the Development Review Division and County Planners to deny or relocate this
project due to its potential adverse impact on neighborhood character, property
values, and possible public health concerns.
Note: While the application documentation references a single tower with nine
auxiliary antennas, the permit request actually allows for multiple carriers with their
EX 17-32 Public Comment 2026-02-17_1001
associated antennas, which significantly increases the scope and potential impacts
of the project.
Impact on Property Values Research on the effects of cell towers to property values
come in around a decrease of 2.9-20% ($17,400 to $120,000 on a $600,000 home)
depending on the proximity to the tower and buyer inquiries into the location of the
towers.
Studies and community experience have consistently demonstrated that residential
properties near large communication towers suffer diminished marketability,
decreased values, and financial loss. This decline reflects concerns over both the
visual intrusion of such structures and perceived health risks, which negatively
affect homeowner investments.
Neighborhood Character & Aesthetics Port Ludlow is distinguished by its natural
beauty and residential tranquility.
A 150-foot cell tower is offensive to our scenic appreciation and enjoyment of our
properties and the Port Ludlow surroundings. The scale and industrial design of the
proposed tower would be visually dominant and not in harmony with the
surrounding landscape and community character.
Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan provides the principal framework for
conserving natural beauty, rural character, and environmental quality.
The Plan contains policy and elements that guide decisions about environment,
open space, scenic views, natural resources, and quality of life. We sincerely
support the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and request that the Plan, its codes,
and related Washington State laws be followed and applied to deny the placement
of the tower near resident homes.
Health and Safety Concerns Although federal guidelines regulate radio-frequency
emissions, I am not an expert on what frequencies are not harmful to humans,
animals, and the land. Many residents remain apprehensive about the potential
long-term health effects of continuous exposure to signals emitted by wireless
towers.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health
Organization, has classified radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly
carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This classification warrants application of the
precautionary principle, especially near homes, schools, and vulnerable
populations.
Community Engagement and Process Transparency :
I am also concerned that residents in Port Ludlow and near the proposed site were
not directly notified of this project and had limited opportunity to engage in the
review process. Apparently, notices were mailed out to some residents in our direct
neighborhood in a certain radius to the proposed tower in July 2025.
Transparency to all residents in the North Bay and South Bay, a thorough
EX 17-32 Public Comment 2026-02-17_1001
environmental review, Native American sacred site and burial site studies, tree
removal permission, and meaningful public input are essential when infrastructure
developments affect established neighborhoods.
Why this Location? If I understand it correctly, the planned tower is to assist Mats
Mats with their signal strength. There must be areas closer to the Mats Mats area
that are not so close to homes that would be amenable to supporting the towers.
Recommended Sites for Cell Phone Towers: There are multiple sites that would be
much more conducive to a cell tower.
Recommendations in our area for a cell tower include locations that are away from
our homes which still allow for coverage for the targeted area. We are suggesting
locations and areas where people volunteer to be and not live and work in
immediate frequency range. Suggestions include placing towers near highways,
utility corridors (there is one near Mats Mats), industrial facilities, public works
equipment storage sites, retail shops, landfills, clear cut lands, etc.
Exploring alternative sites should be required to meet coverage needs while
minimizing impact on residents in their homes.
Conclusion and Request For these reasons,
I respectfully request that the Development Review Division and County Planners
deny the current application, or require the applicant to identify and apply for
alternative locations that are farther from residential properties.
At a minimum, a comprehensive environmental and visual impact assessment
should be completed before any decision is made.
Thank you for your attention to these important issues and for safeguarding the
safety and quality of life of our neighbors and community. Your attention to seeing
that all members of this community are represented is imperative.
