Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMLA20-00152 Public Comments BinderDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL & LEGAL AFFAIRS – SEPA CENTER PO BOX 47015 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7015 360-902-1750 SEPACENTER@DNR.WA.GOV WWW.DNR.WA.GOV December 15, 2021 Shannen Cartmel 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Dear MX Cartmel: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. The proponent must provide a copy of the final SEPA determination and a copy of the final Clearing and Grading Permit with the submitted WDNR Forest Practices Application noted in the SEPA Checklist. Also, the WDNR fee for a Class IV General conversion FPA is $1500.00 and the application review period is 30 days from the date of receipt. If you have any questions contact: Ted Allison, Forest Practices District Manager, Olympic Region Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). (360) 460-4807 ted.allison@dnr.wa.gov. Sincerely Elizabeth L O’Neal Elizabeth L O’Neal External Affairs Program Lead Environmental and Legal Affairs Section Washington State Department of Natural Resources 360-902-1739 360-259-9120 Cell Elizabeth.oneal@dnr.wa.gov 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE  PO BOX 47000  OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7000 FAX: (360) 902-1775  TTY: (360) 902-1125  TEL: (360) 902-1000 Equal Opportunity Employer ATTN: Shannen Cartmel December 15th, 2021 Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development Re: SEPA Determination and Associated Type I Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Dear Shannen Cartmel, The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe has reviewed the cultural resources report for the Cape George Development Project, Jefferson County, Washington. The Tribe concurs with the findings in the report and determination of no adverse effect. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you need any additional information, or in the event of any inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, please contact me at 360-681-4638 or ataylor@jamestowntribe.org Sincerely, Allie R. Taylor Cultural Resources Specialist Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 1 Helena Smith From:Brian Tracer <btracer@ejfr.org> Sent:Wednesday, December 15, 2021 10:20 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:RE: Notice of Pending SEPA Determination and Associated Type I Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Shannen, Thanks for the information. I have two comments. First is some sort of standard for a roadway – drivable surface to support emergency apparatus, and second if any clear associated with brush, trees, such debris, etc, need to be dealt with prior to the summer fire season (June). Respectfully, Brian W. Tracer - Assistant Fire Chief East Jefferson Fire Rescue 24 Seton Rd. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Office 360.385.2626 Cell 360.381.0359 Fax 360.344.4604 "Honor, respect and comfort our community. Work together to provide outstanding service for all in need, limiting the loss of life and property through teamwork, dedication and our commitment to quality community service. Strive for excellence in ourselves, our family and our community while preserving the history of the fire service in Jefferson County." "Proudly Serving Jefferson County since 1872" PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL. ELECTRONIC INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be of nature, an item of Public Safety and not for public release. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, coping, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 8:49 PM To: Sherrie Shold <SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Scott Bancroft <Sbancroft@jeffpud.org>; Pinky Mingo <pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kevin Hitchcock <kmhitchcock@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joe Nole <jnole@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Michael S. Perin <MSPerin@co.jefferson.wa.us>; ted.allison@dnr.wa.gov; levi.puksta@dnr.wa.gov; Terry Duff <TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us>; John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov; sepa@dahp.wa.gov; sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov; samg@portofpt.com; greg@portofpt.com; Eric Kuzma <ekuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us>; eric@portofpt.com; Monte Reinders <MReinders@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Brian Tracer <btracer@ejfr.org>; Chief <Chief@ejfr.org>; bgraham@jeffpud.org; dsarff@skokomish.org; thpo@jamestowntribe.org; 2 Stormy Purser <thpo@pgst.nsn.us>; romac@pgst.nsn.us; crossi@pnptc.org; ataylor@jamestowntribe.org; ataylor@jamestowntribe.org; Dennis Lewarch <dlewarch@Suquamish.nsn.us>; Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP) <stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com; Jeff Chapman <JChapman@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: lleach@peninsuladailynews.com; jeffconews@peninsuladailynews.com; jmcmacken@peninsuladailynews.com Subject: Notice of Pending SEPA Determination and Associated Type I Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Good evening, Please see the below notice of application. You can access all the case files here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx . The SEPA Checklist is attached. Please note, the comment period begins tomorrow 12/15/2021 and ends 12.29/2021 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 APPLICANT: Cape George Land Company CO LLC PO BOX 4438 Olympia, WA 98501-1779 Project Numbers: MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Application Received Date: January 1, 2021 Application Notice Date: December 15, 2021 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcels: 963600101, 963600301, 963600401, 963600501, 963600601, 963600701, 963600801, 963600901, 963601001, 963601101, 963601201, 963601301, 963601401, 963601501, 963601601, 963601701, 963601801, 963601901, 963602001, 963602101, 963602201, 963602301, 963602401, 963303401, 963304102, 963304103; Section 17 - Township 30 N - Range 1 W. Port Townsend, WA 98368. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: SUB2020-00018 and ZON2021-00016 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Notice of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the entire proposal to reconfigure and develop 135 originally platted lots in 1890 on 23 tax parcels into 68 resultant tax parcels. This proposal consists of the development of 27 acres into 68 homes sites through a boundary line adjustment (BLA) to reconfigure the lots. The proposal also requires a Jefferson County Class IV General Stormwater Permit with a Forest Practice Application (FPA) Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), road right-of-way and development permits, and septic and building permits for each parcel. The applicant proposes to install a manufactured home on each resultant lot. The applicant has submitted a preliminary engineered stormwater management plan for the planned clearing and grading, a traffic impact analysis (TIA), a preliminary BLA Survey, preliminary road designs, and a SEPA Checklist for this proposal. Jefferson County issued an outstanding additional information request on October 7, 2021, which requires the applicant to prove each lot is buildable (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.040(6)). This requires preliminary septic designs for each lot, proving buildable areas in conjunction with onsite slopes, allowing for road right-of-way, and providing evidence of the ability to accommodate onsite stormwater management for each lot. This request has the potential to alter the proposal into fewer resultant lots. Jefferson County has opted to evaluate and postpone a SEPA Determination to allow for public comments and any revisions to be reviewed and incorporated in making the decision. COMMENT PERIOD, SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: Jefferson County will issue a SEPA Determination Public Notice, after review of a completed environmental checklist, public comments, required additional information and other information on file with the agency. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. Copies of the project are available to the public upon request from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. The project documents can also be accessed onlin e here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx. Written comments must be submitted to the Department of Community Development no later than 4:30 p.m. on December 29, 2021. If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Submit comments to scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us, in person, or by mail at, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Project Planner: Shannen Cartmel, 360-379-4450 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community Development 3 web page at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 1 Helena Smith From:John Fleming Sent:Friday, December 17, 2021 5:24 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:FW: Notice of Pending SEPA Determination and Associated Type I Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Hi Shannen: Thank you for sending this SEPA notice. I plan to reply and update our previous SEPA comments. The City of Port Townsend may be interested in additional traffic coming into their jurisdiction by way of South Discovery Road. I did not see any email directing the Notice to City of Port Townsend. In absence of that, I plan to forward the Notice to the Director of Public Works for the City of Port Townsend, Steve King. Looking through the emial list of recipients of th SEPA Notice, I can suggest that you remove samg@portofpt.org , now executive director of Port of Olympia ( https://portolympia.com/about-us/leadership-2/sam-gibboney/ ). Happy Holidays, Shannen. John 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. From: Shannen Cartmel Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 8:49 PM To: Sherrie Shold <SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Scott Bancroft <Sbancroft@jeffpud.org>; Pinky Mingo <pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kevin Hitchcock <kmhitchcock@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joe Nole <JNole@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Michael S. Perin <MSPerin@co.jefferson.wa.us>; ted.allison@dnr.wa.gov; levi.puksta@dnr.wa.gov; Terry Duff <TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us>; John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov; sepa@dahp.wa.gov; sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov; samg@portofpt.com; greg@portofpt.com; Eric Kuzma <ekuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us>; eric@portofpt.com; Monte Reinders <MReinders@co.jefferson.wa.us>; btracer@ejfr.org; chief@ejfr.org; bgraham@jeffpud.org; dsarff@skokomish.org; thpo@jamestowntribe.org; Stormy Purser <thpo@pgst.nsn.us>; romac@pgst.nsn.us; crossi@pnptc.org; ataylor@jamestowntribe.org; ataylor@jamestowntribe.org; Dennis Lewarch <dlewarch@Suquamish.nsn.us>; Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP) <stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com; Jeff Chapman <JChapman@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: lleach@peninsuladailynews.com; jeffconews@peninsuladailynews.com; jmcmacken@peninsuladailynews.com Subject: Notice of Pending SEPA Determination and Associated Type I Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Good evening, 2 Please see the below notice of application. You can access all the case files here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx . The SEPA Checklist is attached. Please note, the comment period begins tomorrow 12/15/2021 and ends 12.29/2021 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 APPLICANT: Cape George Land Company CO LLC PO BOX 4438 Olympia, WA 98501-1779 Project Numbers: MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Application Received Date: January 1, 2021 Application Notice Date: December 15, 2021 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcels: 963600101, 963600301, 963600401, 963600501, 963600601, 963600701, 963600801, 963600901, 963601001, 963601101, 963601201, 963601301, 963601401, 963601501, 963601601, 963601701, 963601801, 963601901, 963602001, 963602101, 963602201, 963602301, 963602401, 963303401, 963304102, 963304103; Section 17 - Township 30 N - Range 1 W. Port Townsend, WA 98368. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: SUB2020-00018 and ZON2021-00016 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Notice of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the entire proposal to reconfigure and develop 135 originally platted lots in 1890 on 23 tax parcels into 68 resultant tax parcels. This proposal consists of the development of 27 acres into 68 homes sites through a boundary line adjustment (BLA) to reconfigure the lots. The proposal also requires a Jefferson County Class IV General Stormwater Permit with a Forest Practice Application (FPA) Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), road right-of-way and development permits, and septic and building permits for each parcel. The applicant proposes to install a manufactured home on each resultant lot. The applicant has submitted a preliminary engineered stormwater management plan for the planned clearing and grading, a traffic impact analysis (TIA), a preliminary BLA Survey, preliminary road designs, and a SEPA Checklist for this proposal. Jefferson County issued an outstanding additional information request on October 7, 2021, which requires the applicant to prove each lot is buildable (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.040(6)). This requires preliminary septic designs for each lot, proving buildable areas in conjunction with onsite slopes, allowing for road right-of-way, and providing evidence of the ability to accommodate onsite stormwater management for each lot. This request has the potential to alter the proposal into fewer resultant lots. Jefferson County has opted to evaluate and postpone a SEPA Determination to allow for public comments and any revisions to be reviewed and incorporated in making the decision. COMMENT PERIOD, SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: Jefferson County will issue a SEPA Determination Public Notice, after review of a completed environmental checklist, public comments, required additional information and other information on file with the agency. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. Copies of the project are available to the public upon request from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. The project documents can also be acce ssed online here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx. Written comments must be submitted to the Department of Community Development no later than 4:30 p.m. on December 29, 2021. If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Submit comments to scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us, in person, or by mail at, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Project Planner: Shannen Cartmel, 360-379-4450 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community Development web page at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner 3 Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 1 Helena Smith From:Diane DiPrete <DDIPRETE@msn.com> Sent:Saturday, December 18, 2021 9:40 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comment on MLA20-00152 & MLA21-00023   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      TO: Shannen Cartmel         RE: Project MLA20‐00152 & MLS21‐00023   Dear Shannon,      I am writing to comment on the notification I received in the mail about the above Project, or otherwise I believed to be  called Irvington Addition.   When we bought my property on Arcadia West in 2000, the properties on this road were in an area of 5‐acre parcels  with a few subplatted properties of 2‐1/2 acres. We bought 2 of these subplatted parcels.  We were delighted to find  this property that we could afford which also provided privacy and safety for our family. My biggest concern is that our  area is platted for rural density, and this proposed property falls into the category of urban density. I would be OK with a  few (like 5‐6) homes, which is consistent with current density in this area. Sixty plus homes would be way too many for  this area. The increased traffic to Discovery Road alone will undoubtedly cause new issues for the residents who live  near and access Discovery as their main route to town and the county who maintains the road.   Along our road, there is much concern about our privacy and safety being ruined by this development, and I implore you  to consider us in your decision process. We do not want this urban development right next door!   Thank you for your consideration.   Best wishes,   Diane DiPrete     1 Helena Smith From:Kees Prins <keesprins@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 20, 2021 6:18 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Re: public notice ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Page 3 of the revised survey of 7-2-2021 shows the proposed project well. I assume that's the latest version? I'm just wondering, could you have included a copy of that in the paper public notice? I can imagine a lot of folks getting that paper won't pay attention because it doesn't show where it is. I live on Ash Loop and one of the proposed access roads is plotted directly opposite of the Ash Loop access road. All the folks living on Ash Loop will be affected by this. Regards Kees. On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:48 PM Kees Prins <keesprins@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for the clarification. I’ll check it out. On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 08:42, Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Kees, The entire file is located digitally. The submission was electronic. It is accessible for anyone to access for the public comment period and beyond. We do not send out paper copies of the large maps with public notices. If you do not have access to a computer, you can access the documents by coming into our office and asking for the front staff to print off the pieces you are looking for. Please see the link. It will take you directly to all the documents. The link to the entire folder is here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx The link to the survey documents are here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351663/Row1.aspx Everything within this file is organized for type of document. Jefferson County nor myself has no intention of withholding information for this project and we have followed all state and local laws regarding public notice requirements. These documents have been available since the day the project was noticed (in fact several days prior). The link was included with the paper notice, and is available via our website. Jefferson County intentionally noticed a SEPA Consultation (i.e. allowing public comment) prior to issuing any SEPA decision to allow public comments to be incorporated in this decision. 2 Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 From: Kees Prins <keesprins@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 6:53 PM To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Re: public notice ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Thanks. - How is the access planned to the lots south of the Larry Scott trail? - Will there be access from Discovery Road? - Is there a map of the plan as proposed at the moment. BTW, why did you not include a map of the area involved in your public notice announcement? How are folks supposed to figure out where all this is planned? I got the feeling that you didn't want people to see it right away. Regards, Kees. 3 On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 2:15 PM Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi, Please see the below screenshot of the involved parcels. The yellow highlighter around the project area is a little hard to see, but hopefully this helps! Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 4 360-379-4454 From: Kees Prins <keesprins@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:35 PM To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: public notice ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. I got a public notice in the mail referring to project MLA 20-00152. I found some parcel numbers on your online map in my neighborhood, but can't find the total area involved. Could you send me a map or something to show the total area? regards Kees Prins. 1 Helena Smith From:Gary Zwissler <gary.zwissler@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 20, 2021 11:37 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Parcel 992200101 SUB2021-00023 ________________________________ ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. ________________________________ Shannon, I understand that you are the assigned Planner for the subject parcel and the proposed boundary line adjustment. I would like to come in and discuss this and the proposed Clark project for this parcel and the other affected parcels. Please let me know when we can meet. Thanks. Gary 1 Helena Smith From:Juelie Dalzell <gobi@olympus.net> Sent:Wednesday, December 22, 2021 6:44 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attachments:Jefferson County Department of Community Development.pdf 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 for the opportunity to comment. Juelie Dalzell Jefferson County Department of Community Development Dear Ms. Cartmel, Thank you for sending notice of the revised SEPA check list for the proposed development along both sides of Cape George Road. As a land owner bordering this development you can imagine how dismayed I am to go from living a rural lifestyle to an urban one with one single development project. I was lulled into complacency by the existence of the Growth Management Plan. I am glad to see the County’s requirement that each property be able to support its own on-site septic. A crucial element to healthy environment. Aside from dramatic life style change my concerns also center around traffic. My driveway, on a blind curve is nerve wracking enough with the already increased traffic from Cape George but the impacts on traffic safety from this development will be more significant. I think the county should study likely impacts on traffic safety. While not everyone is a fan of traffic circles the developer should be required to put in a roundabout in order to reduce access points to Cape George Road. Since the developer indicated he wants buildable lots on both sides of Cape George Road a roundabout would provide a single intersection to better channel cars onto and off of the two areas of developed lots. I am quite sure you know that people drive Cape George Road like a highway and 50-60 mile an hour speeds are common. (There is a record of this in your office because those of us living on Cape George Road have petitioned numerous times to lower the speed limit on Cape George Rd. to no avail.) Speaking of both sides of the road, I do not understand how the developer manages to have buildable lots on the Larry Scott Trail side of Cape George Road. Any buildings on that side will have to come up all the way to the edge of the trail. What possible kind of buffer could be established between the trail and the development sites? Can the County review this too? The Larry Scott Trail is an immeasurably valuable asset that benefits locals and tourists. There also doesn’t appear to be any consideration for pedestrian crossing issues. There will be significant new pedestrian and bicycle travel crossing Cape George Road. The Larry Scott Trail will likely be accessed by new pedestrians and bicyclists on both sides of the road. It is my hope the County will require a broader buffer at the project’s perimeter. The trees and shrubbery help with privacy and with light and sound mitigation the current 20-foot buffers are not wide enough. Along this theme the County could require larger wooded areas to be preserved in the development to better accommodate migratory bird travel. I am sure the County is well aware that the Quimper Peninsula is a critical link particularly considering the urbanization taking place at the Chevy Chase Golf Course and elsewhere in Puget Sound. I want to thank the County for its many services. I thank you also for this opportunity to voice concerns. Respectfully submitted, Juelie Dalzell 1 Helena Smith From:Tara Clanton <tclanton03@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 23, 2021 6:03 PM To:jeffbocc; Shannen Cartmel Subject:Development   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 to express my disapproval of Project MLA20‐00152 and MLA21‐00023 due to numerous concerns.  My most important concerns are:     degradation of the Larry Scott Trail  too much density for a rural neighborhood  lack of wildlife protection  increased traffic in the neighborhood  lack of buffers  loss of wetlands  water mains are already at low pressure additional use may require costly upgrades    Tara  and Eric Clanton  1 Helena Smith From:Gary Zwissler <gary.zwissler@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, December 23, 2021 11:11 PM To:jeffbocc; Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments: MLA20-00152, MLA21-00023   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 to express my disapproval of Project MLA20‐00152 and MLA21‐00023 due to numerous concerns. My  most important concerns are:     ‐ degradation of the Larry Scott Trail  ‐ too much density for a rural neighborhood   ‐ lack of wildlife protection  ‐ increased traffic in the neighborhood  ‐ lack of buffers   ‐ loss of wetlands  ‐ clearcutting will increase mill odors  ‐ water mains are already at low pressure and additional use may require costly upgrades    Sincerely,     Gary Zwissler  231 Gun Club Rd  Port Townsend, WA  1 Helena Smith From:Alison Hamm <achamm3@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 24, 2021 2:15 PM To:Shannen Cartmel; jeffbocc Subject:Development on Cape George Rd and Nelson's Landing Rd.   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      I'm writing to express my disapproval of project MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 for numerous reasons. My most important concerns are as follows; Too high density for the rural setting Increased traffic on Nelsons Landing Rd. Degradation of the Larry Scott Trail Lack of buffers Loss of large trees and wetlands I appreciate the opportunity to comment and to be considered in this project. Thank you for your time. A concerned citizen and tax payer 1 Helena Smith From:Bob Jautz <goldbug@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, December 24, 2021 12:23 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Development   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 to express my disapproval of Project MLA20‐00152 and MLA21‐00023 due to numerous concerns. My  most important concerns are:     ‐ degradation of the Larry Scott Trail  ‐ too much density for a rural neighborhood   ‐ lack of wildlife protection  ‐ increased traffic in the neighborhood  ‐ lack of buffers   ‐ loss of wetlands  ‐ clearcutting will increase mill odors  ‐ water mains are already at low pressure and additional use may require costly upgrades    Sincerely,   Bob Jautz,  909 7 th St.  