Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx 18 Comments March 1 to March 31Given the scale of the proposed structure and its location within a residential community, it is essential that Jefferson County require clear and verifiable documentation addressing each of these issues before moving forward with any approval process. The residents of Port Ludlow deserve a review process that is thorough, transparent, and fully protective of the environmental, visual, and residential character of our community. I would also like to understand how this proposal aligns with the County's long standing environmental values and commitments. Sincerely~. KJ Turle/f l 53 Keefe Ln Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gmail.com EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-27 (1) Questions: Has the applica nt addressed the tower will be in a Migratory Corridor? If approved what studies and mitigation plans will be taken to ensure that the tower does not impact the Flyway? SEPA 5.d d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. No measures needed . Why did the Applicant write that there are no measures needed? Will the radio frequency drive this wildlife from their habitat or change their inherent activities? Are there science and fact-based studies that prove the Applicant's "No measures needed" answer? Is the Applicant immune from this requirement? Scientific studies from around the world state that wildlife can be affected by the RF and sound from cell towers. Endangered or Threatened Species Known: Section 5.b of the SEPA states that no listed species are identified or observed onsite based on a Washington Fish and Wildlife report. Was a site-specific survey conducted? If so, why wasn't the spotted owl (which is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act) not listed? Will the radio frequency drive the Spotted Owl out from this habitat? Personal Observations: The Spotted Owl is here in Port Ludlow. We are very close to the proposal cell tower site, and a Spotted Owl was on our porch witnessed by my husband, me and another neighbor. What is the impact on the many diverse birds and animals? Migration Route: Port Ludlow lies within the Pacific Flyway, a major north south migratory corridor stretching from Alaska to Patagonia. To state "none known" on the SEPA study ignores well-established migratory patterns of waterfowl and raptors throughout this region. Questions : Will and has the applicant addressed that the tower will be in a Migratory Corridor? If approved what studies and mitigation plans will be taken to ensure that the tower does not impact the Flyway? Does Jefferson County support this? I am particularly concerned about impacts to daily quality of life, the wildlife that are known in the area, the precedent this sets for future development, and whether meaningful alternative locations were evaluated. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to answer this. Per Mr. Greg Ballard if we submit questions the Applicant is responsible for answering our questions . I have sent these questions per his directions and look forward to the answers. I look forward to a complete response. Sincerely, ~. KJ Turley 0 I 53 Keefe Ln Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gmail.com EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-27 (2) Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division Horizon, Verizon, Mats Mats , Port Ludlow cell tower ZON2025-000 1 1 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend , WA 98368 Email: planning@ c o.jefferson .wa.u s March 27 , 2026 To Whom It May Concern , APR -1 2026 Jefferson C Community D ounty eve/oprnent I am writing for clarification and answers to my questions. Mr. Greg Ballard said in the Town Hall last month that the Applicant is required to answer our questions. Washington land use decisions require consistency with adopted Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations. In addition, SEPA review requires that environmental disclosures be accurate, complete, and not misleading. Please respond to the following questions: 1. The Applicant's statement says that a NHPA is due. Will it thoroughly cover the Forest Hill cemetery that is JUST 280 feet from the proposed tower site and a National Register of Historic Place (NRHP#100006061 ). How can Jefferson County issue a SEPA threshold determination without historical and tribal review being finalized, especially when cultural resource consultation and tribal coordination are implicated? 2. What has the Applicant done to consult with tribes that are the first inhabitants of Port Ludlow? I am also requesting clarification on how the County has evaluated the accuracy of the SEPA checklist and whether any discrepancies, omissions, or unsupported conclusions have been identified and addressed. Please also provide information on alternative site analysis , mitigation measures, and consistency with scenic preservation and environmental protection policies. I kindly request and expect a complete written response. Respectfully, -~-, i/. ,J,/ Michael Turle~' ll\ l ~~] Cherokee & lri ood by Birth 53 Keefe Ln Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gmail.com EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-27 (4) KJ Turley 53 Keefe Ln Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gma i l.com March 27, 2026 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend , WA 98368 Email: plan n ing@ c o.jefferson.wa.us Re: ZON2025-00011 Proposed WCF near Upper Fleet, Port Ludlow Dear Planning Staff, !B$@$.Jp) APR -l 2026 Jefferson County CommunityO eve/opment I am opposed to the location of the proposed cell tower in Port Ludlow. I do believe that Port Ludlow would like better reception, I am not against that. I am against cell towers in a neighborhood, any neighborhood. There are at least 8 other sites that should be considered and will triangulate with the other towers. Cell towers should not be placed/forced on residents in areas where the aesthetics of the neighborhood changes or there are adverse effects due to the sound on wildlife and humans, especially children . Do you know that the family adjacent to the cell tower homeschools their children? I think we should consider why cell towers are not allowed near schools. There is a homeschool within feet of the proposed cell tower. Please list and let us know the other sites outside of neighborhood that were considered and approached. Surely you approached Pope Industries to see if their clear cuts could be used. Surely you approached the county sites , the parks and waterways and open areas and rightaways on the should of the road on Oak Bay and the Community Church and the public works yards for placement of the cell tower?! What proof does Jefferson County have that there were other locations approached and offered the opportunity for a cell tower that gets it out of a neighborhood? In add ition, this proposal raises both personal and community wide concerns. I am interested in any and all scientific studies on the effects of cell towers to wildlife and humans after 1996. I believe that Jefferson County should make themselves aware of the studies too. I do realize that health issues cannot be the reason to be opposed but I do think it is important to know what you may or may not be doing to a community, I appreciate your thorough and transparent response. KJTurley ~ EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-27 (10) March 27, 2026 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Jefferson County Review Team, IBIE©IEMIID APR -2 2026 Jefferson County Community Development I am submitting this letter as a concerned citizen requesting clarification regarding the siting of the proposed wireless facility. I am not opposed to cell towers. I am opposed to placing one in a residential neighborhood when less intrusive options appear to exist. The current proposal, SEPA, renderings of site with cell tower, do not demonstrate that this site is the least impactful location . Please explain what evaluation has been conducted of alternative sites such as clear cuts, utility corridors, public lands, and other areas away from homes. In addition, please clarify how visual impacts, long-term buildout, and cumulative effects have been evaluated under SEPA. I request that the County ensure that all impacts are fully disclosed and that reasonable alternatives are carefully considered . SincerelyR. KJ Turley~ \ 53 Keefe Ln Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gmail.com EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-27 (14) March 27, 2026 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Email: plaooiog@co . jefferson .wa .us Re: Horizon, Verizon, Mats Mats, Port Ludlow cell tower ZON2025-00011 Dear Department of Community Development, !JJ[jf@[jf [q[p) APR -2 2026 Jefferson C c ounty 0 mmunity D eve/opment I am writing as a nearby resident and a person who works from home to request detailed clarification regarding both the land use review and SEPA documentation associated with this proposal. Under Washington's State Environmental Policy Act, I understand that environmental review must be based on complete, accurate, and good faith disclosure of potential impacts. I am concerned that portions of the submitted materials may not fully reflect site specific conditions or the extent of potential impacts. Questions: Please clarify how the County has verified the accuracy and completeness of the SEPA checklist. It seems to be incomplete and not show how the determinations were made. Some are even untrue. What independent review of environmental, visual, and cumulative impacts to the community have been done in this area to see if this is a wise choice and the only choice? Also. please explain how consistency with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies and applicable development regulations has been evaluated. I am also interested in learning about what other locations were considered to put up a cell tower away from homes, impacts to roads, utilities, runoff into the Bay, health issues, environmental and historical implications, negative effects to the aesthetics mission of the county and Port Ludlow, and property value considerations. I respectfully request a thorough and transparent review process supported by complete and accurate information. Sincerel~ KJ Turley'1 ) 53 Keefe Ln Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gmail.com • I' EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-27 (15) URGENT RESPONSE AND ACTION REQUESTED! March 28, 2026 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: ZON2025-00011 Premature Site Activity and Process Concerns Planning Commissioner, County Planner: ill[;@[;Ifi[g) APR -2 2026 Jefferson County Community Development I am writing to express serious concern regarding recent activity observed at the proposed