Kind regards,
Jennifer Levcun and Giovanna Alaimo
300 Puget Loop Port Ludlow, WA 98365
360 731-6794
Jenniferlevcun@gmail.com
EX 17-32 Public Comment 2026-02-17_1001
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: Cell tower 2025-11
Date:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 8:09:07 AM
Cell Tower Thank you,Planner of the Day
Jefferson County Community DevelopmentP: 360-379-4450E: planning@co.jefferson.wa.usMonday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: Marilyn Radkins <radathome5@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 6:39 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Cell tower 2025-11
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
In the upcoming town hall meeting in Port Ludlow, please include a response to the following
concerns:
What area(s), specifically, will receive cell service directly from this proposed tower. (Communication
from North Group indicates Mats Mats.)
What carriers, other than Verizon, will use the tower and when?
Have other sites been considered? And if so, why were they ruled out?
Is the county road that leads from Fleet Dr to the dwelling at 41 Fleet Dr designed for and approved
for industrial/commercial use? What if it is damaged by heavy equipment during construction and
maintenance of the tower? Who pays for repairs?
EX 17-33 Public Comment 2026-02-18_0639
From:Sasha Coffey
To:Greg Ballard
Cc:Mo-chi Lindblad
Subject:Permit # ZON2025-00011
Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 11:53:27 AM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my SUPPORT for the proposed cell phone tower located on my
neighbor's property in Port Ludlow, Washington.
I have lived next to this property for 15 years, and during that time I have come to know my
neighbors well and have seen firsthand how our community has grown and evolved. As a
neighboring resident, I believe this project will provide meaningful benefits to our area.
Reliable cell phone service is essential for Public Safety, Emergency Response, and everyday
communication. Improved coverage will greatly enhance service for people that currently
struggle to stay connected during power outages or severe weather systems, as well as support
those that work and/or are enrolled in remote schooling.
While I understand the questions and arguments arise, I would personally hate to see this
project not completed due to misinformation being distributed via community members.
For these reasons listed, and as a long-term neighboring property owner, I respectfully urge
you to approve the proposed cell phone tower.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sasha Coker
61 Fleet Drive
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
360-301-2362
coffeysasha@gmail.com
EX 17-34 Public Comment 2026-02-18_1153
February 19, 2026
PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee
46 Village Way, PMB118
FEB 7. 5 2026
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
plcelltoweropposition@gmail.com Jefferson County
Community Development
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Re: Opposition to Proposed Cell Tower on Parcel 821081015 Upper Fleet Port Ludlow
Development Review Division, Greg Ballard
621 Sheridan Street
PortTownsend, WA98368
Email dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
Official Party of Record Request
Re: ZON2025 00011 Proposed Cell Tower in Port Ludlow
Dear Director and Development Review Division,
Please accept this letter as formal notice that the PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee hereby requests
recognition as an Official Party of Record for land use application ZON2025 00011 concerning the
proposed cell tower in Port Ludlow, Washington on Parcel 821081015.
Pursuant to our request to be recognized as an Official Party of Record, we respectfully request that
Jefferson County provide the PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee with access to and inclusion on all
past, present, and future materials, communications, and notices related to this application, including
but not limited to the following:
• All past, current, and future applications, revisions, resubmittals, and supporting documents.
• All correspondence between the applicant and Jefferson County staff.
• Notifications of new information on the County website related to this proposal.
• All public comments, resident communications, and testimony, past and future.
• All SEPA materials, including threshold determinations, notices of application, comment periods,
updates, and requests for updates.
• All environmental review documents, technical studies, expert reports, and analyses.
• All staff reports, recommendations, findings, and draft or final decisions.
• All documentation of alternative site analysis, including sites reviewed, evaluated, rejected, or
seriously considered.
• All notices of hearings, meetings, agendas, and procedural updates.
• Any other materials that become part of the administrative record for ZON2025 00011 .
We respectfully request confirmation that the PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee has been entered into
the official record as a Party of Record and will receive timely notice of i;ill developments related to this
application.