Port Townsend  1 Helena Smith From:Charles Cannon <cjcannon@seanet.com> Sent:Sunday, December 26, 2021 2:33 PM To:Shannen Cartmel; jeffbocc Subject:Projects MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. All, As a frequent user of the Larry Scott Trail in the subject area, I am deeply upset with the proposed development of these lovely woods on these 27 acres into 71 small lots. I understand that the developer is planning to clearcut the entire plat, which will clearly degrade air quality, result in loss of wetlands, and reduce wildlife population to zero. Not only will this ruin this very nice stretch of the Larry Scott Trail, it will drastically increase car & truck traffic, along with the attendant emissions in the rural neighborhood. The idea of allowing a return to the mistaken pre-1971 small lots from the existing larger plots for the benefit of one developer seems very odd to say the least, especially when all other counties in WA State have stopped that practice. Please maintain the sensible existing moratorium and do not ignore the county’s growth management plan. Shame on the County Board for even considering this rape of a very nice rural area. Keep the current size limit zoning RR5 and maintain the scale of existing housing, as well as the intent of the growth management plan. Thank you, Charles J Cannon, P.E. 234 Cass Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 206-484-8796 cjcannon@seanet.com Dear Ms. Cartmel, I have an additional page to add to my comments on Irvington Addition. I will address some of the history of the original plat as I understand it. The history I believe is relevant to Clarke’s current proposal. Mr. Clarke is proposing to replat most of the Plat of Irvington using a large group of boundary line adjustments. However, there is no relationship of the resulting lots to the original boundary lines. This therefore is a replat of the majority portion of Irvington that has been held in common ownership for over a century. The Plat of Irvington was platted in Oregon in 1890 by a Portland couple as an addition to PORT TOWNSEND. This is specified on the plat. Washington became a state in 1889 the year before the plat was approved in Oregon. However, it was recorded in 1890 in the Jefferson County Auditor’s Office in spite of it having been approved in Oregon. It did not become part of the incorporated area of Port Townsend as specified in the plat. Nor did Cape George Road exist so the plat only identified the Railroad, now the Larry Scott Trail, as crossing the plat. Cape George Road was later identified across the blocks and lots, being for all purposes a plat alteration. The crossing of the plat by two major public thoroughfares compromised the usefulness of the lots in their original configuration. Since the Clarke piece was a single ownership, this did not become important until the original proposal was presented. The proposal attempts to preserve the density bonus of the original plat by exceeding the 1 per 5-acre zoning density that is identified by the county’s comprehensive plan. There are exceptions that permit increased density for lots of record, and this proposal looks to utilize these exemptions to allow the density bonus without being limited by other replat requirements. Apparently, according to Mr. Clarke this workaround of County planning rules should be lauded by the County since it permits more housing than would be allowed otherwise in this area. The clear purpose of growth management which is overwhelmingly supported by residents of Jefferson County is to put growth where there is infrastructure to support it. That is not the case here. Mr. Clarke’s proposed development should be treated as a replat. All resulting lots should meet design standards for adequate area for building, setbacks, open space and utilities. Each resulting lot should have a drain field and an alternate drain field since sewer is not available and due to the aforementioned divisions by roads and public trail there is no way to put in a common sewer system without vastly reducing the number of lots. The proponent identifies that “Scot’s Broom” is on the property as a plant; which truly grows abundantly. Then he indicates that there are no noxious or invasive weeds. Scot’s Broom (Scotch Broom) is both. The proponent has also indicated that there are no wetland/drainage issues with the land but I submit that there are such issues that I believe the county could verify with an inspection. Thank you again for permitting me to comment. Respectfully, Juelie Dalzell 1 Helena Smith From:theresa percy <teopercy@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 27, 2021 6:35 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:jeffbocc Subject:Comment on project MLA 20-00152 and MLA 21-00023   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 writing to express my objections to Project MLA 20‐000152 and MLA 21‐00023. I keep my horses on Madden Lane  across from Nelson's Landing Rd and Discovery Rd. and ride my horses down Nelson's Landing Rd to access the various  trails in the area including the Larry Scott Trail. While I don't reside in the area I spend most of my time there, and have  deep concerns about the impact the proposed development will have for the following reasons:  too much density for  the rural area, too much traffic, increased safety risks, deterioration and degradation of the Larry Scott Trail, an  important statewide scenic trail,  and a too, too much impact on the quality of life of the rural character of this area.     While I understand the need for housing in Port Townsend, this project with its proposed 100 homes, tightly packed into  a small area and not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan is both irresponsible and inconsiderate of the  HUGH impact on the area for the present and future. Development will happen but please, make it be responsible.    Thank you,  Thereas Percy    1 Helena Smith From:Michael Allen <mlfoots@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 7:26 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Delay Development for Proper Hearings   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Considering the many obsstacles with the new planned development it just makes sense to delay the process until all sides can voice their opinions. I would hope the town leaders would want to know the impact this may have on all concerned as well as the environmental impact Thank you Lois Allen 234 Arcadia Terrace Port Townsend 1 Helena Smith From:Robert ROB-GRETCHEN-DAVIS <ROB-GRETCHEN-DAVIS@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:40 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 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 to express my disapproval of Project MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 due to numerous concerns. My most important concerns are: degradation of the Larry Scott Trail too much density for a rural neighborhood lack of wildlife protection increased traffic in the neighborhood lack of buffers loss of wetlands clearcutting will increase mill odors water mains are already at low pressure additional use may require costly upgrades Sincerely, Robert Davis, Port Hadlock 1 Helena Smith From:Mimi Sudlow-Evans <sudsme@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:59 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Project on cape george rd ________________________________ 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 as a concerned neighbor. I live right next door to the property being developed. This is my childhood home. We intentionally chose to live out in county to avoid the density of the city limits. We have coped with many challenges, for the first 10 years we had to haul water to live out here and even today we don’t have curbside garbage service. These have been small prices to pay for privacy, quiet and space. I understand that the plat was designed long before our progressive development picture and it seems this developer putting in manufactured homes homes (yuck) is doing so on a loophole. Port Townsend is special because we Haven’t sold out to the strip malls, big business and overdevelopment. I am particularly concerned with the traffic situation on Cape George. I can’t even begin to imagine the congestion 60+ new homes to this half mile of road will bring. As well as it will make the Cape George, Discovery intersection a nightmare affecting all the way through to Mill Road. The ins and outs of the road here simply have not been designed to accommodate that kind of movement. The layout is built for through traffic. Within the city limits the high density is accommodated by grid pattern streets here we will just have two roads that will bottle neck and congest all the time. Please consider this and the responsibility of the planning department to oversee our environment from its many facets. I realize there is a housing shortage particularly affordable housing. I do not believe this is going to fix it. These manufactured homes are going to go for top dollar and the real issue of our housing crisis is all the second homes and our demographics. I am afraid these new homes will be filled by out-of-towners and it will continue to drive up the real estate prices. Our workers, our local families will still be in need of housing. Please consider the impact to the vested citizens of Port Townsend and this neighborhood. Sincerely, Lifetime resident, and local Business owner Mimi Sudlow-Evans "Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi ॐ 1 Helena Smith From:Jim Tolpin <jim.tolpin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:17 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:jeffbocc Subject:Pending SEPA Determination Comment ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Re: LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 Please consider a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas holiday period, adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted, published, and mailed. When I read the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process it seems to me that robust, well considered, public comment is called for. I do not consider the process so far to be supportive of robust, well considered public comment. Please consider restarting the public comment process. My personal concern as a long time resident (42 years) is the impact of this project on the Larry Scott Trail. Seems to me a 50 ft. buffer should be the minimum to not only maintain the natural beauty of the trail but to minimize the removal of trees. Thank you for considering my comments. Jim Tolpin 1 Helena Smith From:Gary Zwissler <bzwiss@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:53 PM To:Shannen Cartmel; jeffbocc Subject:Project MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 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 to express my disapproval of Project MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023. due to numerous concerns. In summary my concerns are: -degradation of the Larry Scott Trail and it’s intended purpose of providing recreation in a natural setting - too much density for a rural neighborhood - lack of wildlife protection - increased traffic in the neighborhood - lack of buffers - loss of wetlands - clearcutting will increase mill odors - water mains are already at low pressure and additional use may require costly upgrades. My specific concerns following a review of the SEPA checklist are delineated below: Section A Background A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults before finishing the roads and utilities. The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in the roads never being paved. Development businesses fail regularly, the applicants corporate license is currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site. A8. The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID lockdowns. Current TIA studies should be required. Section B Environmental Elements 2. Air b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site. Residents surrounding the project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful. Once the trees are removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project. 2 3. Water a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site. Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands. 4. Plants d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffersurrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing restriction area” around the perimeter of the site” Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site help to preserve the existing vegetation. Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. The clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of the project area. To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter. e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”. The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain Scotch Broom. Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species. Development activities which take place over more that a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species. According to The Washington Invasive Species Council: “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense, impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds, which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.” “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state regions” According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: 3 “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and horses.” “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil disturbance.” According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board: Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required. 5. Animals a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons, and migratory birds are regularly seen. The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway. All of the project area is used in one way or another by migratory birds. The applicants assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS dataset. “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area.This does not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”. The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area for habitat. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project. https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community. Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail to public use. Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal. 4 Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction. The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as county departments have been included in this process. Becky Blanchard Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions p: 503-808-2449 becky.blanchard@usda.gov e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”. The response is, “RR-5: Rural residential. Every person I have spoken with about this project has expressed utter dismay and anger that the rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this project. When a county planner was recently asked directly“I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is that correct?” the answer was YES Please explain how this project is not subject to this requirement and how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR-5: Rural residential zoning classification. 9. Housing c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 71 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 5 10. Aesthetics b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land. All of these views will be destroyed by the projects clearcutting. The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site” should be increased to 50 feet. 12. Recreation b. and c. The applicants proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the back yards of the lots” unnecessary. Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required. 14. Transportation a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a single road with one access to a public highway. This makes emergency access and egress problematic. In an emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes. On a daily basis the single intersection access to Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available due to lack of a bus turn around. d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done. 15. Public Services a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comment from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”. 16. Utilities No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested. The applicant should be required to provide the requested information. 6 General Comment: In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and again we will do “something” with no specificity. A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts. Please ask the applicant to answer the questions. Sincerely Rebecca Zwissler 231 Gun Club Rd Port Townsend 1 Helena Smith From:Wallace Allen <wallacea63@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 1:37 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      General process comments.   I have lived on Nelson's Landing for a very long time. I can not believe our county would allow something like  this to be put in this quiet rural area.   I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas  holiday period,  adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted,  published, and mailed.    With the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process, it seems there should be a long, well considered public  comment period.  The public comment period of 2 weeks seems absurd considering the public notice posted  on Cape George Rd is facing the road rather than an angle where traffic can see it.   Please consider restarting the public comment process.     Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments  Section A Background  A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The  community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults  before finishing the roads and utilities.  The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in  the roads never being paved.  Development businesses fail regularly, the applicant's corporate license is  currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site.     A8.  The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID  lockdowns.  Current TIA studies should be required.  2    Section B Environmental Elements  2. Air   b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site.  Residents surrounding the  project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful.  Once the trees are  removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project.     3. Water   a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of  the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site.  Our land sees this seasonal wetland.  The overflow  rain water from the property adjacent to Nelsons Landing and Discovery Road runs under Discovery Rd,  behind the first home on Nelsons Landing into our empty property then under Nelsons Landing into our main  living property and our neighbors as well.  Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands.     4. Plants  d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing  restriction area” around the perimeter of the site”  Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site helps to preserve the existing vegetation.  Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting  the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail.  The  clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of  the project area.  To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter.        e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”.  The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain  Scotch Broom.  Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species.  Development activities which take place over more than a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils  and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species.  According to The Washington Invasive Species Council:  3 “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense,  impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest  regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds,  which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.”   “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch  broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state  regions”  According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board:  “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to  form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and  horses.”  “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil  disturbance.”    According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:   Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson     Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required.     5. Animals  a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons,  and  migratory birds are regularly seen.  The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway.  All of the project  area is used in one way or another by migratory birds.  The applicant's assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS  dataset.  “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does  not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are  mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we  have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note  that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”.  The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area  for habitat. We personally have a family of bald eagles that fly over us all year long.    4 8. Land and Shoreline Use  a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home  This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community.  Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail  to public use.  Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal.  Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer.  The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction.  The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as  county departments have been included in this process.  Becky Blanchard  Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator  Forest Service  Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions  p: 503‐808‐2449  becky.blanchard@usda.gov     e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”.  The response is, “RR‐5: Rural residential.    When deciding on a potential forever home, we chose RURAL RESIDENTIAL!!  When we go to the public land  records, this is what it says: Zoning Description: RR-5 - Rural Residential! When discussing this project with several  people they are just as confused as I am as to how we can have a RR‐5 turn into 27 acres of 68 homes...  The  rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this  project.  When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel  boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is  that correct?” the answer was YES  Also, while looking at all the property purchased by the applicant, I have found each of the plats are also RR‐5.  Check  out this parcel for example:   Tax Parcel:963601501   Property Details  5 Parcel ID: 963601501 Owner: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO LLC Site Address: Assessed Acres: 0.66 Section: 17 Township: 30N Range: 1W School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire District: EJFR (1) Tax Code: 0111 Planning Area: Quimper (2) Subdivision: 9636 - IRVINGTON Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - Vacant Land Neighborhood Description: 5340 - S16&17 T30 R1W SALEM,EVERGRN,IRVING&SUNNYSIDE PKS,PIONEER AC Certified FMV Year: 2020 Certified FMV Land: $15,457 Certified FMV Bldg: $0 Certified FMV Total: $15,457 Property Description: IRVINGTON ADDITION BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 6 Potential Critical Areas  In an Airport Overlay? No In a FEMA Flood Zone? No In Mineral Resource Lands? No In a No Shooting Area? No In Potential Spotted Owl Habitat? No In Shoreline Jurisdiction? No In a Landslide Hazard Area? No In a Soil Erosion Area? No In a Soil Seismic Area? No In an Unstable Shoreline Area? No In a DNR Stream? No In a DNR Waterbody? No In a Wetland? No In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area? No In a Conservation Futures Area? No In a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone? No In a Channel Migration Zone? No In a Marbled Murrelet Area? No Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential Urban Growth Area:       Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR‐5: Rural  residential zoning classification.  9. Housing  6 c.  Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:  The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 68 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics   b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the project's clearcutting.  We choose to live rural for the rural look NOT to see 68 homes!   The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet.   12. Recreation    b. and c. The applicant's proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the backyards of the  lots”  unnecessary.   Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National  Scenic Trail.  A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required.    14. Transportation    a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a  single road with one access to a public highway.  This makes emergency access and egress problematic.  In an  emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes.  On a daily basis the single intersection access to  Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available  due to lack of a bus turn around.    7 d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done.    15. Public Services    a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comments from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”.    16. Utilities    No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested.  The applicant should be required to provide the requested information.    General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses:    On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of  something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the  checklist.   For example, below is a question from the checklist.  c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.    The response is in bold.  Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs,  driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is  required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is  addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes  the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology  Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.     8 In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’  In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow”     In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and  again we will do “something” with no specificity.  A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts.  Please ask the applicant to answer the questions.        Thank you   Wallace Allen    53 Nelsons Landing Rd  Port Townsend  1 Helena Smith From:Tara clanton <tclanton03@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 1:15 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 General process comments. I lived on Nelson's Landing for over 25 years. We chose to live in a rural residential area. We stayed here to raise our children because of the peaceful nature, wildlife and many other things. Many residents around here are very confused how the county would allow 68 homes to be put on 27 acres in a rural area as am I. I can't imagine all the trees being cut down that make this area so beautiful. And homes right on the Larry Scott Train. I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas holiday period, adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted, published, and mailed. With the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process, it seems there should be a long, well considered public comment period. The public comment period of 2 weeks seems absurd considering the public notice posted on Cape George Rd is facing the road rather than an angle where traffic can see it. Please consider restarting the public comment process. Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments Section A Background A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults before finishing the roads and utilities. 2 The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in the roads never being paved. Development businesses fail regularly, the applicant's corporate license is currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site. A8. The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID lockdowns. Current TIA studies should be required. Section B Environmental Elements 2. Air b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site. Residents surrounding the project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful. Once the trees are removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project. 3. Water a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site. Our land sees this seasonal wetland. The overflow rain water from the property adjacent to Nelsons Landing and Discovery Road runs under Discovery Rd, behind the first home on Nelsons Landing into our empty property then under Nelsons Landing into our main living property and our neighbors as well. Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands. 4. Plants d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing restriction area” around the perimeter of the site” Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site helps to preserve the existing vegetation. Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. The clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of the project area. To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter. 3 e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”. The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain Scotch Broom. Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species. Development activities which take place over more than a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species. According to The Washington Invasive Species Council: “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense, impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds, which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.” “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state regions” According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and horses.” “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil disturbance.”   According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:   Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required. 5. Animals a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons, and migratory birds are regularly seen. The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway. All of the project area is used in one way or another by migratory birds. The applicant's assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS dataset. 4 “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”. The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area for habitat. We personally have a family of bald eagles that fly over us all year long. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project. https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community. Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail to public use. Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal. Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction. The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as county departments have been included in this process. Becky Blanchard Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions p: 503-808-2449 becky.blanchard@usda.gov e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”. The response is, “RR-5: Rural residential. When deciding on a potential forever home, we chose RURAL RESIDENTIAL!! When we go to the public land records, this is what it says: Zoning Description: RR-5 - Rural Residential! When discussing this project with several people they are just as confused as I am as to how we can have a RR-5 turn into 27 acres of 68 homes... The rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this project. 5 When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is that correct?” the answer was YES Also, while looking at all the property purchased by the applicant, I have found each of the plats are also RR-5. Check out this parcel for example: Tax Parcel:963601501 Property Details Parcel ID: 963601501 Owner: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO LLC Site Address: Assessed Acres: 0.66 Section: 17 Township: 30N Range: 1W School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire District: EJFR (1) Tax Code: 0111 Planning Area: Quimper (2) Subdivision: 9636 - IRVINGTON Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - Vacant Land Neighborhood Description: 5340 - S16&17 T30 R1W SALEM,EVERGRN,IRVING&SUNNYSIDE PKS,PIONEER AC Certified FMV Year: 2020 Certified FMV Land: $15,457 Certified FMV Bldg: $0 Certified FMV Total: $15,457 Property Description: IRVINGTON ADDITION BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 6 Potential Critical Areas In an Airport Overlay? No In a FEMA Flood Zone? No In Mineral Resource Lands? No In a No Shooting Area? No In Potential Spotted Owl Habitat? No In Shoreline Jurisdiction? No In a Landslide Hazard Area? No In a Soil Erosion Area? No In a Soil Seismic Area? No In an Unstable Shoreline Area? No In a DNR Stream? No In a DNR Waterbody? No In a Wetland? No In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area? No In a Conservation Futures Area? No In a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone? No In a Channel Migration Zone? No In a Marbled Murrelet Area? No 6 Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential Urban Growth Area: Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR-5: Rural residential zoning classification. 9. Housing c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 68 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the project's clearcutting.  We choose to live rural for the rural look NOT to see 68 homes!   The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet. 12. Recreation b. and c. The applicant's proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the backyards of the lots” unnecessary. Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required. 14. Transportation 7 a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a single road with one access to a public highway. This makes emergency access and egress problematic. In an emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes. On a daily basis the single intersection access to Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available due to lack of a bus turn around. d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done. 15. Public Services a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comments from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”. 16. Utilities No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested. The applicant should be required to provide the requested information. General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses: On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the checklist. For example, below is a question from the checklist. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The response is in bold. 8 Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs, driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’ In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow” In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and again we will do “something” with no specificity. A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts. Please ask the applicant to answer the questions. Thank you for your time. Tara Clanton 360-301-6225 72 Nelsons Landing Rd Port Townsend 1 Helena Smith From:Aly Rhyan <alycat785@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:23 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:Zachary Dean Subject:SEPA Comments -Proposed Cape George Rd Development Attachments:SEPA Comments-Cape George Development.pdf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Shannen, Please find our attached comments regarding the SEPA determination for the proposed Cape George Rd Development. Please reply to this email confirming you have received it. Thank you for your time, Zachary and Alyson Dean 180 Cape George Rd Jefferson County DCD Attn: Project Planner-Shannen Cartmel RE: Comments Concerning PUBLIC NOTICE of Pending SEPA Determination and Type I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152/SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023/ZON2021-000016- Cape George Development We currently live on Cape George Road and our property is neighboring the proposed 68 parcel development by David Clark. We purchased our 5.11 acre property back in February 2010 in the county so that we would not have many neighbors. My husband grew up just down the road from us and really enjoyed the location. Our property, like the neighboring properties is zoned Rural Residential 5:1 so we thought we wouldn’t be seeing too much more growth around us. We are not opposed to growth in our neighborhood, however, growth on this scale, in an area where home owners are restricted to one home per 5 acres, is not acceptable. When the property of 200 Cape George Road was put on the market in 2019, it was listed as 24 parcels, totaling 20 acres with possibly 10 viable building sites. The so called “compromise” of combining 135 platted lots dating back from 1890 down to 68 new parcels should not be accepted. If approved, this development is actually creating 68 new parcels from 24 original tax parcels. This would greatly increase the density of our rural neighborhood and poses many protentional issues concerning (2)air, (3)water, (4)plants, (5)animals, (10)aesthetics, (11)light and glare, (12)recreation, (14)transportation and (15)public services. First, with the proposal of 68 new parcels, all having their own septic systems, what happens when one or many of them fails? What happens to the neighboring properties who have wells and whose water supply can become contaminated? Yes, there may be set back restrictions, but that doesn’t eliminate the risk. Does the county have a plan if these new septic systems fail? Furthermore, the water pressure is already low, with all the additional use, there is a potential of costly upgrades in the future. What happens if there is a house or wildland fire? Many of us remember the wildland fire that happened in this neighborhood back in 2017. Without the appropriate available waterflow in the future, this may hinder the fire department’s ability to extinguish fires, which could allow the fire to grow exponentially. Fire and water flow testing should be conducted for this project. Secondly, with the clearcutting of the all the trees along the 27 acres, where will all the water runoff accumulate? We have seen issues with flooding and water accumulation in the past, the removal of these trees will only increase this threat in the future. The county should conduct an onsite verification of seasonal wetlands on or within the vicinity of the proposed development. Water runoff and stormwater collection must adequately be addressed. Although we are blocks from the Port Townsend Paper Mill, we still occasionally smell the mill odors. The removal of trees will greatly affect this and the odors will become more apparent in our area. What will happen to all the wildlife in the area? We have many animals that visit our property including deer, coyotes, raccoons, cougars, frogs, owls, ducks, woodpeckers, eagles, blue herons, and many other bird species. With the removal of all the trees in the area, this will harm their livelihood and destroy their habitats. This project should have a study conducted in regards to the wildlife in the area and how it will affect them. There is also the hazard of the wind tunnel that will be created with the clearcutting and remaining measly 20’ tree buffer. This removal will allow these trees that have not seen wind before, to be tossed around. These trees are weaker and have a higher potential to fall. These trees can fall along the Cape George Road into the power lines which is hazardous to drivers along the road as well as all the existing neighboring homes. Furthermore, our house, as well as others, will now be exposed to Cape George Road as the proposed 20’ buffer won’t hinder much. This buffer should be increased to help preserve the area. The tree removal will also bring additional road noise to our home which has been muffled and buffered by the trees. Not only will the homes along Cape George Road be exposed, but the Larry Scott Trail and properties along it will be as well. The 20’ buffer does not cover the entire trail and homes are directly exposed to the trail. The proposal has 26 new homes along the trail which can be potentially hazardous to the people, pets and horses walking along the trail. This exposure degrades the trail and removes what attracts people to the trail; the trees, wildlife and peacefulness of the rural area. The aesthetics of our area, the part that drove us to purchase the property will change. There will be no more trees, just 68 new homes. This is not why we moved to our location. The developer is not a local and has no desire to preserve what is here. He won’t care what is done to the trees or what it will look like in the end. We do. Our neighbors do. The people that grew up here do. That’s what should matter. The people that want to continue to live here, in a place where we have lived and will continue to live for years to come. Thirdly, with all additional homes, means additional traffic on an already busy and high-speed road. The current speed limit goes up at our driveway to 50mph. We already have cars speeding up on us as we are pulling into our driveway as do many other home owners before us. The roads were not built for the potential traffic that will come from this size of development. The traffic study that was completed for this proposal was done at the peak of COVID where many drivers were not on the road. It does not reflect what the actual traffic was pre-COVID. Will there be another study that will be conducted post COVID? The county needs to address the speed limit issue. The need for public services will increase as well with this size of development. This project should be required to receive comment from public services such as police and fire/ems. Concerns from these departments must be address adequately. In addition to all the traffic, there will be an extensive period of additional noise due to construction. More vehicles will be going in and out of the development as new houses go in. If the roads are gravel roads until 90 percent of the project is complete, there will be additional dust constantly in the air. This may also lead to the roads never being paved. Will there be the requirement of streetlights within the development? If there is street lighting required within the development, this allows for more uplight and light pollution. Our view of the rural night sky and stars will be hindered with the glare of additional home and streetlights. Lastly, our driveway goes through parcel number 963600701 parallel to what was platted as 2 nd street. Per the county records, our driveway was put in prior to 01/01/1968. Our overhead power lines that run along our driveway were installed by Puget Sound Energy on 10/26/1978. We submitted a building permit on 09/09/2010 to build our current dwelling and that permit was finalized on 06/30/2011. That permit stated that we had an easement off Cape George Rd that was approved by the county. We have used our driveway ever since, not knowing there would be any issues in the future. We submitted our current permit on 01/20/2021 and were notified on 02/08/2021 that we did not have a recorded easement as noted previously by the county and would need to obtain one from the developer who currently owns the property. We have tried to work with the property owner over the last 10 months and he is very hesitant to giving us an easement to have continued exclusive use of our driveway. His most recent submittals do not show our driveway clearly identified as it has in the past. This is very concerning to us, especially since our property has had exclusive use of the driveway for over 50 years. The potential development is now opening it up to 40 new homes to use our driveway if they choose not to use the main access point. Our gravel driveway was not built for this much use and is only 15’ in width which does not leave room for 2-way traffic. In addition, based on the proposal’s road layout, our driveway will have 2-way cross traffic along it at the intersection of parcel AL, AD, AK and AF. How is this potential hazard of use by multiple cars, pedestrians, pets and children going to be addressed? This intersection also has issues with our overhead utility lines that run parallel to our driveway and do not meet minimum clearance standards. These lines not only feed our house, but our neighbors as well. The clearance has not been an issue but will be if vehicles are required to drive under them to cross our driveway. Who is the responsible party for paying for the undergrounding of these lines or installation of taller poles to raise the lines? The potential additional use and cross traffic along our private driveway should not be allowed. We are hoping these concerns regarding our driveway will be addressed with the county’s clarification issued to David Clark on 10/18/2021. There are many issues with this proposal and we find it very detrimental to our rural neighborhood. We, as well as many of our neighbors, would like to preserve the aesthetics of our neighborhood and surrounding area. Thank you for taking the time to read this and allow the neighboring homeowners of this potential development to voice their concerns. Kind Regards, Zachary and Alyson Dean 1 Helena Smith From:Mike doan <oneshot37@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 4:31 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Public Notice of pending SEPA Determination and Type 1 land use application-Cape George Land Co LLC ________________________________ ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. ________________________________ Hello, My husband and I own property which directly adjoins the proposed development, at 150 Nelsons Landing Rd. I strongly concur with our neighbor, Chris Hanson/Linda Mattos. I request public comment period to be extended, as most neighbors had not heard of this development until the letter came out. We were told by our realtor the land on either side of the Larry Scott Trail would never be developed, let alone to the degree the developer is proposing. With reviewing the proposed maps, how can there be proper set backs and a 40ft road along the back of our property? Let alone, room to build homes, and septics. I can attest there is wetlands along the back of our property, as it floods occasionally. I can also attest to many species of owls that habitat the trees behind our house, along the LST. Other concern, the developer is proposing using Nelsons Landing as a possible outlet to his development. Our road is not designed for that amount of traffic flow. When Cape George Rd was recently closed due to recent storm, our road became a freeway, and very unsafe. It is a one lane road! Thank you for your time and consideration, Angel and Michael Doan 150 Nelsons Landing Rd 360-385-6683 Sent from my iPad 1 Helena Smith From:MARIE DRESSLER <mmdressler@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 3:24 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:SEPA Environmental Review MLA20-00152 and MLA 21-00023 Public comments Attachments:Jeff Co Planning Development SEPA Dec 2021.docx ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Dear Ms. Cartmel, Please find the attached letter detailing our concerns regarding this proposed development. Sincerely, Marie M Dressler P O BOX 331 Port Townsend, WA 98368 December 29, 2021 Shannen Cartmel, Project Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Pending SEPA Determination and Type 1 Land Use Application Dear Madam, We write to share our concerns regarding the above application; firstly the link provided in your letter to us did not take us to the documents required to give the information necessary for us to understand the exact nature and extent of the proposed development. We lost precious research time by this inaccuracy. Additionally, with Christmas falling within the comment period, a paralyzing snow storm and the ongoing Covid 19 pandemic, we have had insufficient time to research the issue as thoroughly as we would like. However, we see numerous areas of concern should this development be allowed to proceed. 1. This is RURAL Washington, not suitable for a high density, prefabricated housing estate, causing degradation of the environment by ‘clear cutting’ of the RURAL lands cape, destruction of wetlands and animal, bird and reptile habitats. This proposed development does NOT maintain the Rural Character of Jefferson County as set forth in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Revised by ORD#01-0105-09 2. There is no infrastructure to support such a development with the likelihood of around 200 people residing on the site; already there is congestion, regular ‘fender benders’ and daily ‘near misses’ at the Discovery Road/Mill Road vehicular bottleneck, we can only imagine the chaos which will undoubtedly occur with a couple of hundred extra vehicles trying to get out on to Discovery Road from C ape George Road, daily. 3. The Larry Scott Trail is a huge asset to visitors and residents of our county, by situating this development along the trail, with minimal or no adequate vegetation screen, one of our great local amenities will be destroyed. 4. The presence of Scotch Broom has not been recognized on the application and is yet another issue which has been ignored and not addressed by the applicant. 5. What evidence does the applicant provide to support the statement ‘that the need for public services will not likely be “significant”? Has a study been conducted by the applicant, or have EJFR and the Jefferson County Sheriff confirmed that assertion? 6. The applicant does not appear to have a plan for dealing with the inevitable water run-off from the c reation of a seriously significant amount impervious surface. Fields across from Nelson’s Landing Road/ Discovery Road flood in the wet season, together with the land on the corner of Nelson’s Landing Road, this situation will only worsen and cause problems if this development is allowed to go ahead. We are strongly opposed to this type of dense development, the degradation of our rural environment, the loss of animal, bird and reptile habitats, as well as the destruction of our rural existence, where each home-site has been designated to be on acreage, NOT on 0.1147841 of an acre, which is 5,000 sq. ft., the planned size of each home site of this development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marie M Dressler William E Nance 1 Helena Smith From:John Fleming Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:11 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:RE: Notice of Pending SEPA Determination and Associated Type I Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Hi Shannen: I had scheduled time enough to be able to respond to the SEPA review request by DCD with compiling the old responses. However, there are 2 things impeding meeting the deadline at 4:30 pm december 29, 2021 for you to receive the PW response: 1) The SEPA has been revised (July 29, 2021) , in response to DCD comments, so I need to go through it all again with a fine toothed comb 2) The workdays have been cut short by County Administrator’s orders for closure of County offices for 10 hours so far this week Therefore, I formally request extension for comments to be delivered to DCD from PW for 1 week, until 4:30 pm Friday, January 7, 2022. Thank you, John Fleming PE Development Review Engineer Public Works 360-385-9160 main 360-385-9217 desk 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. From: Mark McCauley Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 5:05 PM To: All Staff <allstaff@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: County Hours - December 29 Good evening! County offices will again open two hours late on Wednesday, December 29 th. Our delayed opening has been helpful in ensuring our employees can get to work safely. We’ll decide tomorrow whether to close early again. Thursday could be a closure day if some snow predictions come to pass. We’ll keep you posted. Thank you. Mark 2 From: Mark McCauley Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 11:03 AM To: All Staff <allstaff@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Early Closure - Tuesday, December 28th Good morning again, all. The fun continues! The county will close at 3:00 pm again today in the interest of employee safety. Again, Public Works employees should check in with their supervisor. Look for another all staff email later today regarding tomorrow’s hours in addition to a recorded message at 360-385- 9373 to be available early in the evening. As last night proves though, the situation is fluid and can change quickly. If necessary we’ll provide an update. Stay tuned. Sincerely, Mark From: Mark McCauley Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 1:32 AM To: All Staff <allstaff@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Directors <directors@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Electeds <electeds@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: County Hours - December 28 Good morning! Based on a strong recommendation from Matt Stewart, our Road Maintenance Superintendent, the County will open two hours late on Tuesday, December 28th. It appears as though we will see 3 to 4 inches of additional snow this morning making the commute more dangerous than it would have been otherwise. Matt’s road staff are doing what they can to keep up with the accumulating snow – but that will take some time. Please be careful driving later today. We want to see your smiling faces. Thank you. Mark From: Mark McCauley Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 11:14 AM To: All Staff <allstaff@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Early Closure - Monday, December 27th Good morning, all. The county will close at 3:00 pm today due to the adverse weather and road conditions. We want you to complete your commute while there is still daylight – much safer that way. Again, Public Works employees should check in with their supervisor. 3 We’ll keep an eye on weather and road conditions as the day wears on. An all staff email will be sent out later today regarding tomorrow’s hours in addition to a recorded message at 360-385-9373. Chances are we’ll be back on a normal schedule tomorrow and Wednesday, but we’ll see. Thanks for all you do. Sincerely, Mark From: Mark McCauley Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2021 5:29 PM To: All Staff <allstaff@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Delayed County Opening - Monday, December 27th Good evening, all. I hope you all had a great Christmas. The county will open two hours later than normal tomorrow due to the adverse weather and road conditions. Be safe as you drive – we value you and want you to be safe. Sincerely, Mark From: Mark McCauley Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 11:42 AM To: All Staff <allstaff@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: County Procedures for Closures for Inclement Weather or Power Outages Good morning. Current weather forecasts show that snow is possible this weekend and early next week along with very cold temperatures. Because of this here is a refresher regarding our procedures & policies on County closures for inclement weather or power outages. Starting on Sunday evening and during off hours in the days that follow, you can call 360-385-9373 for a recorded message (or 360-385-9100 and press 7) to find out if County facilities are closed or will have a delayed opening. We will keep a watch on the weather and safety conditions, and update the message if conditions change. Our highly valued Public Works employees should check in with their supervisors regarding their work schedules during the impending inclement weather period. The County’s Personnel Administration Manual and County Resolution No. 005-12 and Resolution No. 069-07, both attached, established our procedures for when and how county facilities will be closed by the County Commissioners or County Administrator, and when staff will be paid after they are sent home or ordered not to report to work. We also coordinate with the Courts as to General Rule 21 on emergency court closures. When a facility has been closed by the Board of Commissioners or the County Administrator, staff who are thus prevented from working and have been sent home, may be paid wages. If a facility has not been closed by the Commissioners or Administrator, staff who are sent home will not be paid wages. Instead they will need to use vacation, a personal day, comp time, or PTO. If they have no leave or comp time to use, the time off will be unpaid. Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas. 4 Sincerely, Mark Mark McCauley Interim County Administrator mmccauley@co.jefferson.wa.us (360) 385-9130 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Shannen Cartmel Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 8:49 PM To: Sherrie Shold <SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Scott Bancroft <Sbancroft@jeffpud.org>; Pinky Mingo <pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kevin Hitchcock <kmhitchcock@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joe Nole <JNole@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Michael S. Perin <MSPerin@co.jefferson.wa.us>; ted.allison@dnr.wa.gov; levi.puksta@dnr.wa.gov; Terry Duff <TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us>; John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; sepadesk@dfw.wa.gov; sepa@dahp.wa.gov; sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov; samg@portofpt.com; greg@portofpt.com; Eric Kuzma <ekuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us>; eric@portofpt.com; Monte Reinders <MReinders@co.jefferson.wa.us>; btracer@ejfr.org; chief@ejfr.org; bgraham@jeffpud.org; dsarff@skokomish.org; thpo@jamestowntribe.org; Stormy Purser <thpo@pgst.nsn.us>; romac@pgst.nsn.us; crossi@pnptc.org; ataylor@jamestowntribe.org; ataylor@jamestowntribe.org; Dennis Lewarch <dlewarch@Suquamish.nsn.us>; Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP) <stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com; Jeff Chapman <JChapman@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: lleach@peninsuladailynews.com; jeffconews@peninsuladailynews.com; jmcmacken@peninsuladailynews.com Subject: Notice of Pending SEPA Determination and Associated Type I Permits MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Good evening, Please see the below notice of application. You can access all the case files here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx . The SEPA Checklist is attached. Please note, the comment period begins tomorrow 12/15/2021 and ends 12.29/2021 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 APPLICANT: Cape George Land Company CO LLC PO BOX 4438 Olympia, WA 98501-1779 Project Numbers: MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Application Received Date: January 1, 2021 Application Notice Date: December 15, 2021 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcels: 963600101, 963600301, 963600401, 963600501, 963600601, 963600701, 963600801, 963600901, 963601001, 963601101, 963601201, 963601301, 963601401, 963601501, 963601601, 963601701, 963601801, 963601901, 963602001, 963602101, 963602201, 963602301, 963602401, 963303401, 963304102, 963304103; Section 17 - Township 30 N - Range 1 W. Port Townsend, WA 98368. 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: SUB2020-00018 and ZON2021-00016 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Notice of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the entire proposal to reconfigure and develop 135 originally platted lots in 1890 on 23 tax parcels into 68 resultant tax parcels. This proposal consists of the development of 27 acres into 68 homes sites through a boundary line adjustment (BLA) to reconfigure the lots. The proposal also requires a Jefferson County Class IV General Stormwater Permit with a Forest Practice Application (FPA) Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), road right-of-way and development permits, and septic and building permits for each parcel. The applicant proposes to install a manufactured home on each resultant lot. The applicant has submitted a preliminary engineered stormwater management plan for the planned clearing and grading, a traffic impact analysis (TIA), a preliminary BLA Survey, preliminary road designs, and a SEPA Checklist for this proposal. Jefferson County issued an outstanding additional information request on October 7, 2021, which requires the applicant to prove each lot is buildable (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.040(6)). This requires preliminary septic designs for each lot, proving buildable areas in conjunction with onsite slopes, allowing for road right-of-way, and providing evidence of the ability to accommodate onsite stormwater management for each lot. This request has the potential to alter the proposal into fewer resultant lots. Jefferson County has opted to evaluate and postpone a SEPA Determination to allow for public comments and any revisions to be reviewed and incorporated in making the decision. COMMENT PERIOD, SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: Jefferson County will issue a SEPA Determination Public Notice, after review of a completed environmental checklist, public comments, required additional information and other information on file with the agency. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. Copies of the project are available to the public upon request from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. The project documents can also be acce ssed online here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx. Written comments must be submitted to the Department of Community Development no later than 4:30 p.m. on December 29, 2021. If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Submit comments to scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us, in person, or by mail at, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Project Planner: Shannen Cartmel, 360-379-4450 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community Development web page at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 1 Helena Smith From:Brandi Hamon <brandihamon@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:07 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION  MLA20‐00152 / SUB2020‐00018 and MLA21‐00023 / ZON2021‐000016     General process comments.  I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas  holiday period,  adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted,  published, and mailed.    With the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process, it seems there should be a long, well considered public  comment period.  The public comment period of 2 weeks seems absurd considering the public notice posted  on Cape George Rd is facing the road rather than an angle where traffic can see it.   Please consider restarting the public comment process.     Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments  Section A Background  A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The  community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults  before finishing the roads and utilities.  The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in  the roads never being paved.  Development businesses fail regularly, the applicant's corporate license is  currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site.     2 A8.  The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID  lockdowns.  Current TIA studies should be required.     Section B Environmental Elements  2. Air   b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site.  Residents surrounding the  project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful.  Once the trees are  removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project.     3. Water   a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of  the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site.  Our land sees this seasonal wetland.  The overflow  rain water from the property adjacent to Nelsons Landing and Discovery Road runs under Discovery Rd,  behind the first home on Nelsons Landing into our empty property then under Nelsons Landing into our main  living property and our neighbors as well.  Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands.     4. Plants  d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing  restriction area” around the perimeter of the site”  Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site helps to preserve the existing vegetation.  Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting  the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail.  The  clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of  the project area.  To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter.        e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”.  The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain  Scotch Broom.  Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species.  3 Development activities which take place over more than a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils  and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species.  According to The Washington Invasive Species Council:  “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense,  impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest  regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds,  which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.”   “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch  broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state  regions”  According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board:  “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to  form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and  horses.”  “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil  disturbance.”    According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:   Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson     Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required.     5. Animals  a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons,  and  migratory birds are regularly seen.  The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway.  All of the project  area is used in one way or another by migratory birds.  The applicant's assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS  dataset.  “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does  not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are  mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we  4 have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note  that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”.  The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area  for habitat. We personally have a family of bald eagles that fly over us all year long.    8. Land and Shoreline Use  a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home  This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community.  Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail  to public use.  Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal.  Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer.  The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction.  The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as  county departments have been included in this process.  Becky Blanchard  Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator  Forest Service  Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions  p: 503‐808‐2449  becky.blanchard@usda.gov     e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”.  The response is, “RR‐5: Rural residential.    When deciding on a potential forever home, we chose RURAL RESIDENTIAL!!  When we go to the public land  records, this is what it says: Zoning Description: RR-5 - Rural Residential! When discussing this project with several  people they are just as confused as I am as to how we can have a RR‐5 turn into 27 acres of 68 homes...  The  rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this  project.  When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel  boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is  that correct?” the answer was YES  5 Also, while looking at all the property purchased by the applicant, I have found each of the plats are also RR‐5.  Check  out this parcel for example:   Tax Parcel:963601501   Property Details  Parcel ID: 963601501 Owner: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO LLC Site Address: Assessed Acres: 0.66 Section: 17 Township: 30N Range: 1W School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire District: EJFR (1) Tax Code: 0111 Planning Area: Quimper (2) Subdivision: 9636 - IRVINGTON Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - Vacant Land Neighborhood Description: 5340 - S16&17 T30 R1W SALEM,EVERGRN,IRVING&SUNNYSIDE PKS,PIONEER AC Certified FMV Year: 2020 Certified FMV Land: $15,457 Certified FMV Bldg: $0 Certified FMV Total: $15,457 Property Description: IRVINGTON ADDITION BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 6 Potential Critical Areas  In an Airport Overlay? No In a FEMA Flood Zone? No In Mineral Resource Lands? No In a No Shooting Area? No In Potential Spotted Owl Habitat? No In Shoreline Jurisdiction? No In a Landslide Hazard Area? No In a Soil Erosion Area? No In a Soil Seismic Area? No In an Unstable Shoreline Area? No In a DNR Stream? No In a DNR Waterbody? No In a Wetland? No In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area? No In a Conservation Futures Area? No In a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone? No In a Channel Migration Zone? No In a Marbled Murrelet Area? No Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential Urban Growth Area:       6 Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR‐5: Rural  residential zoning classification.  9. Housing  c.  Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:  The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 68 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics   b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the project's clearcutting.  We choose to live rural for the rural look NOT to see 68 homes!   The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet.   12. Recreation    b. and c. The applicant's proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the backyards of the  lots”  unnecessary.   Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National  Scenic Trail.  A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required.    14. Transportation    a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a  single road with one access to a public highway.  This makes emergency access and egress problematic.  In an  emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes.  On a daily basis the single intersection access to  7 Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available  due to lack of a bus turn around.    d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done.    15. Public Services    a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comments from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”.    16. Utilities    No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested.  The applicant should be required to provide the requested information.    General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses:    On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of  something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the  checklist.   For example, below is a question from the checklist.  c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.    The response is in bold.  Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs,  driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is  required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is  8 addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes  the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology  Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.     In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’  In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow”     In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and  again we will do “something” with no specificity.  A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts.  Please ask the applicant to answer the questions.        Thank you for taking my comment into consideration!  Brandi Hamon  360‐821‐1041  74 Nelsons Landing Rd  Port Townsend  1 Helena Smith From:Jean Hamon <flossiehamon@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:37 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION  MLA20‐00152 / SUB2020‐00018 and MLA21‐00023 / ZON2021‐000016     General process comments.  I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas  holiday period,  adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted,  published, and mailed.    With the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process, it seems there should be a long, well considered public  comment period.  The public comment period of 2 weeks seems absurd considering the public notice posted  on Cape George Rd is facing the road rather than an angle where traffic can see it.   Please consider restarting the public comment process.     Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments  Section A Background  A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The  community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults  before finishing the roads and utilities.  The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in  the roads never being paved.  Development businesses fail regularly, the applicant's corporate license is  currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site.     2 A8.  The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID  lockdowns.  Current TIA studies should be required.     Section B Environmental Elements  2. Air   b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site.  Residents surrounding the  project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful.  Once the trees are  removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project.     3. Water   a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of  the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site.  Our land sees this seasonal wetland.  The overflow  rain water from the property adjacent to Nelsons Landing and Discovery Road runs under Discovery Rd,  behind the first home on Nelsons Landing into our empty property then under Nelsons Landing into our main  living property and our neighbors as well.  Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands.     4. Plants  d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing  restriction area” around the perimeter of the site”  Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site helps to preserve the existing vegetation.  Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting  the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail.  The  clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of  the project area.  To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter.        e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”.  The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain  Scotch Broom.  Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species.  3 Development activities which take place over more than a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils  and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species.  According to The Washington Invasive Species Council:  “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense,  impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest  regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds,  which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.”   “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch  broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state  regions”  According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board:  “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to  form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and  horses.”  “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil  disturbance.”    According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:   Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson     Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required.     5. Animals  a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons,  and  migratory birds are regularly seen.  The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway.  All of the project  area is used in one way or another by migratory birds.  The applicant's assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS  dataset.  “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does  not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are  mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we  4 have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note  that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”.  The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area  for habitat. We personally have a family of bald eagles that fly over us all year long.    8. Land and Shoreline Use  a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home  This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community.  Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail  to public use.  Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal.  Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer.  The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction.  The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as  county departments have been included in this process.  Becky Blanchard  Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator  Forest Service  Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions  p: 503‐808‐2449  becky.blanchard@usda.gov     e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”.  The response is, “RR‐5: Rural residential.    We have lived in our home on Nelsons Landing for 47 years.  We love the peaceful nature, the wildlife and teh  community with our neighbors.  We cannot even imagine that the trees and trail beauty will be lost with 19  homes built right to the trail.   We chose to live in a RURAL RESIDENTIAL area!!  When we go to the public land  records, this is what it says: Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential! When discussing this project with several  people they are just as confused as I am as to how we can have a RR‐5 turn into 27 acres of 68 homes...  The  rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this  project.  When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel  boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is  that correct?” the answer was YES  5 Also, while looking at all the property purchased by the applicant, I have found each of the plats are also RR‐5.  Check  out this parcel for example:   Tax Parcel:963601501   Property Details  Parcel ID: 963601501 Owner: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO LLC Site Address: Assessed Acres: 0.66 Section: 17 Township: 30N Range: 1W School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire District: EJFR (1) Tax Code: 0111 Planning Area: Quimper (2) Subdivision: 9636 - IRVINGTON Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - Vacant Land Neighborhood Description: 5340 - S16&17 T30 R1W SALEM,EVERGRN,IRVING&SUNNYSIDE PKS,PIONEER AC Certified FMV Year: 2020 Certified FMV Land: $15,457 Certified FMV Bldg: $0 Certified FMV Total: $15,457 Property Description: IRVINGTON ADDITION BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 6 Potential Critical Areas  In an Airport Overlay? No In a FEMA Flood Zone? No In Mineral Resource Lands? No In a No Shooting Area? No In Potential Spotted Owl Habitat? No In Shoreline Jurisdiction? No In a Landslide Hazard Area? No In a Soil Erosion Area? No In a Soil Seismic Area? No In an Unstable Shoreline Area? No In a DNR Stream? No In a DNR Waterbody? No In a Wetland? No In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area? No In a Conservation Futures Area? No In a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone? No In a Channel Migration Zone? No In a Marbled Murrelet Area? No Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential Urban Growth Area:       6 Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR‐5: Rural  residential zoning classification.  9. Housing  c.  Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:  The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 68 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics   b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the project's clearcutting.  We choose to live rural for the rural look NOT to see 68 homes!   The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet.   12. Recreation    b. and c. The applicant's proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the backyards of the  lots”  unnecessary.   Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National  Scenic Trail.  A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required.    14. Transportation    a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a  single road with one access to a public highway.  This makes emergency access and egress problematic.  In an  emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes.  On a daily basis the single intersection access to  7 Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available  due to lack of a bus turn around.    d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done.    15. Public Services    a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comments from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”.    16. Utilities    No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested.  The applicant should be required to provide the requested information.    General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses:    On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of  something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the  checklist.   For example, below is a question from the checklist.  c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.    The response is in bold.  Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs,  driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is  required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is  8 addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes  the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology  Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.     In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’  In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow”     In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and  again we will do “something” with no specificity.  A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts.  Please ask the applicant to answer the questions.        Thank you for taking my comment into consideration!  Flossie "Jean" Hamon  360‐643‐1608 (message)  74 Nelsons Landing  Port Townsend  1 Helena Smith From:Nick Hamon <nickhamon.12699@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:11 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION  MLA20‐00152 / SUB2020‐00018 and MLA21‐00023 / ZON2021‐000016     General process comments.  