The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA-28 Appellants Reply w att 072525 2024-00006 (004)Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 1 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Consolidated Hearing Process for Rock Island Shellfish Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application (SDP2024-00006) and Appeal of SEPA MDNS Issued for Such Application Case No 072525 APPELLANTS’ REPLY TO RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) DUE TO ERRONEOUS NOTICE PROCEDURES The gist of Respondents’ response to Appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of proper notification is that: the errors are minor and have been or are being “fixed,” and the Appellants have not shown they were harmed. The broader public, in particular the community of Shine, which also did not get proper notice, is completely ignored. Also not addressed is why the initial notification of any process is so important: if people are not properly notified at the outset, they may never have the opportunity to weigh in on the process, or if they do, it’s at a less influential stage. In this Reply, in an effort to keep clear who’s saying what, text from the Respondents’ responses is indented in italics. An asterisk signifies that emphasis has been added. Points are listed in the order of Appellants’ motion to dismiss. The issue of prejudice is covered after the recitation and discussion of errors. At the outset Respondents assert: Appellants’ Motion argues the NOA had several errors. Appellants’ arguments must be rejected because they have failed to demonstrate that any error was committed, any errors were inconsequential and harmless, and many alleged violations do not relate to SEPA compliance.* This is quite a remarkable statement—that Appellants have failed to demonstrate any error. Respondents themselves imply error in the very next phrase, and they admit error in their responses, which means, of course, that Appellants have demonstrated error. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 2 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com A. Notice Requirements [Issue A]. Appellants contend the NOA failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in the Jefferson County Code (JCC), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and the State Environmental Practices Act (SEPA), including JCC 18.40.190(5). Motion at 2. However, there is no evidence of deficiency identified in their motion.* Appellants’ Reply: This conclusory statement is belied by evidence supplied in Respondents’ own admissions, as well in Appellants’ Motion and replies, below. B.1 Case number [Issue B.1] The NOA initially had one digit off in the case number (“SDP2024-00001” instead of “SDP2024-00006”). This was a scrivener’s error and timely corrected on subsequent documents. See First Declaration of Donna Frostholm at ⁋ 8.* Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents admit the error. 2) The error is five digits off the correct number, not one. 3) It does not matter if a “scrivener” or someone else made the error; what matters is what readers see. 4) The error was not “timely corrected” on the NOA itself. It is still not corrected. The NOA is the same as it was on the day it was issued—the same as shown in Ms. Frostholm’s Second Declaration, Attachment A, and in the online county files, and at the department of Ecology Register. An error here is not corrected by a fix there. Changing the text in a new publication or later email just means the NOA was not actually published; instead, there are now at least three versions of a notice, but only one is the NOA. In order to correct the NOA, it should be reissued as “CORRECTED Notice of Application.” 5) This error was not corrected, as claimed, on the notice posted on the property, Ex A to First Carson Declaration (which no one saw, however—see B.13). B2 Public comment period [Issue B.2] The NOA initially had the incorrect month (“May” instead of “August”). This was a scrivener’s error and timely corrected for the public notices published in the newspaper and posted on the property. Exhibit C to First Frostholm Decl.; Exhibit A to First Carson Decl.* CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 3 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents admit their error. 2) There’s that pesky scrivener again, but what matters is what is stated on the NOA. 3) The error was not corrected on the NOA, which would require a CORRECTED NOA. What is published in the newspaper is not the NOA, and no one is obligated to search the paper for classifieds, especially when the NOA itself is online. 4) The poster physically posted at the property may have had the correct comment deadline, but it had all the other errors, including the incorrect case number. B.3 Covered in B.1 and B.2, above, regarding whether publishing or physically posting a (partially) corrected notice corrects the NOA. Appellants argue it doesn’t. B.4-6 Website Links [Issues B.4, B.5, and B.6]. Appellants argue that the NOA included website links that did not work. Motion at 3-4. Website links are not required by SEPA, and hence this cannot form a basis for reversal. File paths are now provided.* Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents don’t contest that the weblinks didn’t work, so those errors are admitted. 2) Respondents’ logic is indefensible. It is one thing to be silent on a topic that is not required, and quite another to include false and misleading information on any topic, required or not. Respondents’ logic would mean that a notice could be full of false and misleading information, but as long as the topic is not “required,” the errors should be tolerated. There is a fundamental obligation for the government to provide, and an expectation of the public to receive accurate information—whether or not it is required. 3) Respondents don’t document where the file paths are “now” provided, but they are not provided on the NOA online or via the “Self -Service” portal for Carson’s parcel numbers. Att.A¡ If someone finds the NOA online, it has the same dead-end links, and no corrected NOA has been issued or filed. B.7 Appellants withdraw this objection (regarding identifying other needed permits). CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 4 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com B.8 JCC 18.40.190(11)(d) and WAC 197-11-355(2)(b) [Issue B.8]. Appellants contend the NOA failed to list conditions to mitigate environmental impacts. Motion at 4. However, the NOA did list measures that would be taken to minimize or mitigate impacts, including 16.5-foot buffers from native eelgrass and removal of gear that a prior operator left in the farming area. Second Frostholm Decl. ⁋ 10, Ex. A. The NOA also states applicable policies and performance standards in the Jefferson County Code and Comprehensive Plan would be used to form permit conditions. Second Frostholm Decl., Ex. A. This is consistent with SEPA regulatory reform, pursuant to which project impacts are to be principally addressed through development regulations. Moss, 109 Wn. App. at 15-19. As such, no specific, SEPA mitigation measures were identified at the time of NOA issuance that could have been listed. Second Frostholm Decl. ⁋ 8; JCC.40.190(11)(d); WAC 197-011- 355(2)(b).