Please direct all correspondence and official communications regarding this matter to:
Email:
Mail:
plcelltoweroppositioo@gmait.com <mailto:plcelltowero pposition@gmail.com>
PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee
46 Village Way, PM B 118
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
EX 17-35 Public Comment 2026-02-19_0000
We appreciate your confirmation that the PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee has been entered into the
record as an Official Party of Record tor ZON2025 00011.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Si nce rely,
Dianne Cooper
Ka rin Kro h
She r i So uthe rn
KJ Tu r ley
On behalf of the PL Cell Tower Opposition Committee
Port Ludlow, Washington
EX 17-35 Public Comment 2026-02-19_0000
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: Objections to the cell tower planned for Port Ludlow
Date:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 8:13:09 AM
Cell Tower Thank you,Planner of the Day
Jefferson County Community DevelopmentP: 360-379-4450E: planning@co.jefferson.wa.usMonday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: Evie maxwell <eviehm31@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2026 9:13 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Objections to the cell tower planned for Port Ludlow
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Greetings …
I am among the many residents of Port Ludlow who is strongly opposed to plans
for a new cell tower facility being constructed in our midst (ZON2025-00011). As I am
sure you know, we are a semi-rural community which is known for its beautiful
setting, clean air and peacefulness.
The latter has already been torn to shreds by the plan to build a cell tower facility of
one 150’ tower, with antennas for as many as four different providers, our midst.
According to many studies (including peer reviewed), this facility will lower the
value of nearby homes by anything from approximately 2% to approximately 20%.
That is a big, big hit on neighborhood pocketbooks. In addition, the tower will be a
blight on our landscape; wildlife habitats will be disrupted; and, while we
understand that servicing needs are small for cell towers, there will be inevitable
disruptions.
In addition, we would like to point out that the infrastructure in Port Ludlow was
NOT built for an industrial facility. As the tower is erected, our roads will likely be
decimated by large trucks carrying heavy generators, and that’s just the start of what
an industrial facility in a semi-rural neighborhood could change.
EX 17-36 Public Comment 2026-02-22_0913
To add insult to injury, we are being asked to accept all this in order to improve cell
phone services in a community that is completely separate from our own.
We object. Strongly.
We are in no way against improved cell service; it has become a necessity of
modern life. But we firmly believe that we are not the only potential site for this,
and, in fact, that whenever possible, such installations should go to commercial
areas, rights of way, and numerous other common ground sites where the burden
will not be so heavy.
Further, we note that Jefferson County’s own wireless facilities code clearly states
the importance of protecting rural and scenic resources while accommodating
wireless service. A 150 foot cell-tower with a 50 by 50 foot fenced compound and
heavy equipment does not reflect that balance. It places an industrial scale structure
in a residential area.
Please do NOT approve the Horizon/Verizon plan to build a cell tower facility in
the midst of Port Ludlow.
Sincerely,
Evie Maxwell
31 Forester Ln
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
eviehm31@gmail.com
This letter is slightly amended from an earlier version due to additional information.
EX 17-36 Public Comment 2026-02-22_0913
From:susan cole
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:Question …
Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 10:44:35 AM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links
if you are not expecting them.
Hi Greg—
Re: cell phone tower project off Swansonville /fleet
Do you know or can you find out if small cell station feasibility studies (attached to utility poles— ) in mats mats
neighborhood were ever conducted?
Thank you!
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
EX 17-37 Public Comment 2026-02-23_1044
-----Original Message-----
From: Dawn Lilly <tutudawn@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 10:50 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Case number is ZON2025-00011
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
Good morning. I am writing in regards to the proposed cell tower location in Port Ludlow.
I am a Port Ludlow resident and live on Pioneer Lane (near the proposed site on Fleet). We moved to
Port Ludlow because it was beautifully unspoiled, in a rural setting, and quiet. If the cell tower is placed
as it is currently proposed, our home will never be the same again.
Please consider a location in Mats Mats for the tower placement. As the tower will serve their
community, the tower should be installed somewhere there or in a commercial zone on 19. Please don’t
destroy our neighborhood by placing it in Port Ludlow.