I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas  holiday period,  adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted,  published, and mailed.    With the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process, it seems there should be a long, well considered public  comment period.  The public comment period of 2 weeks seems absurd considering the public notice posted  on Cape George Rd is facing the road rather than an angle where traffic can see it.   Please consider restarting the public comment process.     Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments  Section A Background  A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The  community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults  before finishing the roads and utilities.  The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in  the roads never being paved.  Development businesses fail regularly, the applicant's corporate license is  currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site.     2 A8.  The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID  lockdowns.  Current TIA studies should be required.     Section B Environmental Elements  2. Air   b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site.  Residents surrounding the  project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful.  Once the trees are  removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project.     3. Water   a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of  the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site.  Our land sees this seasonal wetland.  The overflow  rain water from the property adjacent to Nelsons Landing and Discovery Road runs under Discovery Rd,  behind the first home on Nelsons Landing into our empty property then under Nelsons Landing into our main  living property and our neighbors as well.  Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands.     4. Plants  d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing  restriction area” around the perimeter of the site”  Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site helps to preserve the existing vegetation.  Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting  the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail.  The  clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of  the project area.  To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter.        e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”.  The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain  Scotch Broom.  Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species.  3 Development activities which take place over more than a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils  and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species.  According to The Washington Invasive Species Council:  “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense,  impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest  regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds,  which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.”   “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch  broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state  regions”  According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board:  “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to  form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and  horses.”  “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil  disturbance.”    According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:   Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson     Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required.     5. Animals  a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons,  and  migratory birds are regularly seen.  The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway.  All of the project  area is used in one way or another by migratory birds.  The applicant's assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS  dataset.  “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does  not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are  mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we  4 have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note  that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”.  The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area  for habitat. We personally have a family of bald eagles that fly over us all year long.    8. Land and Shoreline Use  a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home  This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community.  Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail  to public use.  Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal.  Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer.  The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction.  The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as  county departments have been included in this process.  Becky Blanchard  Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator  Forest Service  Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions  p: 503‐808‐2449  becky.blanchard@usda.gov     e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”.  The response is, “RR‐5: Rural residential.    When deciding on a potential forever home, we chose RURAL RESIDENTIAL!!  When we go to the public land  records, this is what it says: Zoning Description: RR-5 - Rural Residential! When discussing this project with several  people they are just as confused as I am as to how we can have a RR‐5 turn into 27 acres of 68 homes...  The  rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this  project.  When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel  boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is  that correct?” the answer was YES  5 Also, while looking at all the property purchased by the applicant, I have found each of the plats are also RR‐5.  Check  out this parcel for example:   Tax Parcel:963601501   Property Details  Parcel ID: 963601501 Owner: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO LLC Site Address: Assessed Acres: 0.66 Section: 17 Township: 30N Range: 1W School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire District: EJFR (1) Tax Code: 0111 Planning Area: Quimper (2) Subdivision: 9636 - IRVINGTON Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - Vacant Land Neighborhood Description: 5340 - S16&17 T30 R1W SALEM,EVERGRN,IRVING&SUNNYSIDE PKS,PIONEER AC Certified FMV Year: 2020 Certified FMV Land: $15,457 Certified FMV Bldg: $0 Certified FMV Total: $15,457 Property Description: IRVINGTON ADDITION BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 6 Potential Critical Areas  In an Airport Overlay? No In a FEMA Flood Zone? No In Mineral Resource Lands? No In a No Shooting Area? No In Potential Spotted Owl Habitat? No In Shoreline Jurisdiction? No In a Landslide Hazard Area? No In a Soil Erosion Area? No In a Soil Seismic Area? No In an Unstable Shoreline Area? No In a DNR Stream? No In a DNR Waterbody? No In a Wetland? No In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area? No In a Conservation Futures Area? No In a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone? No In a Channel Migration Zone? No In a Marbled Murrelet Area? No Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential Urban Growth Area:       6 Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR‐5: Rural  residential zoning classification.  9. Housing  c.  Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:  The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 68 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics   b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the project's clearcutting.  We choose to live rural for the rural look NOT to see 68 homes!   The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet.   12. Recreation    b. and c. The applicant's proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the backyards of the  lots”  unnecessary.   Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National  Scenic Trail.  A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required.    14. Transportation    a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a  single road with one access to a public highway.  This makes emergency access and egress problematic.  In an  emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes.  On a daily basis the single intersection access to  7 Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available  due to lack of a bus turn around.    d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done.    15. Public Services    a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comments from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”.    16. Utilities    No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested.  The applicant should be required to provide the requested information.    General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses:    On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of  something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the  checklist.   For example, below is a question from the checklist.  c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.    The response is in bold.  Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs,  driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is  required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is  8 addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes  the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology  Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.     In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’  In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow”     In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and  again we will do “something” with no specificity.  A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts.  Please ask the applicant to answer the questions.        Thank you for taking my comment into consideration!  Nicholas Hamon  360‐821‐1041 (message)  74 Nelsons Landing  Port Townsend  1 Helena Smith From:Brandi Hamon <travishamon@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:55 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 General process comments. I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas holiday period, adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted, published, and mailed. With the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process, it seems there should be a long, well considered public comment period. The public comment period of 2 weeks seems absurd considering the public notice posted on Cape George Rd is facing the road rather than an angle where traffic can see it. Please consider restarting the public comment process. Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments Section A Background A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults before finishing the roads and utilities. The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in the roads never being paved. Development businesses fail regularly, the applicant's corporate license is currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site. A8. The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID lockdowns. Current TIA studies should be required. Section B Environmental Elements 2. Air b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site. Residents surrounding the project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful. Once the trees are removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project. 3. Water a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site. Our land sees this seasonal wetland. The overflow rain water from the property adjacent to Nelsons Landing and Discovery Road 2 runs under Discovery Rd, behind the first home on Nelsons Landing into our empty property then under Nelsons Landing into our main living property and our neighbors as well. Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands. 4. Plants d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing restriction area” around the perimeter of the site” Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site helps to preserve the existing vegetation. Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. The clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of the project area. To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter. e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”. The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain Scotch Broom. Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species. Development activities which take place over more than a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species. According to The Washington Invasive Species Council: “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense, impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds, which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.” “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state regions” According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and horses.” “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil disturbance.”   According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:   Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required. 5. Animals a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons, and migratory birds are regularly seen. The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway. All of the project area is used in one way or another by migratory birds. The applicant's assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS dataset. “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, 3 points, lines and polygons are mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”. The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area for habitat. We personally have a family of bald eagles that fly over us all year long. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project. https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community. Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail to public use. Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal. Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction. The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as county departments have been included in this process. Becky Blanchard Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions p: 503-808-2449 becky.blanchard@usda.gov e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”. The response is, “RR-5: Rural residential. When deciding on a potential forever home, we chose RURAL RESIDENTIAL!! When we go to the public land records, this is what it says: Zoning Description: RR-5 - Rural Residential! When discussing this project with several people they are just as confused as I am as to how we can have a RR-5 turn into 27 acres of 68 homes... The rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this project. When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is that correct?” the answer was YES Also, while looking at all the property purchased by the applicant, I have found each of the plats are also RR-5. Check out this parcel for example: Tax Parcel:963601501 Property Details Parcel ID: 963601501 Owner: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO LLC Site Address: Assessed Acres: 0.66 Section: 17 Township: 30N Range: 1W 4 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire District: EJFR (1) Tax Code: 0111 Planning Area: Quimper (2) Subdivision: 9636 - IRVINGTON Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - Vacant Land Neighborhood Description: 5340 - S16&17 T30 R1W SALEM,EVERGRN,IRVING&SUNNYSIDE PKS,PIONEER AC Certified FMV Year: 2020 Certified FMV Land: $15,457 Certified FMV Bldg: $0 Certified FMV Total: $15,457 Property Description: IRVINGTON ADDITION BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 6 Potential Critical Areas In an Airport Overlay? No In a FEMA Flood Zone? No In Mineral Resource Lands? No In a No Shooting Area? No In Potential Spotted Owl Habitat? No In Shoreline Jurisdiction? No In a Landslide Hazard Area? No In a Soil Erosion Area? No In a Soil Seismic Area? No In an Unstable Shoreline Area? No In a DNR Stream? No In a DNR Waterbody? No In a Wetland? No In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area? No In a Conservation Futures Area? No In a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone? No In a Channel Migration Zone? No In a Marbled Murrelet Area? No Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential Urban Growth Area: Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR-5: Rural residential zoning classification. 9. Housing c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 68 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics 5 b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the project's clearcutting.  We choose to live rural for the rural look NOT to see 68 homes!   The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet. 12. Recreation b. and c. The applicant's proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the backyards of the lots” unnecessary. Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required. 14. Transportation a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a single road with one access to a public highway. This makes emergency access and egress problematic. In an emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes. On a daily basis the single intersection access to Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available due to lack of a bus turn around. d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done. 15. Public Services a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comments from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”. 16. Utilities No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested. The applicant should be required to provide the requested information. General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses: On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the checklist. For example, below is a question from the checklist. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The response is in bold. 6 Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs, driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’ In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow” In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and again we will do “something” with no specificity. A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts. Please ask the applicant to answer the questions. Thank you for taking my comment into consideration! Travis Hamon 360-316-9176 74 Nelsons Landing Rd Port Townsend   1 Helena Smith From:Wayne Hamon <millettehamon@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:40 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION  MLA20‐00152 / SUB2020‐00018 and MLA21‐00023 / ZON2021‐000016     General process comments.  I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas  holiday period,  adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted,  published, and mailed.    With the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process, it seems there should be a long, well considered public  comment period.  The public comment period of 2 weeks seems absurd considering the public notice posted  on Cape George Rd is facing the road rather than an angle where traffic can see it.   Please consider restarting the public comment process.     Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments  Section A Background  A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The  community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults  before finishing the roads and utilities.  The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in  the roads never being paved.  Development businesses fail regularly, the applicant's corporate license is  currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site.     2 A8.  The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID  lockdowns.  Current TIA studies should be required.     Section B Environmental Elements  2. Air   b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site.  Residents surrounding the  project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful.  Once the trees are  removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project.     3. Water   a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of  the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site.  Our land sees this seasonal wetland.  The overflow  rain water from the property adjacent to Nelsons Landing and Discovery Road runs under Discovery Rd,  behind the first home on Nelsons Landing into our empty property then under Nelsons Landing into our main  living property and our neighbors as well.  Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands.     4. Plants  d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing  restriction area” around the perimeter of the site”  Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site helps to preserve the existing vegetation.  Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting  the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail.  The  clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of  the project area.  To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter.        e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”.  The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain  Scotch Broom.  Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species.  3 Development activities which take place over more than a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils  and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species.  According to The Washington Invasive Species Council:  “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense,  impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest  regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds,  which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.”   “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch  broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state  regions”  According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board:  “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to  form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and  horses.”  “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil  disturbance.”    According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:   Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson     Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required.     5. Animals  a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons,  and  migratory birds are regularly seen.  The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway.  All of the project  area is used in one way or another by migratory birds.  The applicant's assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS  dataset.  “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does  not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are  mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we  4 have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note  that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”.  The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area  for habitat. We personally have a family of bald eagles that fly over us all year long.    8. Land and Shoreline Use  a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home  This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community.  Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail  to public use.  Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal.  Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer.  The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction.  The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as  county departments have been included in this process.  Becky Blanchard  Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator  Forest Service  Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions  p: 503‐808‐2449  becky.blanchard@usda.gov     e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”.  The response is, “RR‐5: Rural residential.    We have lived in our home on Nelsons Landing for 47 years.  We love the peaceful nature, the wildlife and teh  community with our neighbors.  We cannot even imagine that the trees and trail beauty will be lost with 19  homes built right to the trail.   We chose to live in a RURAL RESIDENTIAL area!!  When we go to the public land  records, this is what it says: Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential! When discussing this project with several  people they are just as confused as I am as to how we can have a RR‐5 turn into 27 acres of 68 homes...  The  rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this  project.  When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel  boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is  that correct?” the answer was YES  5 Also, while looking at all the property purchased by the applicant, I have found each of the plats are also RR‐5.  Check  out this parcel for example:   Tax Parcel:963601501   Property Details  Parcel ID: 963601501 Owner: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO LLC Site Address: Assessed Acres: 0.66 Section: 17 Township: 30N Range: 1W School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire District: EJFR (1) Tax Code: 0111 Planning Area: Quimper (2) Subdivision: 9636 - IRVINGTON Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - Vacant Land Neighborhood Description: 5340 - S16&17 T30 R1W SALEM,EVERGRN,IRVING&SUNNYSIDE PKS,PIONEER AC Certified FMV Year: 2020 Certified FMV Land: $15,457 Certified FMV Bldg: $0 Certified FMV Total: $15,457 Property Description: IRVINGTON ADDITION BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 6 Potential Critical Areas  In an Airport Overlay? No In a FEMA Flood Zone? No In Mineral Resource Lands? No In a No Shooting Area? No In Potential Spotted Owl Habitat? No In Shoreline Jurisdiction? No In a Landslide Hazard Area? No In a Soil Erosion Area? No In a Soil Seismic Area? No In an Unstable Shoreline Area? No In a DNR Stream? No In a DNR Waterbody? No In a Wetland? No In a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area? No In a Conservation Futures Area? No In a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone? No In a Channel Migration Zone? No In a Marbled Murrelet Area? No Zoning Description: RR‐5 ‐ Rural Residential Urban Growth Area:       6 Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR‐5: Rural  residential zoning classification.  9. Housing  c.  Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:  The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 68 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics   b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the project's clearcutting.  We choose to live rural for the rural look NOT to see 68 homes!   The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet.   12. Recreation    b. and c. The applicant's proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the backyards of the  lots”  unnecessary.   Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National  Scenic Trail.  A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required.    14. Transportation    a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a  single road with one access to a public highway.  This makes emergency access and egress problematic.  In an  emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes.  On a daily basis the single intersection access to  7 Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available  due to lack of a bus turn around.    d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done.    15. Public Services    a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comments from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”.    