* Appellants Reply: 1) “Conditions,” “measures,” and “policy and performance standards” are not the same thing. The NOA might describe measures in the summary of the proposal, and it might mention policies and performance standards, but conditions are mandates imposed by the County as the price of and part of the permit. It is these conditions, that, if being considered in the optional process, must be stated in the NOA. 2) Respondents have mischaracterized the requirement by stating that “no specific” “measures” had been identified at the time of the NOA issuance. But JCC and WAC sections above cast a wider net, requiring the NOA to list conditions being “considered.” Per both JCC 18.40.190 (11)(d) and WAC 197-11-355 (2)(b): The notice of application shall list the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected;*.Att.B, p. 1 3) Appellants confess to being totally baffled by Ms. Frostholm’s narrative of the SMA/SEPA process, in particular: 10. The NOA included a description of the proposal, which listed measures the applicant was proposing to minimize potential impacts to the shoreline environment (e.g., avoiding eelgrass, extent of proposed project area, removal of derelict gear). These were included in the project description at the time the application was noticed because they were known by DCD and could serve as a basis for developing conditions. The optional DNS process is used to determine if a proposed project has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts, and the results of this process are then used to draft permit conditions. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 5 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com 11. Furthermore, the two biological reports cited in the NOA description were available to the public for review during the 30-day comment period. The text of these reports could also be used to draft permit conditions.* It seems clear from the Declaration that the County was considering the “measures” and “biological reports” as possible “conditions.” Why, then, weren’t they listed in the NOA? Respondents’ answer appears to be found in the last sentence of paragraph 10, above: according to Ms. Frostholm, conditions are drafted at the end of the optional process. That may be true for the final conditions, but the purpose of listing “conditions being considered” at the beginning of the optional process (in the NOA) is to allow comment on them by the public. Plus, it’s required. What does this requirement even mean if the conditions are drafted/floated only at the end of the shortened optional process? Neither Ms. Frostholm nor the Respondents explain. Appellants are just looking at the plain language of the law: “list the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected.” Given that Ms. Frostholm had learned of various structures and derelict equipment on both the tidelands and uplands on unstable soil on a closed road, Atts C, F, and given her acknowledgment that measures in the application and studies might form the basis for conditions, it’s not credible that the County did not expect to issue an MDNS. (And in fact, it did issue an MDNS—with conditions.) B.9 Email Addresses Not Provided [Issue B.9]. The NOA solicited comments by mail, email, personal delivery, and facsimile, but did not include an email address. Second Frostholm Decl., Ex. A. Email submission is not required by SEPA. Contact information for DCD has always been provided. Appellants fail to demonstrate any prejudice. Motion at 5.* Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents implicitly concede that the NOA did not provide an email address. 2) Respondents’ response is non-responsive. It is true that commenters aren’t required to submit comments by email, but they are entitled to submit comments by email under JCC 18.40.220(3) (“Comments may be mailed, emailed, personally delivered or sent CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 6 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com by facsimile.”) By not providing an email address, the County cut off this entitlement, absent further, burdensome and unnecessary work by a determined would-be commenter. Email is also, by far, the most-preferred mode of comment-delivery. It’s absence is a barrier. B.10 Grammar [Issue B.10]. Appellants contend the NOA includes a confusing sentence structure. Motion at 5. Grammatical perfection is not required. Importantly, there was no error here; as stated above, conditions to mitigate adverse impacts are not required to be included in the NOA.* Appellants’ Reply: 1) Appellants did not challenge the grammar of this sentence in the NOA; it’s grammatically correct. It’s the logic and substance that are wrong: The SEPA Official has determined that: If the proposal is approved, policies and performance standards found in the Jefferson County Code and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will be used to form permits conditions intended to mitigate environmental impacts.* 2) Respondents did not address Appellants’ contention that a reader would think conditions aren’t formed until after the proposal is already “approved,” especially since conditions being considered aren’t listed in the NOA. 3) Respondents’ contend that “conditions to mitigate adverse impacts are not required to be included in the NOA.” This evades responding to what Appellants actually contended: that conditions “being considered” are required to be included in the NOA in the optional process, per the identical language in JCC 18.40.190 (11)(d) and WAC 197-11-355 (2)(b): “The notice of application shall list the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected.” See Point B.8 above. B.11 and B.12 Additional appeals [Issues B.11 and B.12]. The NOA correctly states the final permit decision will be made by the Hearing Examiner but inadvertently references the wrong jurisdiction for appeals post Hearing Examiner decision.* CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 7 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents have admitted the error. 2) A better word than “inadvertently” might be “carelessly,” or “without checking its accuracy.” The many (now admitted) errors in this NOA suggest that it was cut and pasted from other documents without regard to its accuracy, in dereliction of the County’s duty to provide sufficient and accurate information in the NOA. B.13 Public Records [Issue B.13]. Separate public records request apparently did not include the NOA’s affidavit of posting. Alleged inadequacies with a public records response must be pursued through a separate process, not the Project’s SEPA appeal. Additionally, Appellants could have specifically requested this document. An affidavit of posting was timely made and was provided in Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, First Declaration of Donna Frostholm, Ex. B Appellants’ Response: 1) Appellants weren’t complaining about the response to a public records request. Appellants were saying one could not determine, due to the lack of pertinent information provided in a public records response, where the physical notice-board was posted. This information has now been provided in Robert Carson’s First Declaration. There, he declares, that I picked up the notice board and installed it at the Property pursuant to Jefferson County’s instructions on Tuesday, July 9, 2024. . . Shortly after I installed the notice board at the Property, DCD personnel visited the Property while I was present at it and confirmed that the notice board was properly posted.* 2) The notice board was not properly posted. JCC 18.40.210(2) directs: (2) Posting. For all Type II and III Permits, the applicant shall post a notice of application on the property as follows: (a) A single notice board shall be placed at the midpoint of the site road frontage or as otherwise directed by the county for maximum visibility, where it is completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians. (b) Additional notice boards may be required where the site does not abut a public road, for a large site that abuts more than one public road, or the administrator determines that additional notice boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice.* CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 8 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com Here is where a grammar (actually, punctuation) lesson applies. The clause “where it is completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians” applies to the rest of the sentence preceding it, because the rest of the sentence is a single long clause. I.e., There must be at least one poster board installed “where it is completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians.” The other bolded language confirms this reading of this Code provision, as does the purpose of notification. There is no public traffic on this road, due to unstable geologic conditions. It’s not even a road, though it is a county right of way. The poster was placed at the end of a “road” marked “dead end,” and was posted approximately 837 feet after the pavement ends where sign states “End of County Road.” Ms.Frostholm knows this, as reflected in her pre-application conference document. (“Killapie Beach Road: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners previously closed this road by resolution.”).Att.D. In any case, when she visited the site shortly after the NOA was posted, she could not have missed the road signs and rough conditions..Att.F. The County was obligated, but failed, to post the sign where people would see it—namely on Shine Road. No one did or could see the poster. See.Att.G, emails from Shine neighbors. B.14 Requesting Notice Prior to Application [Issue B.14]. Appellant submitted a request via email on November 30, 2023, requesting to be notified of “any permit processes with aquaculture on these parcels”. Motion at 6. Appellants do not live within the required 300 feet required for mailing pursuant to JCC 18.40.210. Appellants’ request was not specific to the Project. Appellants have not identified any legal violations or a right to submit an open-ended request for any application processes for multiple properties, and no such right is provided by SEPA. Hence, no violation of SEPA occurred that could form a basis for reversing the MDNS.* Appellants’ Reply: 1) Respondents have fashioned a “Catch 22,” where requests for notification must identify a specific “Project,” but if the specific “Project” hasn’t been created, the interested person is ineligible to be notified of it. 2) In fact, Ms. Showalter did identify the project with CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 9 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com great precision. She identified the parcel numbers, the name of the owner, the name of the road, the type of activity (“aquaculture”), and a Coastal Zone Management application that included Ecology’s assigned ID number and the latitude and longitude of the project..Att.E. 3) The “multiple properties” were three contiguous parcels owned by the same person and comprising about 4.75 acres of land and tidelands. 4) Ms. Frostholm wrote about this request at least five times, including the day before she received Carson’s application..Att.E. This request should have lodged in her mind and records. 5) The notification packet included in Ms. Frostholm’s Second Declaration (page 5 of the pdf) includes a box called “Interested Parties.” Obviously, these must be people who express interest before the NOA. This box was marked “n/a” but should have included Ms. Showalter, who should have been sent the NOA. D-G. The MDNS. Appellants’ Reply: Appellants are stunned that Respondents think DCD could add or substract requirements to the County Code governing how to file a SEPA appeal. Under JCC Article X, SEPA, JCC 18.40.810 (8) Form of Appeal, the appellant “shall submit a written appeal in the form and manner set forth in Chapter 2.30 JCC and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.”*.Att.B. Yet: [E1 “Appellants do not identify any provision of SEPA that prohibits an MDNS from instructing appeals to be filed with an additional body.”] [E2 “Appellants identify no violation of SEPA from the MDNS request to include this {standing} information in an appeal statement”* Reply: The MDNS required the standing element, which was repealed in 2019. Att B [E3 re Rule 3.1(b)(5) requiring a copy of the document being appealed, “This is not a SEPA requirement.” Reply: Yes, it is..Att.B.] [E4 “Signing an appeal is standard practice, the MDNS did not violate SEPA in requesting a signature.” Reply: No, the MDNS required the signature (“shall contain . . . signed by the appellant)”* This requirement was repealed in 2019..Att.B. Requests and information are one thing. Requirements are another; the County may not improvise. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Appellants’ Reply to Response to Marilyn Showalter Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss 1596 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Page 10 * denotes emphasis added marilyn.showalter@gmail.com A reader by now should be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 13, (Note: this is a Division I case.) The NOA: was posted where no one could see it; is titled with the wrong case number; provides a comment deadline two months earlier than its issue date; fails to provide an email address for people to comment by email; includes information links that lead nowhere; omits conditions being considered; includes incorrect information regarding appeal; and was not sent it to one who explicitly requested it in advance. The MDNS has additions and omissions in violation of JCC Article X SEPA and reveals a shocking view by DCD that such improvisation is lawful. The MDNS wrongly instructs the original of the appeal to be delivered to the DCD Administrator, when DCD is an opposing party to the case, violating appearance of fairness laws. Finally, “Willful” means “intentionally” or “deliberately,” as opposed to “accidentally.” WILLFUL. If a person (Greg Ballard) is warned that certain elements of an MDNS he sent are erroneous, and he next sends a second MDNS with identical elements, then he has included those elements deliberately, or willfully—whether or not they are, or he believes they are erroneous. As for harm, please refer to Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss, pp 9-10 and their attached declarations, and 2nd Declaration of Ms. Showalter. But equally injured is the general public, especially members of the Shine community (including Appellants), who never saw (and could not have seen) the NOA, which was required by law to be posted where they could see it. If this and the other errors had been corrected in a new NOA, a very different case might have developed. Appellants have 56 years of public service between them and have learned that the best way to serve the public after making a mistake is to admit it and fix it. Since that is not happening, and for the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Respectfully submitted, July 29, 2025, Marilyn Showalter, Contact for Appellants CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Downloaded 07-27-2025 A CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 EXCERPTS OF JCC 18.40 ARTICLE X, “SEPA” IMPLENTATION (Highlighting and bolding of text added for ease of reference) 18.40.710 Purpose. The purpose of this article is to adopt regulations that implement SEPA, consistent with the SEPA rules. This is accomplished by ensuring that: . . . (3)Opportunity for public involvement is included in the decision-making process. 