Thank you,
Dawn Lilly
Sent from my iPhone
EX 17-38 Public Comment 2026-02-23_1050
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: Port Ludlow cell tower project - Jefferson County Case # ZON2025-00011
Date:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 9:21:30 AM
Cell Tower Thank you,Planner of the Day
Jefferson County Community DevelopmentP: 360-379-4450E: planning@co.jefferson.wa.usMonday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: Marsha Hamacher <marsha@schimother.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 2:42 PM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Port Ludlow cell tower project - Jefferson County Case # ZON2025-00011
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a Port Ludlow resident who would like to register a complaint about the placement of the
above mentioned cell tower.
First, I want to state clearly that I understand the unfortunate necessity for these towers to keep
everyone in the area safe and in communication with the rest of the world. Most of us rely on
cell phones as our only phones and we do live in a remote place where we need for our phones
to work as well as they can.
That being said, putting this tower where it is proposed, directly into a neighborhood where it
is not only unsightly, but also has a very good chance of lowering property values significantly
and possibly causing health problems for some individuals, is something that I am firmly
against. Many of the residents of Port Ludlow are retirees who have invested in retirement
property here. For some, like me, that is their major investment, and to see property values
lower because a cell phone company, or companies, decides that they are going to place a
tower wherever they deem best without consideration who it harms, is very upsetting.
There is so much land around here that is not residential that could be considered instead. And
yes, I am aware that the cell company may have done research on the best place, but it was
obviously done without consideration for the residents of Port Ludlow. To me, that research
should have included the best places that worked that did not impact the people who live near
EX 17-39 Public Comment 2026-02-23_1442
it. If Mats Mats is the area with sketchy service, put it on the ridges above them, keeping it
out of neighborhoods, but giving them the service they need.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marsha Hamacher
Warbler Lane
Port Ludlow
EX 17-39 Public Comment 2026-02-23_1442
From:DCD Front Staff
To:Greg Ballard
Cc:Mo-chi Lindblad
Subject:FW: To preserve & protect … no next door cell tower !
Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 8:46:27 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S Maxwell <cablemax@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 3:03 PM
To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: To preserve & protect … no next door cell tower !
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links
if you are not expecting them.
… here’s our chance to do so right away!
Don’t allow the cell tower to overshadow our world … tell Mats Mats to float their own mini wet tower …
Sent from my iPad
paul s maxwell
cell: 303/718-9135
cablemax@mac.com
max@medianexus.media
Thanks!
Cc: Evie
EX 17-40 Public Comment 2026-02-24_0846
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 6:23 PM
To: GREGG PATTON <ghpatton@aol.com>
Cc: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: For public record
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
RE: PLVC/Jeffco/resident’s town meeting today 2/24/26 (proposed cell tower) -
As I was leaving the beach club, and standing in the driveway—I was introduced to a man named John
(retired city planner /Shoreline, WA)
He was cut off from asking about a co-sharing onto one of these towers across the water—* see
pictures (off of paradise road on the right as you’re leaving the village) it is way up high on a hill/logging
clear cut, no homes, trees, known issues,
He was trying to convey that THIS would be appropriate for added antennas- for coverage areas that
currently have weak connections, but KNOWS for certain that
the Swansonville/fleet is NOT appropriate for a cell tower site. He has seen and understands the PUD
water
service design plans (from their original intent to serve single family residences NOT a large electrically
dependent
cell tower with generators and ALL!).
The residents of this community do NOT want this tower (for many many reasons already shared) NOR
do they want electrical infrastructure upgrades to be added to/assessed on their PUD
bills and property taxes.
This whole pursuit is a HUGE can of worms that needs to be thrown out and carefully reconsidered for
the least risk to everybody and everything — a better location for ALL.