16. Utilities    No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested.  The applicant should be required to provide the requested information.    General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses:    On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of  something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the  checklist.   For example, below is a question from the checklist.  c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.    The response is in bold.  Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs,  driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is  required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is  8 addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes  the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology  Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.     In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’  In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow”     In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and  again we will do “something” with no specificity.  A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts.  Please ask the applicant to answer the questions.        Thank you for taking my comment into consideration!  Millette "Wayne" Hamon  360‐316‐9865 (message)  74 Nelsons Landing  Port Townsend  1 Helena Smith From:Christopher Hanson <chris@hopti.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 10:13 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:jeffbocc Subject:Chris Hanson’s comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Shannen Cartmel   Lead Associate Planner   Jefferson County    Below are my  comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE  APPLICATION MLA20‐00152 / SUB2020‐00018 and MLA21‐00023 / ZON2021‐000016    General process comments.  I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas  holiday period,  adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted,  published, and mailed.  My meeting, to ask questions of  DCD staff was rescheduled twice during the notice  period reducing the time available to formulate my comments.   When I read the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process it seems to me that robust, well considered,  public comment is called for. I do not consider the process so far to be supportive of robust, well considered  public comment.  Please consider restarting the public comment process.    Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments  Section A Background  A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The  community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults  before finishing the roads and utilities.  The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in  the roads never being paved.  Development businesses fail regularly, the applicants corporate license is  currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site.   2   A8.  The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID  lockdowns.  Current TIA studies should be required.    Section B Environmental Elements  2. Air    b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site.  Residents surrounding the  project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful.  Once the trees are  removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project.    3. Water    a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of  the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site.  Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal  wetlands.    4. Plants   d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing  restriction area” around the perimeter of the site”  Consulting the provided drawings, no clearing restriction is shown for some portions of the site abutting the  Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail.  The  clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of the  project area.   Given the intensity of the proposed development, the proximity to the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail,  and to preserve the existing vegetation, a 50 foot clearing restriction around the entire perimeter(s) of the  site  should be required.    e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”.  The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain  Scotch Broom.  Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species.  Development activities which take place over more that a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils  and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species.  According to The Washington Invasive Species Council:  “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense,  impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest  regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds,  which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.”  3  “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch  broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state  regions”  According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board:  “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to  form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and  horses.”  “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil  disturbance.”    According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board:    Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed.   Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson  Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required.    5. Animals  a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons,  and  migratory birds are regularly seen.  The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway.  All of the project  area is used in one way or another by migratory birds.  The applicants assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS  dataset.  “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does  not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are  mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we  have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note  that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”.  The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area for  habitat.  8. Land and Shoreline Use  a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project.   https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home  This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community.  Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail  to public use.  Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal.  Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer.  The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction.  4 The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as  county departments have been included in this process.  Becky Blanchard   Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator  Forest Service  Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions  p: 503‐808‐2449  becky.blanchard@usda.gov    e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”.  The response is, “RR‐5: Rural residential.  Every person I have spoken with about this project has expressed utter dismay and anger that the rural  environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this project.  When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel  boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning  requirements. Is that correct?” the answer was YES  Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR‐5: Rural residential zoning  classification.   9. Housing  c.  Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:  The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 71 housing units and  approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted.  The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow.  At this time existing water  lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences.  Fire flow testing should be done, and the  applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires.    10. Aesthetics    b.   The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as  the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect.  There are currently woodland views from The Pacific  Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land.  All of these views will be destroyed by  the projects clearcutting.    The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the  site”  should be increased to 50 feet.    12. Recreation    5 b.  and c.  The applicants proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make  the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the back yards of the  lots”  unnecessary.    Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National  Scenic Trail.  A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required.    14. Transportation    a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a  single road with one access to a public highway.  This makes emergency access and egress problematic.  In an  emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes.  On a daily basis the single intersection access to  Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available  due to lack of a bus turn around.    d.  and f.  The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown.  The numbers were “adjusted” to  supposedly reflect the actual counts.  A new TIA should be done.    15.  Public Services    a. and b.  The applicant should be required to provide comment from public service providers such as police  and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”.    16.  Utilities    No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested.  The applicant should be required to provide the requested information.            General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses:    On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of  something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the  checklist.    For example, below is a question from the checklist.  c. Water runoff (including stormwater):   1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include  quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.     The response is in bold.  6 Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs,  driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is  required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is  addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes  the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology  Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.    In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’  In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow”    In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and  again we will do “something” with no specificity.  A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts.  Please ask the applicant to answer the questions.    Thank you very much.    Chris Hanson  141 Nelsons Landing Road  360 301 5720    1 Helena Smith From:dik lang <diklang32@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:38 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 ________________________________  ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are  not expecting them.  ________________________________    You’ve  got to be joking! I am wholeheartedly opposed to this.  If only on the grounds of the loss of the rural  atmosphere, but the environmental aspect is off the charts in its degradation to the water run off and utilities access.  What  a horrible idea!  Richard Lang  1 Helena Smith From:Mark Grant <grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 3:06 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:Mark Grant Subject:Cape George Land Development Company, LLC Public Comment Letter Attachments:Stubbed Attachments.htm This message's contents have been archived by the Barracuda Message Archiver. Cape George Land CO Public Comment Letter dated 29 Dec 2021.pdf (1.4M) ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello Shannen, Please find attached the public comment letter for the above referenced project from Bill Leavitt and me and please confirm receipt. Thank-you! Mark L Grant President Grant Steel Buildings and Concrete Systems, Inc. 75 Haada Laas Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 Office - 360-379-3236 Mobile - 360-301-4340 E-mail - grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com Web Address - grantsteelbuildingsystems.com Grant Steel Buildings and Concrete Systems, Inc is recognized as a certified Veteran Owned Business by the State of Washington. Grant Steel Building and Concrete Systems, Inc is recognized as an Authorized Builder by Varco-Pruden Buildings. To: Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County DCD From Mark L Grant 75 Haada Laas Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 Bill Leavitt 352 Woodduck Way Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Case #s: MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Proposed Project Requested by Cape George Land Co, LLC Dear Ms. Cartmel, Please include this letter as part of the public comment regarding the project as referenced above. We have been aw/are of this project for some time, and did not know that the public comment period for this project was to end today, the 29'^'' of December, 2021, so we are therefore vesting this letter for comment before this deadline. We do find that having a deadline date set over the holidays is a bit unreasonable. More effort should have been made to extend the deadline as to be sure to allow for a more favorable timeframe i.e. not over the holidays, for people who are like us and were not aware that the deadline for comment was looming, giving more time to make public comments. We're sorry, but this feels a bit like ll'^ hour politics, which is never a good tactic for building any kind of public trust and confidence for any project that is being reviewed. Please extend the deadline so that others who wish to comment can weigh-in as well. Thanks! Our interest and concerns over this project were, at first, based on our concern regarding the impact this project could have on the Larry Scott Trail. As frequent users of the trail, we feel it is vitally important to do everything possible to maintain the function and beauty that this trail provides for all who use it. The level of development proposed appears to drastically detract from the natural feel that the Larry Scott Trail consistently provides throughout its entire length as it meanders through Jefferson County. The density of the housing proposed, along with the clearing and grading need to accommodate the proposed housing density will drastically change the natural character of the trail in a significantly negative way, and on this basis, we feel is enough justification to halt this development, as we do not feel that there are any reliable and true measures that can be put in place by the developer to avoid this negative impact. So, the negative impact this project will have on the Larry Scott Trail, again, was the catalyst that peaked our interest, but as we looked into this proposed development further, we have found other significant flaws to the overall concept of this development. First, we are familiar with the development codes in Jefferson County as we were publically involved in the development code processes as past vice-president and president of the Port Hadlock/ Tri Area Chamber of Commerce. At that time, the focus was on the code development and adoption of the Unified Development Code as was required by the State of Washington when Jefferson County opted into the Growth Management Act. We do not feel that the density of the development proposed complies with the nature and the premise of the code, as this type of density development was/ is intended for development within Urban Growth Areas, which the subject property is not within the boundaries of. This type of high density housing was intended for Urban Growth Areas where the character of the housing density was similar, and where the infrastructure needed to support such density was accommodated for. This type of housing density could possibly work well within the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Urban Growth Area, especially once the sewer system infrastructure is developed. At the proposed location of this project, there are no provisions for sewer thus relying on individual single family resident septic systems on each lot. We honestly don't see how this can be accommodated on the lot sizes as proposed, and therefore potentially creates a significant negative environmental impact to the land proposed within the development and to the surrounding properties. The potential for negative impacts to the water system are an issue here as well, as the density of housing will reduce the usable flow of water to those who are currently connected to the same system, and could even potentially have a negative impact on fire flow, presenting dangers to the development and surrounding properties. Again, these are issues that have been addressed, or are currently being addressed, that are commonly the focus of development within an Urban Growrth Area, which this subject development property is not within. Therefore, it is our contention that this subject development should not be allowed to proceed as it is in violation of the development codes of Jefferson County. Second, the actual useable lot square footages on most of the lots as proposed do not seem to meet the 12,500 s.f. minimum standard for single family development. Again, we are looking at this from a "useable" basis. The roadway right-of ways and utility easements that will be required significantly detract from the useable lot square footages and would deem many of the lots undevelopable. It appears that the development company is trying to shoehorn in as many lots a possible within the overall proposed development boundaries. We say shoehorned because, when you look at the location of the proposed development, there are significantly impactful pre-existing features that inherently squeeze any type of rational and reasonable development layout. These features are the pre-existing property owner's boundaries, the Larry Scott Trail right-of-way, the Cape George Road right-of-way, the Nelsons Landing Road right-of-way, and the Discovery Road right-of-way. All of these are forcing this shoehorned effect on the density of the development. Therefore, on the basis of these lot square footages and density problem issues, this proposed development should not be allowed to proceed. And finally (we will have more comments that we would like to present in this letter but are running out of time due to the public comment deadline as defined), we are concerned about the impact to traffic, especially at the intersection of Cape George Road and Discovery Road. We travel both of these roads frequently and are aware of the already significant traffic volumes in this area. Adding the density of 73 single family homes with the potential for each household being comprised of two-car-families will have a significant impact to the already stressed volume of traffic in the area. The intersection as described above is always busy, and can be tricky to negotiate at times, so the worry here is that the increased traffic density will potentially make this intersection more dangerous to negotiate. Therefore, this development should not be allowed on the basis of its potential to create unmanageable higher traffic densities and traffic volume impacts on the surrounding county roads, and again, especially those that would occur at the Cape George Road and Discovery Road intersection. Thanks you for your review of this letter/ public comment and we are and looking forward to your response. Sincerely, Mark L. Grant William D. Leavitt 1 Helena Smith From:Ashley Lewman <ashley.lewman@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 9:15 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:jeffbocc Subject:Public Comment for Preservation of Larry Scott Trail 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 writing to express my disapproval of Project MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 due to numerous concerns. My most important concerns are: degradation of the Larry Scott Trail too much density for a rural neighborhood lack of wildlife protection increased traffic in the neighborhood lack of buffers loss of wetlands clearcutting will increase mill odors water mains are already at low pressure additional use may require costly upgrades Ashley Lewman ashley.lewman@gmail.com 1 Helena Smith From:teren@ptproperty.com Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 1:05 PM To:Shannen Cartmel; jeffbocc Cc:teren@ptproperty.com Subject:Public Comment --- PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 Attachments:Letter of record_ 12-29-21.docx ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Please provide this comment to the individuals listed below. Thank you. My comment is also attached. Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 The following comments are addressed to the Jefferson County department of community development, Shannen Cartmel; Mark McCauley, interim county administrator; Austin Watkins, interim planning manager, department of community development; Commissioners of the Jefferson County board of county commissioners; and officials in the department of environmental health. EXTEND PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD This pending land use application and its resultant actions have allowed review and comment from the general public since the 15th of December to today, representing the minimum required by law for public notice, yet covering a large area of information provided, as well as some incomplete information that is pertinent to the proposal. What is the hurry and who is served by this compressed schedule during the holiday season? A challenging one to boot! Extend the public comment time for more review and more pertinent information to be discovered, particularly regarding 68-70 individual On-Site Septic (OSS) systems yet to be researched and determined. REQUIRE SEPTIC SYSTEM DESIGN AND APPROVALS AS ESSENTIAL TO THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC NOTICE The proposal calls for lot sizes from .29 to .41 in size for infrastructure, to include a minimum 2BR septic drainfield and reserve drainfield on each buildable lot. This is an area with homes that are largely served by private wells. The soil types range from sandy loam, to gravelly loam, to clay. A series of wetland ponds and seasonal drainage areas extend to the south and the west. The density of OSS systems being proposed is beyond what appears reasonable to assume without having environmental impacts over time to the area and to water quality. It is also unlikely to assume that a 2 BR system and reserve will be adequate for the lifestyle and residency habits we find. As a real estate broker of 21 years in the area, we are now seeing more people co-habitating and finding multi- generational living to be a necessity, making a 2BR OSS in some cases not adequate. It is not possible to know the extent of possible environmental impacts without a clear sense of the scope of OSS systems being proposed. 2 FORECAST TRAFFIC DEMAND ANALYSIS Table 2: Project Trip Generation The chart on Page 10 shows 70 dwelling units producing a total of 749 average weekday daily trips from the proposed development for anticipated vehicular movement. This assumes that each household will make only two trips from their home each weekday. This is another unreasonable assumption. It is likely that there will be a minimum of 2 drivers at each home, and does not include transport and delivery services to the residences, or families with multiple residents, cars and schedules. This number should at the very least be doubled. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES – IS THIS A SOLUTION? This area of the peninsula is very much in need of affordable housing, and large areas of undeveloped platted land do exist in the City, that also connect to infrastructure and transportation systems. Many low-to-mid level households are elderly or are families with children. These peop le benefit from being in community and proximity to services. Is this project seen as a solution to our affordable housing crisis, and if so, why are more affordable housing advocates not “on board” – and if so, how do the assumptions being made regarding land use need to be revisited? NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL – LARRY SCOTT TRAIL We have two parcels that have an easement on the LS Trail and live in the area of this proposed development. The proposal does not provide adequate buffer to that trail system. A minimum of 50’ buffer is needed. UDC CONSISTENCY REVIEW DOCUMENT This document may or may not be applicable to the proposal at this time, however there are some questions that arose from reviewing it. 1a)Regarding Stormwater, the section indicating new impervious surfaces was market N/A; 1b)No land disturbing activity was noted; 2)No impervious surface coverage was indicated; 3)No site visit was required; 4)Regarding proposal requiring Zoning approval – answered YES. Does this mean this project will go before the Planning Commission, and if not, why not?; and,5)Why do the development review timesheets only include a total of 4 hours from DCD and DOH? Regarding 2) Impervious surfaces – RR is 25%. Is it assumed that the landowner will not be able to build a garage, studio or workshop – and what are the impervious surface percentages that will apply to this development? How will this be monitored, if at all? I respectfully submit this public comment and ask for a response to the questions raised here. Teren MacLeod 241 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-774-1441 teren@ptproperty.com 3 1 Helena Smith From:gaelwolf@gaelwolf.com Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:57 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:jeffbocc; Ruth Gordon Subject:Comments on MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Attachments:MLA20-00152, MLA21-00023 - 211229.pdf 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.      