18.40.770 Substantive Authority (3)The county designates and adopts by reference the following county plans, ordinances and policies as the basis for exercise of county authority pursuant to this article: (a)The county adopts by reference the policies in the following Jefferson County plans and ordinances: (i)The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as now exists or may hereafter be amended; (ii)The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, as now exists or may hereafter be amended; 18.40.780 Public notice and comment. [Note: text reflects update in Ordinance 11-1216-24] (1). . . As an alternative, the responsible official may use the “optional DNS process” pursuant to WAC 197-11-355. (a)The notice of application shall contain the information regarding the optional DNS process as set forth in JCC 18.40.190(11), and shall be noticed as set forth in JCC 18.40.210. JCC 18.40.190 Notice of Application - Contents The notice of application shall include the following: (11)Pursuant to WAC 197-11-355, a statement on the first page of the notice of application that: (d)A copy of the subsequent threshold determination may be obtained upon request, and will be mailed to any person commenting upon the notice of application. In addition, the notice of application shall list the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected; 18.40.210 Notice of application – Mailing, publication, and posting requirements. (2)Posting. The applicant shall post a notice of application on the property as follows: (a)A single notice board shall be placed at the midpoint of the site road frontage or as otherwise directed by the county for maximum visibility, where it is completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians. (b)Additional notice boards may be required where the site does not abut a public road, for a large site that abuts more than one public road, or the administrator determines that additional notice boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice. BCA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 18.40.810 Appeals. (3)Appeal of a Threshold Determination for Type III Permits – Open Record Hearing. The decision of the responsible official on Type III permits making a threshold determination of a DNS, approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a project under SEPA’s substantive authority may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to JCC 18.40.280, Chapter 2.30 JCC, and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure [Current] Rule 3.1 Notice of Appeal (b)Content of Notice of Appeal. A notice of appeal from an administrative decision shall, at a minimum contain the following information: (1) full name; (2) mailing address; (3) e-mail address (if available); (4) file number, license number, or other identifying number; (5) a copy of any decision, license, order, or other administrative decision; (6) a concise statement of the factual and legal basis for the appeal citing specifically the alleged errors in the administrative official' s decision; and, (7) the specific relief sought. Compare to Rule REPEALED by Ordinance 12 1028 19 - Laserfiche WebLink p 75/188 October 28, 2019 (6)Who May Appeal. An applicant or other party of record, as defined in Chapter 18.10 JCC, may file a SEPA appeal as provided in this article. JCC 18.10.160. “Parties of record” means persons or entities who wish to receive a copy of the hearing examiner’s decision and notice of upcoming hearings. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From:DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us To:jesse@plauchecarr.com Cc:marlene.meaders@confenv.com Subject:RE: PRE2024-00005 Rock Island Pre-App Questions Date:Thursday, March 21, 2024 12:13:52 PM Hi Jesse, Meeting time confirmed. And thank you for letting me know that Marlene will be attending. I will send both of you a meeting invite using GoToMeeting. Please be aware that you may need to load GoToMeeting onto your computer to get into the pre-app. As a follow up to your email below and just to make sure I am clear about the upland gear stockpile and welding location, it sounds like parcels 965100009, -010, and -011 will be used for this. Please confirm. I need to be clear on this because upland access to these parcels via Killapie Beach Road is closed under Jefferson County Resolution 22-99 and, given how steep the slopes are at these three parcels, I am assuming there is no upland location for stockpiling gear and welding at the toe of the slope. Please let me know if the intent is to use Killapie Beach Road as part of this proposal. If so, I will let you know what your next step is in the event that you want start addressing this issue prior to the pre-app. Regards, Donna Frostholm, PWS Associate Planner - Lead/Wetland Specialist Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 360-379-4466 dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us DCD IS OPEN MONDAY – THURSDAY FROM 9:00 – 12:00 and 1:00 - 4:30; CLOSED FRIDAY. All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Jesse DeNike <jesse@plauchecarr.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:49 AM To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Marlene Meaders (marlene.meaders@confenv.com) <marlene.meaders@confenv.com> Subject: RE: PRE2024-00005 Rock Island Pre-App Questions ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Donna, Thank you for the email. Tuesday March 26 at 2:00 works well. Marlene Meaders of Confluence Environmental Company (cc’d here) will also attend the pre-app meeting on behalf of Rock Island. I need to be clear on this because upland access to these parcels via Killapie Beach Road is closed under Jefferson County Resolution 22-99 and, given how steep the slopes are at these three parcels, I am assuming there is no upland location for stockpiling gear and welding at the toe of the slope. As a follow up to your email below and just to make sure I am clear about the upland gear stockpile and welding location, it sounds like parcels 965100009, -010, and -011 will be used for this. C CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 In response to your questions in the second paragraph below, the three parcels listed in the pre-app submittal were identified because those parcels include the tidelands upon which the oyster farm will be located. No new work including ground disturbance is proposed on the uplands. I look forward to meeting with you next Tuesday. Jesse From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:39 AM To: Jesse DeNike <jesse@plauchecarr.com> Subject: PRE2024-00005 Rock Island Pre-App Questions Jesse, A virtual pre-app could be held Tuesday, March 26 at 2:00 or Thursday, March 28 at 11:00. Do either of these times work for you? Please provide the names of those who will be attending. The pre-app submittal states some the gear will be welded at an upland location and indicates the three parcels owned by Robert Carson will be used. Please confirm the upland location(s) to be used for this proposal. Is any ground disturbance needed to stockpile and weld the gear on the upland parcels? Will this upland work occur within shoreline jurisdiction? Regards, Donna Frostholm, PWS Associate Planner - Lead/Wetland Specialist Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 360-379-4466 dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us DCD IS OPEN MONDAY – THURSDAY FROM 9:00 – 12:00 and 1:00 - 4:30; CLOSED FRIDAY. All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 PRE2024-00005 Pre-application Conference for New Aquaculture Rock Island Shellfish Intertidal Area Adjacent to Parcels: 965100009, -010, -011 Attendees: Jesse DeNike; Plauche& Carr LLP; Marlene Meaders, Confluence Environmental Company; Donna Frostholm, Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD). Pre-application Meeting Date/Location: March 26, 2024/2:00 PM/Virtual Owner/Applicant: Rock Island Shellfish, P.O. Box 181, Port Gamble, Washington 98364 Description of Completed Work: Install rebar racks (1 meter wide by 5 meters long by 1 meter high) and attach Seaba baskets using Seaba storm clips. Gear for shellfish operations will be welded together at an upland location. Shellfish will be raised +4 feet to -4.2 feet. Aquaculture is proposed in Hood Canal, just west of the Hood Canal Bridge. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The Jefferson County Code (JCC) is available online at the Jefferson County DCD homepage: https://co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development Land Use: Zoning Upland parcels owned by Robert Carson are zoned Rural Residential One Unit/5 Acres (RR 1:5). State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Proposal is subject to review under SEPA. Submit an Environmental Checklist. Shoreline Master Program (SMP): The SMP is in the process of being revised and the guidance below is based on current shoreline regulations. To be vested to the following SMP requirements, a complete shoreline application would need to be submitted prior to the effective date of the revised SMP. Shoreline Environment Designation Natural above OHWM; Aquatic below OHWM. This type of aquaculture proposal would be reviewed as a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) application, using a Type III permitting process. Review of Type III SSDP applications require a 30-day notice of application. The final permitting decision would be made by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner, and a public hearing would be noticed. The Hearing Examiner s decision would be forwarded on to Ecology for review and filing. The proposal would be reviewed against the following sections of the SMP: o JCC18.25.440 Aquaculture o JCC 18.25.540 Substantial Development Criteria o JCC 18.25.230 through .250 (Article V Shorelines of Statewide Significance) o JCC 18.25.270 through .320 (Article VI General Policies and Regulations) Note: The species of shellfish to be raised needs to be identified in the application. The upland location to be used for storing and welding gear needs to be addressed in the biological reports prepared by Confluence, the Environmental Checklist, and the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application form, and needs to be shown to scale on the site plan. Critical Areas: Jefferson County mapping indicates the following critical areas may be present: Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs): This segment of the shoreline has the potential to serve as habitat for listed fish species. There is a 150-foot shoreline buffer associated with the marine shoreline. The Coastal Atlas maps a continuous fringe of eelgrass and a patchy fringe of kelp along the shoreline. Submit a habitat management plan prepared by a qualitied professional that is consistent with Articles VI (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) and DCA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 IX (Special Reports) of Chapter 18.22 JCC and shows compliance with shoreline no net loss requirements (JCC 18.25.270(2)), including cumulative impacts (JCC 18.25.270(3)). Wetlands: Submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional that complies with Articles VII (Wetlands) and IX (Special Reports) of Chapter 18.22 JCC. As cumulative impacts assessment should be included in the report. Note: Once the new SMP goes into effect, wetland buffers may be larger than they are under current SMP. Geologically hazardous areas: The shoreline above OHWM is mapped as a geologically hazardous area. If any clearing, grading, or other ground-disturbing activities would occur above OHWM to weld the shellfish gear, a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified professional will be required. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs) and seawater intrusion protection zones (SIPZs): The property is not mapped as a CARA but is mapped as a SIPZ (coastal). The proposal is not expected to affect the SIPZ, and the JCC does not require a report for shellfish operations. Frequently flooded areas (Zone VE). Construction will occur within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-mapped floodplain. If the proposal is being reviewed at the federal level for compliance with the Endangered Species Act (as part of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting), no Habitat Assessment will be required by the county at the time of application. However, if no federal permit is required, a Habitat Assessment must be submitted at the time of application that is consistent with the 2013 FEMA guidance document. Archaeology/Cultural Resources: No report required at the time of application. However, if comments are received by Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation or the Tribes during noticing that indicates archaeological or cultural resources may be affected, then a report may be required. Stormwater: Any development landward of OHWM must comply with JCC 18.30.060 (Grading and Excavation Standards) and 18.30.070 (Stormwater Management), and the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Submit a Stormwater Calculation Worksheet and any other applicable stormwater sheets for any development landward of OHWM. The development is required to ensure that sediments were not transported to the marine environment during construction. Application: Complete land use application includes: Master Permit Application Shoreline Supplemental Application Site Plan Diagram of installed system Stormwater Calculation Worksheet and any applicable additional stormwater sheets No Net Loss Report (Habitat Management Plan/Wetland Report), including Cumulative Impacts Assessment Habitat Assessment (or Corps permitting paperwork) Documentation that supports regulatory requirements in the SMP sections listed above Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) form Shoreline Substantial Development Application: $4,525.70 ($2,675.00 shoreline substantial development application; $149.00 notice of application; $149.00 notice of public hearing $12.00 notice board; $26.75 scanning fee; $1,298.44 hearing examiner fee; $215.51 5% technology fee). BUILDING REVIEW No building permit is currently required to permit the shellfish operation. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 OTHER REGULATORY/LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS The project must comply with the Shoreline Management Act. The project may need a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project may require approval from Washington Department of Natural Resources. This project may need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This agency has jurisdiction over waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Killapie Beach Road: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners previously closed this road by resolution. Therefore, this road cannot be used for this proposal without permission from Jefferson County Public Works. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING LIMITATIONS It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information provided by the administrator shall not bi or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statement or assurance made by county representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of county, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plans. Pre-application meetings do not vest any portion of the proposed development proposal. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello, Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 (and related tidelands if they have different parcel numbers), I oppose such an exemption, and request a standard Conditional Use Permit process to examine the application. I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these parcels. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology, in which Rock Island Shellfish proposes to cultivate oysters on these parcels. They assert that they need an SMA permit from the County AND that they have applied for an exemption. (See pp2-3 of the attachment.) It's not clear, from the minimal information I have, whether these are tidelands that have actually been cultivated before, or, if so, whether the proposal amounts to an expansion requiring a CUP. If the area has been cultivated before, the proposal clearly calls for a significant change in cultivating methods, i.e., bent rebar and hard-plastic "Seaba baskets" which likely would require a CUP. Perhaps you have a JARPA with some baseline information. I have made a public records request (see below) that would include it, if you have it. If Carson/Rock Island has NOT applied for a permit or exemption under the SMA, I would like to know that, too, as it would indicate a serious error on the ECY document. ECA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From:Donna Frostholm To:Josh Peters Subject:FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Date:Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:51:20 PM Attachments:142854 Application Rock Island Squamish.pdf Josh, Not sure if you were planning to deal with the email below or ask someone to look into it. I believe the CZM was issued a few days ago. This is one where Robert Carson was told he needed a shoreline permit for his aquaculture proposal from the county, and the first step was to apply for a pre-app. He contacted Department of Ecology and it is my understanding that Ecology sent a letter to Carson supporting the guidance DCD gave him. I do not know if he has applied for a pre-app, but he was opposed to getting a local shoreline permit. Donna From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello, Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 (and related tidelands if they have different parcel numbers), I oppose such an exemption, and request a standard Conditional Use Permit process to examine the application. I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these parcels. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology, in which Rock Island Shellfish proposes to cultivate oysters on these parcels. They assert that they need an SMA permit from the County AND that they have applied for an exemption. (See pp2-3 of the attachment.) It's not clear, from the minimal information I have, whether these are tidelands that have actually been cultivated before, or, if so, whether the proposal amounts to an expansion requiring a CUP. If the area has been cultivated before, the proposal clearly calls for a significant change in cultivating methods, i.e., bent rebar and hard-plastic "Seaba baskets" which likely would require a CUP. Perhaps you have a JARPA with some baseline information. I have made a public records request CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From:Josh Peters To:Donna Frostholm; Greg Ballard; Emily Calkins Cc:Erin Martin Subject:FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Date:Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:01:39 PM Thanks, Donna. Greg and Emily, do we know whether we have a pre-app request for this or not? Thx! From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:51 PM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Josh, Not sure if you were planning to deal with the email below or ask someone to look into it. I believe the CZM was issued a few days ago. This is one where Robert Carson was told he needed a shoreline permit for his aquaculture proposal from the county, and the first step was to apply for a pre-app. He contacted Department of Ecology and it is my understanding that Ecology sent a letter to Carson supporting the guidance DCD gave him. I do not know if he has applied for a pre-app, but he was opposed to getting a local shoreline permit. Donna From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello, Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 (and related tidelands if they have different parcel numbers), I oppose such an exemption, and request a standard Conditional Use Permit process to examine the application. I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these parcels. CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From:Greg Ballard To:Josh Peters; Donna Frostholm; Emily Calkins Cc:Erin Martin Subject:RE: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Date:Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:06:08 PM Donna is the lead on this & I have not done anything regarding this case. GregB From: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:02 PM To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Ballard <GBallard@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Emily Calkins <ECalkins@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Erin Martin <EPMartin@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Thanks, Donna. Greg and Emily, do we know whether we have a pre-app request for this or not? Thx! From: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:51 PM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Josh, Not sure if you were planning to deal with the email below or ask someone to look into it. I believe the CZM was issued a few days ago. This is one where Robert Carson was told he needed a shoreline permit for his aquaculture proposal from the county, and the first step was to apply for a pre-app. He contacted Department of Ecology and it is my understanding that Ecology sent a letter to Carson supporting the guidance DCD gave him. I do not know if he has applied for a pre-app, but he was opposed to getting a local shoreline permit. Donna From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From:Donna Frostholm To:Marilyn Showalter Subject:FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011- CORRECTION Date:Monday, December 4, 2023 3:47:23 PM Correction: The email below should have said ‘Rock Island’ (NOT Rock Point). From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:03 PM To: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Marilyn, DCD has no record of receiving an application for the Rock Point aquaculture proposal. The information for the public records request will come in a separate email. Regards, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello, Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 (and related tidelands if they have different parcel numbers), I oppose such an exemption, and request a standard Conditional Use Permit process to examine the application. I further request to be notified of any permit processes associated with aquaculture on these parcels. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology, in which Rock Island Shellfish proposes to cultivate oysters on these parcels. They assert that they need an SMA permit from the County AND that they have applied for an exemption. (See pp2-3 of the attachment.) CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From:DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us To:KHugoniot@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject:RE: Files provided for PRR C002180 Date:Wednesday, December 20, 2023 11:14:53 AM Hi Ken, Sorry, there is one email that I do not remember seeing in the list – I will forward it on to you so you can decide if it should be included in this PRR. See next email from me. Donna @ DCD From: Ken Hugoniot <KHugoniot@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 4:34 PM To: Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Files provided for PRR C002180 Hi Donna, I actually don’t have a profile for you in my PRR management system, so I didn’t bother with that. All I need from you is a response to this email. I’ve just copied the text of the PRR below and you can view the files in Laserfiche by double-clicking on the attachment. Once you’ve had a look, just shoot me back a quick email reply to confirm whether you have, or are aware of, any additional potentially responsive records. Thanks again! Please provide any records you have indicating an application or interest by Robert Carson or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe in cultivating shellfish on parcels 965100009, 965100010, or 965100011. I've attached a document from the state Department of Ecology in which Carson/PGS (see pp 2-3) that they need an SMA permit the from the County and that they have requested an SMA exemption from the County. I do not see any such permit information linked to the Jefferson County Parcel Map app. Ken Hugoniot Jefferson County Public Records Administrator 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9174 khugoniot@co.jefferson.wa.us CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From:DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us To:KHugoniot@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject:FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011- CORRECTION Date:Wednesday, December 20, 2023 11:15:20 AM See below, does this need to be included? From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 3:47 PM To: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011-CORRECTION Correction: The email below should have said ‘Rock Island’ (NOT Rock Point). From: Donna Frostholm Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:03 PM To: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 Marilyn, DCD has no record of receiving an application for the Rock Point aquaculture proposal. The information for the public records request will come in a separate email. Regards, Donna Frostholm Jefferson County DCD From: Marilyn Showalter <marilyn.showalter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 11:05 AM To: Josh Peters <JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Donna Frostholm <DFrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Objection to Any Request for SMA Exemption re Parcels 965100009, 965100010, and 965100011 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello, Josh and Donna, This email is to notify you that IF Rock Island Shellfish and/or Robert Carson and/or the Port Gamble S'kallam tribe has applied for an exemption under the SMA or county SMP on parcels 965100009, CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Red diamond denotes Killapie “end of county road” sign, @875' from yellow rectangle denoting NOA F CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Photo provided by Donna Frostholm CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Photo provided by Donna Frostholm CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Image provided by Donna Frostholm CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Fwd: Oops John Fabian Jul 24, 2025, 2:20 PM to jeffbocc FYI. Is this compliant with county codes? Best wishes. John Fabian Begin forwarded message: From: John Fabian <fabianj@olympus.net> Date: July 24, 2025 at 2:08:30 PM PDT To: dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Oops I heard from a neighbor, about a shellfish application related to our home on Shine Road. We did not get any other notice. John Fabian G CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Notice of potential Shine area Shellfish Proposal not posted where people in the area have any chance to see it Inbox Steve Dittmar Thu, Jul 24, 2:40 PM to dfrostolm Dear Ms. Frostholm, I am a Shine area resident since 2012 and live at 30 Watney Ln (off of Shine Rd). I am about 1.25 miles from Killapie Beach road and travel by it every time I go to/across the Hood Canal Bridge, which is several times a week. I keep an eye out for notices for proposals like this and have not seen this notice anywhere visible from Shine Road. I understand from Marilyn Showalter that this notice was posted far beyond the end of the paved portion of Killapie Beach Road where the road turns into more of a path than a road and the posting was beyond the sign stating “end of county road” which implies private property is beyond. Neighbors are walking and driving along Shine road daily but certainly not down this path that appears to be private. I believe there is only one occupied house on Killapie Beach road so that road is likely only travelled by that one resident and their driveway is before the end of the pavement. Save to say it is likely no one had an opportunity to see this posted notice. Please reset the comment period and repost the notice up at the very beginning of Killapie Beach road where it connects to Shine Road so our community has an opportunity to read the notice and provide input. My hunch is that you received little or no input from this essentially hidden notice. I believe this lack of community input completely misrepresents the actual level of community interest and likely input if/when the community is able to see the notice. Thank you for considering my input Steve Dittmar 206.619.6822 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Marcia Case From: Marcia Case <bruce.marciacase@gmail.com> Date: July 26, 2025 at 11:39:58 AM PDT To: dfrostolm@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Killapie Beach Road Did not see a public notice posting for a shellfish operation on Killapie Beach Road. Is there going to be a shellfish operation happening on this road? Bruce Case 253.394.2873 Sent from my iPhone CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Oyster farm Carolyn Eagan Sat, Jul 26, 11:14 AM to dfrostholm Dear Ms. Frostholm, I am writing to tell you that I just learned from a neighbor about a proposed oyster farm off of Killapie Beach Rd. It is my understanding that the county is obligated to post notice of any shellfish operations. I never saw a notice and I drive by there all the time. I am asking that a notice be posted in a visible location and that that the time for comments start when the notice is posted. Thank you Carolyn Eagan Sent from my iPhone CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Notification cpmarquis@yahoo.com Fri, Jul 25, 7:55 AM From: cpmarquis@yahoo.com <cpmarquis@yahoo.com> To: dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us <dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 at 07:54:48 AM PDT Subject: Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Notification Re: Never Saw Notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Dear Ms. Frostholm, We live at 1662 Shine Road Port Ludlow WA. Please be advised that we never saw any notice of a plan for a shellfish operation off of Killapie Beach Road. We drive by Killapie Beach Road on a regular basis as that is the route we take to cross Hood Canal Bridge and return. We don't know of any one that goes down Killapie Road as it is only to a private residence There is only one