I desire, as do many others, to hear from the providers on their technical sharing of more precise
explanations of coverage in terms of
the strength of the RF’s and their radius. But first things first—
WE (the majority) DO NOT want this Cell Tower project happening as the current applicant /application
desires.
Thank you Greg and Jeremy for coming. We are the VESTED folks that have moved to Port Ludlow from
around the country and world—retired here because of the raw beauty, tranquility, and a common
mission w/our village founders and council. This is our home.
Susan Cole
Port Ludlow, WA.
EX 17-41 Public Comment 2026-02-24_1823
EX 17-41 Public Comment 2026-02-24_1823
EX 17-41 Public Comment 2026-02-24_1823
From:susan cole
To:Greg Ballard
Cc:DCD Front Staff
Subject:For public record -Victory: Cell Towers Removed, Halted, and Rejected near Schools and Homes in Communities
across America and Beyond - Environmental Health Trust
Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:25:15 AM
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links
if you are not expecting them.
Please scroll down to “Longbeach” determination.
It matters. The studies have been going on for 35+ years.
https://ehtrust.org/cell-towers-near-schools-and-homes-that-have-been-removed-halted-and-rejected/
Sent from my iPhone
EX 17-42 Public Comment 2026-02-25_1025
From:Planning
To:Greg Ballard
Subject:FW: ZON2025-00011
Date:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:55:08 PM
Cell Tower Thank you,Planner of the Day
Jefferson County Community DevelopmentP: 360-379-4450E: planning@co.jefferson.wa.usMonday-Thursday 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law, the County must release this e-mail and
its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
From: Marilyn Radkins <radathome5@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 10:49 AM
To: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: ZON2025-00011
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
One concern is that the applicant wants access to the site via 41 Fleet Dr.
The driveway from Fleet Dr to the dwelling at 41 Fleet Dr appears to be a county right-of-way. Is the
county going to approve use of this corridor to a commercial enterprise? If so, will improvements
need to be made to accommodate heavy equipment for construction and maintenance? And if that
is the case, who will pay for the improvements? Taxpayers?
Also, Fleet Dr, although a county road, is embedded in a residential MPR and an
industrial/commercial enterprise using it seems out of line with neighborhood restrictions and also
Jefferson County's mission statement. It is a quiet side street and a popular pedestrian route.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marilyn Radkins
EX 17-43 Public Comment 2026-02-25_1049
From: susan cole <beyondtheblu2020@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:19 PM
To: Greg Ballard <GBallard@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Planning <planning@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: For Public Record:Alternate Sites for Port Ludlow Tower
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click
on links if you are not expecting them.
2/25/26
I just returned from a “field” trip with Jason from Olympic Water and Sewer here in Port Ludlow. He
took the time to take me up to their golf course water tower/reservoir. It is shown in the bottom
picture. It may be too close to the teal lake towers—
*go up the hill , way past the golf course parking lot/to where it says “end of county road”
*take that road to a fork- *take the left fork to the end where you’ll see the upper most part of the golf
course and a grassy patch on the right at the beginning of another (unmarked)road
* take that to the enclosed water tower at the end.
The applicant could/would lease the corner of their plat.
**The top 4 pictures are in relation to my email yesterday re: the two towers off of paradise road— Up
TEAL road. That would be the best option if there could be a co-op with those towers or if Verizon
already operates from one of them then the golf course tower as a second option would be too close I
believe. Less than 2 miles? Just thinking and looking for least impact locations —
Thank you
Susan Cole
EX 17-44 Public Comment 2026-02-25_1319
EX 17-44 Public Comment 2026-02-25_1319
EX 17-44 Public Comment 2026-02-25_1319
Sent from my iPhone
EX 17-44 Public Comment 2026-02-25_1319
EX 17-45 Public Comment 2026-02-26_0000
EX 17-45 Public Comment 2026-02-26_0000
EX 17-46 Public Comment 2026-03-20_0000
EX 17-46 Public Comment 2026-03-20_0000