Attached please fin my comments on MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023. As included in my attached written comments I wish to point out that this project is not ripe for comment because the applicant has not yet responded to Jefferson County’s October 7, 2021 request for additional information, responses to which could easily result in material changes to the application. Without those responses and potential material changes, the public is unable to provide fully meaningful comments regarding the application and the potential project. Jefferson County’s December 15, 2021 notice is therefore premature and should be withdrawn until such time as the applicant has provided meaningful response and the application potentially modified to account for those responses. Norman MacLeod 241 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 December 29, 2021 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attention: Shannen Cartmel, Project Planner RE: MLA20-00152, MLA21-00023 Applicant: CAPE GEORGE LAND CO, LLC P.O. Box 4438 Olympia, WA 98051-1779 Notice was posted on December 15, 2021 for comment on the above project with a comment deadline of 4:30 p.m. on December 29, 2021 with the following statement: “Written comments must be submitted to the Department of Community Development no later than 4:30 p.m. on December 29, 2021.” This followed a statement in a previous paragraph in the notice that stated: “This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal.” Previous to that, the notice stated: “Jefferson County issued an outstanding additional information request on October 7, 2021, which requires the applicant to prove each lot is buildable (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.040(6)). This requires preliminary septic designs for each lot, proving buildable areas in conjunction with onsite slopes, allowing for road right-of-way, and providing evidence of the ability to accommodate onsite stormwater management for each lot. This request has the potential to alter the proposal into fewer resultant lots. Jefferson County has opted to evaluate and postpone a SEPA determination to allow for public comments and any revisions to be reviewed and incorporated in making the decision.” Because the applicant has, according to the above statement in the notice, not yet provided the information that Jefferson County required in its October 7, 2021 request to the applicant, this project is not ripe for comment, and the December 15, 2021 notice is premature. The appropriate remedy is for Jefferson County to immediately rescind the notice and not initiate a replacement notice until such time as the applicant has provided its detailed response to Jefferson County’s October 7, 2021 request for additional information. It is not appropriate for Jefferson County to notice an application for comment until such time as the scope and scale of the proposed project is a matter of public record, a proposal stage that will not be reached for the referenced application(s) until the additional information is properly submitted, evaluated by Jefferson County, and the scope and scale of the project is adjusted as necessary, based on that information. A project of the proposed scope of this one deserves more than a two-week comment period, particularly when that comment period is scheduled for one of the, if not the most, significant holiday periods of the calendar year. Jefferson County’s scheduling of this notice, coupled with an absurdly brief comment period, could easily lead some to believe that its timing was designed to suppress public participation in a project application process that has yet to be completed to a point where submitted comments will be fully meaningful to the final decision-making process. As part of my due diligence in preparing these comments, I checked the Washington Secretary of State’s Corporations and Charities Division to confirm the corporate status of CAPE GEORGE LAND CO, LLC, UBI # 604 668 801. There is a DELINQUENT ANNUAL REPORT NOTICE dated November 1, 2021 in their file stating that: “As a result, the above listed entity is no longer in active status.” I placed a phone call to the Corporations and Charities Division and confirmed that as of 4:47 p.m. December 28, 2021, the entity has failed to file its annual report, either online or by postal mail. This does not inspire confidence in CAPE GEORGE LAND CO, LLC’s continuing capacity or ability to perform in regard to this project. In 2008 Jefferson County embarked on an initiative to impose regulations on on-site sewage systems premised on a need to protect the county’s marine resources from the threat of failing septic systems. Most of rural Jefferson County residential lot sizes are five acres or more. If this proposed project reaches its on-paper build-out there will be 68 residential properties spread across 27 acres. That translates to approximately 0.4 acres per residence, not counting the space consumed by roads and amenities. That is one on-site sewage system with its attendant drain field plus the required reserve drain field for each proposed residence. All of these are within a bit more than a mile away from Port Townsend Bay. Those potential 68 on-site sewage systems (OSSs) and their drain fields concentrated on 27 acres constitute a far more significant threat to the development’s and adjacent private properties’ groundwater and the local marine environment than my solitary well-maintained OSS on eleven acres will ever be. This project should not be approved until and unless it is provided with connection to a municipal sewage treatment facility or another approved large development sewage treatment system. The public water service along Cape George Road is inadequate to serve an additional 68 residences plus provide the fire flow necessary for structure fires, much less a wildfire within the resulting urban-wild land interface created by concentrating 68 residences in a 27-acre package. The proposed project should not be allowed to move forward until and unless sufficient amounts of public water, to include minimum adequate fire flow for structural and wildfire response is in place. Adding as many as 68 new residences within a 27-acre footprint will create a significant level of new impervious surfaces, resulting in a large increase in stormwater needing management. The present documents fail to detail how this stormwater will be managed, where it will be contained and where it will be routed to. In the absence of a dedicated stormwater sewer the bulk of this management will have to be conducted on-site. It would be wildly inappropriate to approve this application or permit construction without a robust stormwater management system in place prior to other infrastructure being built. The assumptions for numbers of daily trips in the transportation infrastructure plan are inadequate. For instance, they fail to take into account the number of trips anticipated as a result of today’s reliance on online shopping, and the amount of vehicle traffic generated by the delivery of such purchases. A single residence may generate the presence of delivery vehicles from the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, Fed- Ex, and Amazon. There are also individual deliveries being made by several of Port Townsend’s restaurants, and more. The TIA assumptions also fail to provide reasonable trip-mileage assumptions for the economic realities of living in Jefferson County and the portions of the county located in or near Port Townsend. Failing to take into account that for many families there are at least two persons who are employed and that many of those jobs require commuting to the other side of the Hood Canal Bridge or even all the way across the Puget Sound significantly underestimates total vehicle miles traveled each weekday by employed persons who would engage in those commutes. Adding a “COVID factor” to the TIA’s assumptions is a poor substitute to doing the necessary footwork to account for employment and travel patterns experienced in the more urbanized portion of Jefferson County. There are many traffic studies conducted in this area for a broad variety of project proposals, and these could (and should) have been employed as fact-based proxies rather than cobbled up from poorly understood responses to recent policy responses to the pandemic. It is difficult to understand how the TIA conducted for this application can be useful in any reasonable sense. Jefferson County’s regulations allow for property owners to build accessory dwelling units on their properties in addition to the primary residence. This practice, whether individually permitted or built without permits, will take place, increasing pressure on individual on-site sewage systems. They will increase the impervious surface of lots where they are built, resulting in increased stormwater quantities that are not presently anticipated in the application. How is Jefferson County controlling for these realities? While the applicant may not have noticed odors from the paper mill while they were present at the site, a simple question to current residents in the area immediately adjacent to the proposed project footprint will confirm that there are times when the “mill plume” is definitely present at the subject property. This is a factor that decreases the sale value of any home built in that area. Although the applicant may contend that noxious weeds or invasive species are not known to be present on the site, current residents and Jefferson County are will aware that Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) is endemic not only throughout the region, but particularly so in the immediate area of the proposed project. Not only is this invasive plant a nuisance wherever found, but it is also a known potentially harmful species to a significant portion of the human population who are sensitive or highly allergic to its aerosols, particularly when it is burned. While the presence of live plants may be low in the currently forested portions of the project location, that will change once clearing takes place for construction of the residential sites and their appurtenant infrastructure. These comments only scratch the surface of the problems with the referenced applications and should be understood as a partial response to the December 15, 2021 notice. After all, the time allotted has been competing with all of the things I have had to do ahead of and during our celebrations surrounding Christmas and New Year’s. These comments do, however, serve to provide standing for any further necessary responses to decision-making and policy related to MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 within the time provided for what apparently is the public’s sole opportunity to participate in this public process. Norman MacLeod 241 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Helena Smith From:Linda Mattos <linda@hopti.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 10:25 AM To:Shannen Cartmel; jeffbocc Subject:My comments re: PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. General process comments. I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas holiday period, adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted, published, and mailed. My meeting, to ask questions of DCD staff was rescheduled twice during the notice period reducing the time available to formulate my comments. When I read the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process it seems to me that robust, well considered, public comment is called for. I do not consider the process so far to be supportive of robust, well considered public comment. Please consider restarting the public comment process. Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments Section A Background A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults before finishing the roads and utilities. The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in the roads never being paved. Development businesses fail regularly, the applicants corporate license is currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site. A8. The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID lockdowns. Current TIA studies should be required. Section B Environmental Elements 2. Air 2 b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site. Residents surrounding the project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful. Once the trees are removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project. 3. Water a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site. Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands. 4. Plants d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing restriction area” around the perimeter of the site” Consulting the provided drawings, no clearing restriction is shown for some portions of the site abutting the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. The clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of the project area. Given the intensity of the proposed development, the proximity to the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail, and to preserve the existing vegetation, a 50 foot clearing restriction around the entire perimeter(s) of the site should be required. e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”. The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain Scotch Broom. Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species. Development activities which take place over more that a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species. According to The Washington Invasive Species Council: “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense, impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds, which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.” “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state regions” According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and horses.” 3 “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil disturbance.” According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board: Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required. 5. Animals a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons, and migratory birds are regularly seen. The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway. All of the project area is used in one way or another by migratory birds. The applicants assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS dataset. “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to note that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”. The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area for habitat. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project. https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community. Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail to public use. Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal. Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction. The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as county departments have been included in this process. Becky Blanchard Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions p: 503-808-2449 becky.blanchard@usda.gov 4 e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”. The response is, “RR-5: Rural residential. Every person I have spoken with about this project has expressed utter dismay and anger that the rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this project. When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is that correct?” the answer was YES Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR-5: Rural residential zoning classification. 9. Housing c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 71 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land. All of these views will be destroyed by the projects clearcutting. The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site” should be increased to 50 feet. 12. Recreation b. and c. The applicants proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the back yards of the lots” unnecessary. Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required. 14. Transportation a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a single road with one access to a public highway. This makes emergency access and egress problematic. In an emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes. On a daily basis the single intersection access to 5 Discovery road for 19 homes will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available due to lack of a bus turn around. d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done. 15. Public Services a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comment from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”. 16. Utilities No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested. The applicant should be required to provide the requested information. General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses: On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the checklist. For example, below is a question from the checklist. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The response is in bold. Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs, driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’ In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow” 6 In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and again we will do “something” with no specificity. A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts. Please ask the applicant to answer the questions. Thank you very much. Linda Mattos 141 Nelsons Landing Road 360 301 5723 1 Helena Smith From:Catherine McNabb <ptcheapskate@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 9:44 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Present Irvington Addition Resident 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 have many concerns about the project proposed for IRVINGTON ADDITION. First of all, Mediterranean Ave. extended is still a county right-of-way. It has never been vacated. Isn't that an issue? How many houses are projected on that Jefferson County land? I have other questions pertaining to septic systems, backup septic systems, dry holes etc. that were obligations placed on us. Do all those rules apply on each of the proposed lots? December 29, 2021 Shannen Cartmel, Project Planner Jefferson County Community Development Department 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Shannen Cartmel: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the prethreshold consultation for the Cape George Land Co. BLA Project (MLA20-00152, MLA21-00023, SUB2020-00018, ZON2021-00016). The Department of Ecology (Ecology) reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s): SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: Derek Rockett (360) 407-6287 All grading and filling of land must utilize only clean fill. All other materials may be considered solid waste and permit approval may be required from the local jurisdictional health department prior to filling. All removed debris resulting from this project must be disposed of at an approved site. Contact the local jurisdictional health department for proper management of these materials. WATER QUALITY/WATERSHED RESOURCES UNIT: Evan Wood (360) 407-7320 Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or stormdrains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants. Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, and is subject to enforcement action. Construction Stormwater General Permit: The following construction activities require coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit: 1. Clearing, grading and/or excavation that results in the disturbance of one or more acres and discharges stormwater to surface waters of the State; and Shannen Cartmel December 29, 2021 Page 2 2. Clearing, grading and/or excavation on sites smaller than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, if the common plan of development or sale will ultimately disturb one acre or more and discharge stormwater to surface waters of the State. a) This includes forest practices (including, but not limited to, class IV conversions) that are part of a construction activity that will result in the disturbance of one or more acres, and discharge to surface waters of the State; and 3. Any size construction activity discharging stormwater to waters of the State that Ecology: a) Determines to be a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the State of Washington. b) Reasonably expects to cause a violation of any water quality standard. If there are known soil/ground water contaminants present on-site, additional information (including, but not limited to: temporary erosion and sediment control plans; stormwater pollution prevention plan; list of known contaminants with concentrations and depths found; a site map depicting the sample location(s); and additional studies/reports regarding contaminant(s)) will be required to be submitted. For additional information on contaminated construction sites, please contact Carol Serdar at Carol.Serdar@ecy.wa.gov, or by phone at (360) 742-9751. Additionally, sites that discharge to segments of waterbodies listed as impaired by the State of Washington under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for turbidity, fine sediment, high pH, or phosphorous, or to waterbodies covered by a TMDL may need to meet additional sampling and record keeping requirements. See condition S8 of the Construction Stormwater General Permit for a description of these requirements. To see if your site discharges to a TMDL or 303(d)-listed waterbody, use Ecology’s Water Quality Atlas at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/StartPage.aspx . The applicant may apply online or obtain an application from Ecology's website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/ - Application . Construction site operators must apply for a permit at least 60 days prior to discharging stormwater from construction activities and must submit it on or before the date of the first public notice. Ecology’s comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such, they may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above. Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office (GMP:202106465) cc: Derek Rockett, SWM Evan Wood, WQ 1 Helena Smith From:ECY RE SWRO SEPA COORDINATOR <swrosepacoordinator@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent:Wednesday, January 5, 2022 2:02 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:202106465 RE: Extension of SEPA consultation and public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello Ms. Cartmel, I have uploaded this document to the SEPA register. Ecology had already been notified of the comment period extension. I will send the proposal out to staff for review again but it is likely to receive no new comments. Garret Peck SEPA Coordinator | Southwest Regional Office Desk: 360-407-6300 | Cell: 360-480-3300 From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:16 PM Subject: RE: Extension of SEPA consultation and public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the link Good afternoon, Please see the attached notice for the extension. This is published in the leader for today’s release. Please see the attachment. All case documents can be viewed here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx Comment deadline was extended until January 19, 2022. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 2 360-379-4454 From: Shannen Cartmel Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:33 PM To: 'DAHP SEPA (DAHP)' <sepa@dahp.wa.gov>; 'ECY RE SEPA REGISTER' <separegister@ecy.wa.gov>; 'btracer@ejfr.org' <btracer@ejfr.org>; 'bgraham@jeffpud.org' <bgraham@jeffpud.org>; 'dsarff@skokomish.org' <dsarff@skokomish.org>; 'Marla Powers' <mpowers@pgst.nsn.us>; 'thpo@jamestowntribe.org' <thpo@jamestowntribe.org>; 'thpo@pgst.nsn.us' <thpo@pgst.nsn.us>; 'romac@pgst.nsn.us' <romac@pgst.nsn.us>; 'crossi@pnptc.org' <crossi@pnptc.org>; 'ataylor@jamestowntribe.org' <ataylor@jamestowntribe.org>; 'sbruch@jamestowntribe.org' <sbruch@jamestowntribe.org>; 'Dennis Lewarch' <dlewarch@Suquamish.nsn.us>; 'Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP)' <stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; 'ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com' <ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com>; 'chief@ejfr.org' <chief@ejfr.org>; 'lrosenbury@ptschools.org' <lrosenbury@ptschools.org>; John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Eric Kuzma <ekuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Monte Reinders <MReinders@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Pinky Mingo <pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Emma Erickson <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov' <sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov>; 'R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov' <R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov>; 'allison.e.satter.civ@us.navy.mil' <allison.e.satter.civ@us.navy.mil>; Terry Duff <TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joe Nole <JNole@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'Scott Bancroft' <Sbancroft@jeffpud.org>; Sherrie Shold <SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'lbailey@cityofpt.us' <lbailey@cityofpt.us>; 'sking@cityofpt.us' <sking@cityofpt.us>; 'Chidley, Michael' <Michael.Chidley@jacobs.com> Subject: Extension of public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Good afternoon everyone, Due to the extensive requests to extend the comment period for this project, we have decided to extend the comment period by three additional weeks. The authority to extend the comment period is allowed per WAC 197-11-510(1), which states that the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available. Given the unforeseen snow closures in combination with all the holidays, the Jefferson County SEPA responsible official has the authority to provide adequate time for the public comment period as a reasonable method. I will be noticing the extension in the Jefferson County Leader for Wednesday, January 5 print and sending an updated email that morning. The comment period deadline will now be January 19, 2022, by 4:30 PM. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thank you. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 1 Helena Smith From:bperka@olypen.com Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:32 PM To:Shannen Cartmel; jeffbocc Subject:SEPA--MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Attachments:0097_001.pdf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Shannon Janet and I both agree with and endorse all comments made by Chris Hanson and please make our handwritten comments [submitted another email] part of this SEPA determination comment process thanks bill and janet perka -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Attached Image Date:2021-12-29 12:15 From:"JLSPT" <jlspt@olypen.com> To:"Bill Perka" <bperka@olypen.com> 1 Helena Smith From:bperka@olypen.com Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 10:56 AM To:Shannen Cartmel; jeffbocc Subject:Fwd: comments on 05-1004-21 emergency moratorium old platted lots & SEPA MLA20-00152 and MLA2100023 Attachments:4838_001.pdf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Shannon i submitted this for the Moratorium But would like to make it part of record for SEPA on Clark Cape George rd project will be submitting another letter re the SEPA determination Bill Perka bperka@olypen.com 360 531 2310 -------- Original Message -------- Subject:comments on 05-1004-21 emergency moratorium old platted lots Date:2021-11-22 10:34 From:bperka@olypen.com To:jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us, Bbutler <bbutler@co.jefferson.wa.us> -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Attached Image Date:2021-11-22 10:23 From:"JLSPT" <jlspt@olypen.com> To:"Bill Perka" <bperka@olypen.com> 1 Helena Smith From:bperka@olypen.com Sent:Wednesday, December 29, 2021 10:59 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Fwd: A copy of my SEPA checklist draft comment and a gentle request to please send a comment before 4:30 PM Tomorrow December 29th ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Shannon I concur with all Chris hansons comments on Clarks SEPA determination Bill and Janet Perka bperka@olypen.com 360 531 2310 -------- Original Message -------- Subject:A copy of my SEPA checklist draft comment and a gentle request to please send a comme nt before 4:30 PM Tomorrow December 29th Date:2021-12-28 17:58 From:Christopher Hanson <chris@hopti.com> To:Brandi Hamon <brandihamon@gmail.com>, Angie & Mike Doan <oneshot37@hotmail.com>, "AJGieser@gmail.com" <AJGieser@gmail.com>, Bill & Vanessa Hammer <b_hammer@me.com>, "Gary.zwissler@yahoo.com" <Gary.zwissler@yahoo.com>, Linda Mattos <linda@hopti.com>, Piper Thornburgh <piper@piperthornburghlaw.com>, Richard Gibson <gibsonrichard758@gmail.com>, Tara & Eric Clanton <tclanton03@gmail.com>, Wally Allen <wallyjr@cablespeed.com>, "bperka@olypen.com" <bperka@olypen.com>, "gobi@olympus.net" <gobi@olympus.net>, "kirsten_hammer@mac.com" <kirsten_hammer@mac.com>, "kunz.family@wildblue.net" <kunz.family@wildblue.net>, "ptcheapskate@yahoo.com" <ptcheapskate@yahoo.com>, "ripperjka.tr@gmail.com" <ripperjka.tr@gmail.com>, "sudsme@hotmail.com" <sudsme@hotmail.com>, "zdean8@gmail.com" <zdean8@gmail.com>, Mark Grant <grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com>, "teresago@johnlscott.com" <teresago@johnlscott.com>, Teren MacLeod <teren@ptproperty.com>, "theflickchick@live.com" <theflickchick@live.com>, "Jeff Kelety <jgkelety@gmail.com>" <jgkelety@gmail.com>, Theresa Percy <teopercy@gmail.com>, Mary Craft <marymcraft@yahoo.com>, Kathy Legarsky <kmlegarsky1@gmail.com>, Sherry Erickson <slerickson57@gmail.com>, K LAWSON <kris_klawson@msn.com>, Pete von Christiersen <pvonc@olypen.com>, Deb Carroll <debcarroll@olympus.net>, Lois Allen <mlfoots@yahoo.com>, Alison Hamm <achamm3@gmail.com>, Norma Bridges <norma54@gmail.com>, Margaret Taylor <margarettaylor65@icloud.com>, MARIE DRESSLER <mmdressler@hotmail.com>, "sherri@pugetsoundexpress.com" <sherri@pugetsoundexpress.com>, Ashley Lewman <ashley.lewman@gmail.com>, Norman MacLeod <gaelwolf@waypt.com>, "diklang32@hotmail.com" <diklang32@hotmail.com>, "rob-gretchen-davis@msn.com" <rob-gretchen-davis@msn.com>, 2 "jim.tolpin@gmail.com" <jim.tolpin@gmail.com>, "craigwester@olympus.net" <craigwester@olympus.net>, Oliver Henry <tohenry@olympus.net> If you haven’t’ already sent a comment please consider sending one before 4:30 PM tomorrow December 29th. If you have, thanks so very much! The only public comment period available ends at 4:30 PM Wednesday December 29, 2021 Please submit your comment to the Department of Community Development: Shannen Cartmel Email scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us You may wish to also copy your comment to all three commissioners JeffBoCC@co.jefferson.wa.us Below is a draft Chris’ SEPA public comment. Please do contact either of us with questions or comments. Chris Hanson and Linda Mattos chris@hopti.com 3 linda@hopti.com Comments concerning PUBLIC NOTICE OF Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021- 000016 General process comments. I am requesting a delay in the deadline for public comments due to timing of posting during the Christmas holiday period, adverse weather conditions, and the differences found in the notices that have been posted, published, and mailed. My meeting, to ask questions of DCD staff was rescheduled twice during the notice period reducing the time available to formulate my comments. When I read the Statutes and Codes pertaining to this process it seems to me that robust, well considered, public comment is called for. I do not consider the process so far to be supportive of robust, well considered public comment. Please consider restarting the public comment process. Specific SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments Section A Background A7. Paragraphs A6 and A7 indicate a piecemeal approach to the placement of utilities and paving roads. The community could well end up having to pay for road paving or other utility expenses if the developer defaults before finishing the roads and utilities. The applicant’s proposal to not pave roads until 90% of the manufactured homes are installed may result in the roads never being paved. Development businesses fail regularly, the applicants corporate license is currently 12/28/2021 listed as “delinquent” on the WA Secretary of State site. A8. The TIA study uses an unverified “opinion” to adjust the traffic counts made during COVID lockdowns. Current TIA studies should be required. Section B Environmental Elements 4 2. Air b. The applicant claims that the Mill odor has not been noticed on the project site. Residents surrounding the project area know better, if the weather is “right” the mill odor can be very powerful. Once the trees are removed the mill odor will become much more apparent to everyone in the area near this project. 