tower site near Fleet Drive. As of today, County personnel and/or associated utilities appear to have entered the PROPOSED area ~nd begun marking locations along the roadway and adjacent ground as if the project has already been approved. There are no visible notices indicating that this is pre-approval work, nor any clear explanation to nearby residents. What safeguards are in place to ensure that no activities take place until there is a Public Meeting, a neutral Examiner makes a determination that benefits all, and approval actions are taken that could prejudice the outcome of this application? This creates the appearance that decisions have already been made, AND MAY BE DESIGNED TO HAVE RESIDENTS GIVE UP THEIR OPPOSITION AND JUST GO IN THEIR HOMES AND SHUT UP! What are you saying Planning Department? Screw you all, this is happening without any truly impartial and honest process? All this is being done despite the fact that this proposal remains under review and has not received any Examiner review and the public has not spoken?! Who authorized this work prior to project approval? Under whose authority is this work being conducted at this stage of review? Who made the determination that it was appropriate to proceed before approval? YOU? The County? The landowner? This situation raises significant concerns regarding process integrity, public trust, and whether the review is being conducted in good faith. I expect a prompt and detailed response. Sincerely, #} KJ Turley • 53 Keefe Ln Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gma i l.com EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-28 (1) Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Email : pla n ning@co .jetterso n.wa .u s March 28 , 2026 Re : Community Impact Questions ZON2025-00011 Planning Division of Jefferson County, APR -2 2026 Jefferson County Community Development I wrote, signed, and sent you an Official Party of Record Request. The 4 signers of the letter have not received any information via US mail or email. As you know, we are entitled to any and all correspondence on this proposed Cell Tower. I urge you NOT to refer me to the website, which was checked this evening (03/28/26) for updated correspondence. We are very much aware (because we were copied from the residents) of over 30 letters that have been sent via email or USPS that are not on your site. We have standing, and should be copied on the information. In addition, Mr. Greg Ballard sent an email stating that the official Proposal Number is ZON2024-00011. This evening, while looking at the website, I saw the number is incorrect and is actually ZON2025-00011. This error has now caused the volunteer committee to communicate with Port Ludlow residents the incorrect number of the Proposal. I trust that the County administrators and Planning Group are filing the correspondence that you receive in opposition to the Cell Tower in the correct proposal. Thank you . Please respond in detail. Regards , KJTurley ~ 53 Keefe L~ ) Port Ludlow, WA 98365 poserspotter@gmail.com EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-28 (2) March 31, 2026 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Re: Horizon, Verizon, Mats Mats, Port Ludlow cell tower ZON2025-00011 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Email: planning@co.jefferson.wa.us Dear Jefferson County Department of Community Development, I am writing as a concerned resident regarding the proposed Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) aka Cell Tower at Parcel 821081015 off of Upper Fleet, Port Ludlow, WA, submitted by The North Group, Inc. on behalf of Horizon Tower and Verizon Wireless. It is my understanding that the applicant is obligated to provide full and truthful responses to all questions submitted by residents. I expect that my questions and concerns, along with those of other members of the community, will be addressed completely and transparently as part of the review process. My specific questions and concerns regarding this project include: The tree line on the proposed site does not match the 150 foot height of the tower. Question: Why did the applicant say that this is a determination of non-significance, when the tower will be visually prominent over the top of the tree line? The application states minimal clearing of trees and brush within the lease area and access route. Questions: What does minimal mean in measurable terms? Height? How many trees? What diameter? What species? Are permits required for tree removal under county code? Have the permits been submitted and/or approved? What about speaking to owners and businesses that may allow a cell tower that are not in a residential neighborhood? Questions: Have you considered utility corridors, county owned shoulders of the roads in less populated areas, public works yards, golf course lands or any commercial zoned areas? Have you approached Pope Industries to put a tower on the clear cuts on top of their hills North of the proposed tower? We want to see this. I strongly urge Jefferson County to conduct a thorough, transparent, and accountable review of this proposal. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I look forward to a detailed response to my specific questions that reflect the legitimate concerns of the community. Sincerely, Julie Cousins 70 Machias Loop Port Ludlow, Wa 98365 801-369-7738 cousins.julie88@gmail.com EX 18- Public Comment 2026-03-31 (1)