road that carries public traffic in and out of the Shine community, and that is Shine Road. The notice was apparently posted at the site which is not visible to anyone except maybe but the people living on Killapie Beach Road. We believe this notice should have been posted on Shine Road where it would be visible to vehicles as well as pedestrians in order for there to be proper notice for comment. If we had not learned about this proposal from Marilyn Showalter, we wouldn't know about it at all. We request the County post a new notice with a new public comment period. Thank you. Charles and Patricia Marquis CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Marcia Schwendiman Jul 24, 2025, 4:45 PM To: Donna Frostholm Re: I Never Saw Notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Dear Ms. Frostholm, I live at 23 Longmire Lane, Port Ludow, WA 98365. I'm writing to tell you that I never saw any notice of a plan for a shellfish operation off of Killapie Beach Road. I regularly drive and walk Shine road between my home and the Hood Canal Bridge and sometimes the closed roads that the County no longer maintains. There is only one road that carries public traffic in and out of the Shine community, and that is Shine Road. If you are going to post a notice where you want people to see it, it needs to be posted on Shine Road. It is my understanding that under Jefferson County Code, the County is required to post a physical notice "where it is completely visible to vehicle traffic and pedestrians.” It appears to me that this was not done. We learned only last week that the notice was posted down at the site. Killapie Beach Road is marked with a sign and red diamond, just a short distance in from Shine Road, that says "End of County Road.” No one would have seen this walking or driving. If I hadn't learned about this proposal from Marilyn Showalter, I wouldn't know about it at all. I think the County should post a new notice with a new public comment period. I would like to know that you received this e-mail from me. Please reply to marciaschwendiman@gmail.com. Thank you, Marcia Schwendiman 23 Longmire LN Port Ludlow, WA 98365 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Never Saw Notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Inbox Elena Rodriguez Brenna Fri, Jul 25, 1:39 PM to dfrostholm Dear Ms. Frostholm, I'm a resident of the Shine community. I understand from my fellow community member, Marilyn Showalter, that there is a proposed plan for a shellfish operation off of Killapie Beach Road. I never saw any notice regarding this plan. I live at 110 Harbor View Pl, and travel up and down the length of Shine Road by foot and by car frequently. Shine is the only road traveled by the public and the entire community to get in and out of this area. Shine Road is where a public notice must be posted if you expect the public it is aimed at to see it. Otherwise, the public is not being informed. If Ms. Showalter had not alerted me to this matter, I would not know anything about it. The county should post a new notice with a new public comment period. Thank you for your attention. Elena R. Brenna 110 Harbor View Place Port Ludlow WA 98365 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Never saw a notice for a Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal. Inbox Sara Davis Jul 27, 2025, 9:19 PM (2 days ago) to dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us Dear Ms. Frostholm, My name is Sara Davis. My husband and I live at 1254 Shine Road, Port Ludlow WA 98365. It has come to our attention that a posted public notice for a Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal was posted at the end of Killapie Beach Road. This is in an area where the ground is unstable. This road has one house on it and is a dead end. There is no reason to ever drive down Killapie Beach Road. Posting a public notice on a road that almost no one ever uses to notify the whole community seems unfortunate. If the sign was meant for people to see who live in this area the sign should be posted where everyone can see it. Since everyone who lives in the area navigates Shine Road to get to Highway 104 it seems appropriate that the sign should have been posted on Shine Road near the entrance to Killapie Beach Road. Please reconsider a plan which will allow the community an opportunity to read this public notice and give them time to respond to it. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Sincerely, Sara and Ed Davis 1254 Shine Road Port Ludlow WA 98365 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 We Have Never Seen Any Public Notice of the Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal BC West Thu, Jul 24, 2:17 PM to dfrostholm Dear Ms. Frostholm, I live at 1482 Shine Rd, Port Ludlow. I have just today been made aware of an application for a shellfish operation off of Killapie Beach Road. I am writing to tell you I have never seen any public notice along Shine Rd. of any such application or plan, and I drive up/down that stretch of Shine Rd. multiple times each week. If not for the information provided to me by my neighbor, Marilyn Showalter, I would have had no awareness whatsoever of this application. Since Shine Rd. is the only road in/out of this community, and any application of this type has an impact on this community. As such, I think it is incumbent on the county (and/or any other involved agency) to prominently post any public notices on Shine Rd. to ensure the community is fully aware of such applications, in order to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to be informed and respond per public notice guidelines. I request the County post a new public notice and initiate a new public comment period for this application. Thank you. William and Cheryl West CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 From: Sue Corbett <suec71@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 9:34 PM Subject: Flawed notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal To: <dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us> Re: Flawed notice of Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Donna Frostholm, I live in Shine at 31 Churchill Lane, Port Ludlow. I am writing to complain that notice of the proposed shellfish operation was never posted along Shine Road. I never saw the notice as it was not visible from Shine Road. Killapie Beach Road is closed to traffic because it is a slide area. What is the use of a notice that is out of public view. The county should post a new notice with a new comment period. Respectfully, Sue Corbett Suec71@gmail.com CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28 Hidden Posting for Killapie Beach Shellfish Proposal Nellie Andersen Mon, Jul 28, 10:38 AM to dfrostholm@co.jefferson.wa.us, Nezam Dear Ms. Frostholm, We live at 162 Longmire Lane, Port Ludlow which is a road off of Shine Road. We are concerned and disappointed to learn that the notice for a plan for a shellfish operation off of Killapie Beach Road was not posted in a visible place for our community to see. There is only one road that carries public traffic in and out of the Shine community, and that is Shine Road. If you are going to post a notice where you want people to see it, it needs to be posted on Shine Road. As posted, it feels like this information was being hidden from view. If we hadn't learned about this proposal from Marilyn Showalter, we wouldn't know about it at all. We request that the County post a new notice with a new public comment period. Thank you. Nellie Andersen & Nezam Tooloee 162 Longmire Lane Port Ludlow, WA. 98365 CA received 07/29/25 EXHIBIT CA-28