3. Water a. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that there are no seasonal wetlands on or in the immediate vicinity of the site there are several seasonal wetlands on the site. Adjoining landowners have confirmed these seasonal wetlands. 4. Plants d. The applicant describes a 20 foot clearing buffer surrounding the exterior of the site and a “20 foot clearing restriction area” around the perimeter of the site” Given the intensity of the proposed development a 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site help to preserve the existing vegetation. Consulting the provided drawings, the clearing restriction is not shown for some portions of the site abutting the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. The clearing restriction is absent on the entire southern edge of the project area. To preserve the existing vegetation, the clearing restriction should be required on the entire site perimeter. e. The applicant states that “no noxious weeds or invasive species are known to exist on site”. The applicant states earlier in the checklist (4 a.) that the site contains “Scot’s Broom”, and it does contain Scotch Broom. Scotch Broom is an invasive and noxious species. Development activities which take place over more that a single season, as the applicant plans, disturb soils and allow for Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) to overgrow native species. According to The Washington Invasive Species Council: 5 “Scotch broom crowds out native species and negatively impacts wildlife habitat. It can form dense, impenetrable stands that degrade farmland and create fire hazards. It dense stands may prevent or slow forest regeneration and restoration of upland sites and wetland buffers. Scotch broom produces toxic compounds, which in large amounts can cause mild poisoning in animals such as horses.” “Scotch broom is on Washington’s Terrestrial Noxious Weed Seed and Plant Quarantine list” and “Scotch broom is listed as a Class B noxious weed in Washington, meaning it is designated for control in certain state regions” According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board: “It displaces native and beneficial plants, causing loss of grassland and open forest. It aggressively spreads to form monocultures, replacing desirable forage grasses and young trees. Seeds are toxic to livestock and horses.” “Scotch broom can be found on roadsides, pastures, grasslands, open areas and areas of recent soil disturbance.” According to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board: Scotch broom is a Class B Noxious Weed. Control is required in and within 50 feet of gravel pits and soil mining areas in Jefferson Scotch Broom mitigation and control should be required. 5. Animals a. Deer, Racoon, Mountain Beaver, Cougar, Bobcat, Hawks, Eagles, Woodpeckers, Owls, Herons, and migratory birds are regularly seen. The entire project area is inside of the Pacific Flyway. All of the project area is used in one way or another by migratory birds. The applicants assertion that WDFW found no issues neglected to add the WDFD comment about the PHS dataset. “The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) datasets do not contain information for your project area. This does not mean that species and habitats do not occur in your project area. PHS data, points, lines and polygons are mapped only when occurrences of these species or habitats have been observed in the field. Unfortunately, we have not been able to comprehensively survey all sections in the state and therefore, it is important to 6 note that priority species and habitats may occur in areas not currently known to the Department”. The project area should be studied carefully to determine what species actually depend on the project area for habitat. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (AKA Larry Scott Trail) bisects this project. https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pnt/home This trail is used by residents and visitors to our community. Residents worked very hard to dedicate this trail to public use. Destruction of the beloved “tree tunnel” on the trail appears to be part of this proposal. Proposed project drawings show clearcutting and road building next to the trail with no buffer. The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail should be protected by a 50 foot clearing restriction. The state and federal agencies involved with resource management of the trail should be included just as county departments have been included in this process. Becky Blanchard Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Administrator Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Northern Regions p: 503-808-2449 becky.blanchard@usda.gov e. The SEPA checklist asks, “What is the current zoning classification of the site?”. The response is, “RR-5: Rural residential. Every person I have spoken with about this project has expressed utter dismay and anger that the rural environment we all supported when the GMA was implemented will potentially be destroyed by this project. When a county planner was recently asked directly “I’ve been told that if a BLA is done the new parcel boundaries supersede the old plat, and that all future development must adhere to current zoning requirements. Is that correct?” the answer was YES Please explain how the proposed 68 home sites on 27 acres can comply with the RR-5: Rural residential zoning classification. 7 9. Housing c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The applicant neglects to address the increased public infrastructure loading 71 housing units and approximately 200 people will produce in rural Jefferson County. Police and Fire/EMS loads will be impacted. The best example of an impact clearly not addressed is that of water and fire flow. At this time existing water lines do not support adequate pressure to existing residences. Fire flow testing should be done, and the applicant should be required to provide any additional water supply resource the development requires. 10. Aesthetics b. The applicant’s statement concerning the alteration of views “No significant views are currently present as the site is fully treed and undeveloped.” is incorrect. There are currently woodland views from The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail and from all of the surrounding land. All of these views will be destroyed by the projects clearcutting. The applicants proposed “establishment of a 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site” should be increased to 50 feet. 12. Recreation b. and c. The applicants proposed 20 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site would make the applicants plan to “maintain some vegetation or replant or build fencing to screen the back yards of the lots” unnecessary. Replacement of forest with fencing will diminish the recreational value of the The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail. A 50 foot clearing restriction around the perimeter of the site should be required. 14. Transportation a. The 19 homes proposed in the section south of The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail are served by a single road with one access to a public highway. This makes emergency access and egress problematic. In an emergency one stalled vehicle can block all 19 homes. On a daily basis the single intersection access to Discovery road for 19 homes 8 will be a problem. School bus access to these 19 homes would not be available due to lack of a bus turn around. d. and f. The TIA traffic study was done during a period of COVID lockdown. The numbers were “adjusted” to supposedly reflect the actual counts. A new TIA should be done. 15. Public Services a. and b. The applicant should be required to provide comment from public service providers such as police and fire/ems supporting the contention that the need for public services “will not likely be significant”. 16. Utilities No description of the construction activity required to provide utilities has been provided as requested. The applicant should be required to provide the requested information. General Comment concerning the applicants’ responses: On numerous occasions the applicant responses in the SEPA checklist utilize the same general comment of something like “we will do what the regs require”. That isn’t an answer to the direct questions posed in the checklist. For example, below is a question from the checklist. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 9 The response is in bold. Sources of stormwater runoff come primarily from rainfall on impervious surfaces like roads, roofs, driveways, any other hard surface that will not absorb the moisture. Stormwater management review is required for all aspects of this development, which is how the collection and disposal of the stormwater is addressed. All stormwater activities will comply with the regulations found at JCC 18.30.070, which includes the minimum standards adopted by the most recent version of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. In the above response there is not an answer to “Describe the ……method of collection and disposal…’ In the above response there is not an answer to “Where will this water flow” In many cases the applicant does not provide answers to direct questions, the applicant simply says again and again we will do “something” with no specificity. A decision as to the merits of this proposal requires facts. Please ask the applicant to answer the questions. 1 Helena Smith From:Dave Clarke <daveclarkex@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, December 30, 2021 2:51 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:Jim Fox Subject:Extension of SEPA comment period - Response ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello Shannen - I am writing in response to your email below and formally requesting that Jefferson County NOT extend the comment period as proposed. The basis for this request is as follows:  The statement that "Jefferson County has received extensive requests to extend the comment period for this project..." is actually proof that the comment period does not need to be extended. The receipt of "extensive" comments shows the Notice provided is adequate.  Your reference to WAS 197-11-510(1) does not appear to grant the authority to take the action proposed (to extend the SEPA comment period). o It does grant the Lead Agency (Jefferson County) the authority to determine what constitutes "Reasonable Notice" when noticing the SEPA. That determination was made prior to the December 15 Notice Date, presumably in accordance with Jefferson County policy. The holidays (more specifically one holiday, Christmas, which fell on a Saturday) was on the calendar when the initial Notice period was determined. The snow was not directly foreseeable, but it is December and snow does fall then. The impact of the snow was minimal to this process as it did not prevent the newspaper of record (The PT Leader) from publishing or delivering the Notices on December 15 and 22, nor did the snow cause widespread power outages that would preclude online access to information or the ability for the public to submit comments. The snow only impacted a few days at the end of the comment period. If there had been a full-blown storm that took out power and stopped the County offices from opening and the newspaper from being delivered or posted on line that lasted for most or all of the Notice Period I would understand the need for some sort of hardship exception to protect the public interest, but in this case the snow is just an excuse.  I propose your Non-Ajendra presentation of the SEPA process specifically for this project during the Jefferson County Commissioners Meeting on December 20 more than offset any potential lack of access or notice caused by the snow. The fact that this meeting took place uninterrupted during the worst of the snow is further proof of the weather's insignificance to this process.  Table two of the SEPA Handbook regarding document distribution and notice requirements shows the notice period under the Optional DNS Process (WAC 197-11-355) as being 14-to-30 days. The proposal to extend the comment period to January 19,2022 exceeds 30-days.  Again, the statement that some people are complaining about the placement of the signs seems to be proof that the signs are having their desired result, which is to provide Notice of the Land Use Action and solicit comments. You were personally involved in the process to place the signs in locations where they would be most visible. 2 If I had more time, I could solicit some advice and make perhaps more technically correct specific comments. But with your office presumably closed tomorrow and the publish deadline being noon Monday, I do not have that luxury. But in layperson's terms, the proposal to extend the SEPA comment period as proposed appears to: 1) Not be authorized to by the WAC section sited, 2) Is based on nothing that indicates the initial Notice Period was in any manner deficient, and 3) exceeds the allowable 30-day maximum under SEPA. I am formally requesting the Public Notice Comment period not be extended, and Jefferson County proceed to reviewing the comments received. Thank you for your consideration. Dave Clarke  From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:39 PM To: Dave Clarke <daveclarkex@msn.com> Cc: jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com <jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com> Subject: Extension of SEPA comment period Good afternoon Dave, Jefferson County has received extensive requests to extend the comment period for this project and we have decided to extend the comment period by three additional weeks. The authority to extend the comment period is allowed per WAC 197-11-510(1), which states that the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available. Given the unforeseen snow closures in combination with all the holidays, the Jefferson County SEPA responsible official has the authority to provide adequate time for the public comment period as a reasonable method. I will be noticing the extension in the Jefferson County Leader for Wednesday, January 5 print. The comment period deadline will now be January 19, 2022, by 4:30 PM. This will mean, next week I will have updated documents for your posting board notices, I got several complaints on the locations, so lets review this next week to determine if we need to move them. Happy New Year! Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 1 Helena Smith From:jeffbocc Sent:Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:22 PM To:Kate Dean; Greg Brotherton; Heidi Eisenhour Cc:Shannen Cartmel Subject:FW: Project MLA20-00152/MLA21-00023 From: Kim McCary <kimmccary@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:21 AM To: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Project MLA20-00152/MLA21-00023 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 to express my disapproval of Project MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 due to numerous concerns. My most important concerns are: - degradation of the Larry Scott Trail - too much density for a rural neighborhood - lack of wildlife protection - increased traffic in the neighborhood - lack of buffers - loss of wetlands - clearcutting will increase mill odors - water mains are already at low pressure and additional use may require costly upgrades Sincerely, Kim McCary 4997 Magnolia Street Port Townsend WA 98368 1 Helena Smith From:Jim Fox <jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 3, 2022 11:45 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:Dave Clarke; Rian Marsh Subject:Re: Extension of SEPA comment period - Response Attachments:cape george sepa posting.jpg; south side CG road jpg.jpg; north side CG road jpg.jpg ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Try this- should be JPG's __________________________ Jim Fox Windermere Port Townsend 1220 Water Street Cell- (360)531-3201 Fax (360)385-9345 jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing Fund TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 11:41 AM Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: They are coming through as HEIC attachements. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 2 From: Jim Fox <jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:39 AM To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Dave Clarke <Daveclarkex@msn.com>; Rian Marsh <rianmarsh@windermere.com> Subject: Re: Extension of SEPA comment period - Response ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi, those are .JPG files. don't know how else to send them to you dave, Rian? am I missing something? __________________________ Jim Fox Windermere Port Townsend 1220 Water Street Cell- (360)531-3201 Fax (360)385-9345 jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing Fund TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 11:35 AM Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Jim, 3 Unfortunately, I can’t view these. We don’t have the extension and it is something you have to purchase. Can you send them in JPEG? Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 From: Jim Fox <jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:31 AM To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Rian Marsh <rianmarsh@windermere.com>; Dave Clarke <daveclarkex@msn.com> Subject: Re: Extension of SEPA comment period - Response ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Shannen I'll go get that and put it back up where it was. I really don't know how it could be more 'appropriately placed', but if you take a look at the pictures provided and can indicate a better spot, I'll be happy to put them there. If you have a better position, let me know quickly. Jim 4 __________________________ Jim Fox Windermere Port Townsend 1220 Water Street Cell- (360)531-3201 Fax (360)385-9345 jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing Fund TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 11:17 AM Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Jim, The materials are ready to be picked up and posted now. They need to be easily seen from the road. If they are currently, that is fine. I will not be in the office tomorrow, as I am home sick, but if you want to take pictures of the sign locations currently and send them to me, I can provide feedback to make sure they are adequate. The locations looked appropriate previously based on the map provided. I have not seen them myself, so I can’t provide anything other than what community members have told me. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 5 From: Jim Fox <jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 10:26 AM To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rian Marsh <rianmarsh@windermere.com> Cc: Dave Clarke <daveclarkex@msn.com> Subject: Re: Extension of SEPA comment period - Response ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Shannen, I'll be picking up the updated sheets- however I'd like you to specifically indicate where you want them to be posted. Dave ran this past you two weeks ago in an email dated Monday Dev 13 at 2:17pm. There was no comment at that time. . I'd like to know the better place to position it. I'll come pick it up from you as soon as you tell me it is ready. Jim __________________________ Jim Fox Windermere Port Townsend 1220 Water Street Cell- (360)531-3201 Fax (360)385-9345 6 jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com **Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing Fund TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.** On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 9:06 AM Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Good morning Dave, Thank you for your email. We understand your frustration with the extension of the comment period and that you are formally requesting we reverse the decision to extend. DCD has authority under WAC 197-11-510(1) to extend the comment period, because we as lead agency “must use reasonable methods [of notice] to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared.. ..” If you review SEPA comment periods from other jurisdictions and agencies, you will see this is done frequently when circumstances indicate that the public has not had adequate time to comment on a SEPA action. Although we don’t always have control over timing of notice, we believe that giving notice during the holidays when many people are taking time out of their lives to celebrate the season and be with family warrants extension of a comment period for a large-scale project such as this one. The responses from citizens indicate that we are correct in that assessment. In addition, the snow event has impacted many in our rural community who cannot travel on icy roads that are not plowed or may have difficulties with internet connection. There was a wide spread power outage that affected the Cape George community during this time period as well. The extension requests also came from other departments who comment on SEPA, due to the reduced hours our County was open over the last two weeks. Please pick up or designate someone to pick up the updated sheets for posting sometime tomorrow before closing at 4:30. I will follow with an email once they are printed and ready. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner 7 Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 From: Dave Clarke <daveclarkex@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 2:51 PM To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Jim Fox <jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com> Subject: Extension of SEPA comment period - Response ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello Shannen - I am writing in response to your email below and formally requesting that Jefferson County NOT extend the comment period as proposed. The basis for this request is as follows:  The statement that "Jefferson County has received extensive requests to extend the comment period for this project..." is actually proof that the comment period does not need to be extended. The receipt of "extensive" comments shows the Notice provided is adequate.  Your reference to WAS 197-11-510(1) does not appear to grant the authority to take the action proposed (to extend the SEPA comment period). o It does grant the Lead Agency (Jefferson County) the authority to determine what constitutes "Reasonable Notice" when noticing the SEPA. That determination was made prior to the December 15 Notice Date, presumably in accordance with Jefferson County policy. The holidays (more specifically one holiday, Christmas, which fell on a Saturday) was on the calendar when the initial Notice period was determined. The snow was not directly foreseeable, but it is December and snow does fall then. The impact of the snow was minimal to this process as it did not prevent the newspaper of record (The PT Leader) from publishing or delivering the Notices on December 15 and 22, nor did the snow cause widespread power outages that would preclude online access to information or the ability for the public to submit comments. The snow only impacted a few days at the end of the comment period. If there had been a full-blown storm that took out power and stopped the County offices from opening and the newspaper from being delivered or posted on line that lasted for most or all of the Notice Period I would understand the need for some sort 8 of hardship exception to protect the public interest, but in this case the snow is just an excuse.  I propose your Non-Ajendra presentation of the SEPA process specifically for this project during the Jefferson County Commissioners Meeting on December 20 more than offset any potential lack of access or notice caused by the snow. The fact that this meeting took place uninterrupted during the worst of the snow is further proof of the weather's insignificance to this process.  Table two of the SEPA Handbook regarding document distribution and notice requirements shows the notice period under the Optional DNS Process (WAC 197-11-355) as being 14-to-30 days. The proposal to extend the comment period to January 19,2022 exceeds 30-days.  Again, the statement that some people are complaining about the placement of the signs seems to be proof that the signs are having their desired result, which is to provide Notice of the Land Use Action and solicit comments. You were personally involved in the process to place the signs in locations where they would be most visible. If I had more time, I could solicit some advice and make perhaps more technically correct specific comments. But with your office presumably closed tomorrow and the publish deadline being noon Monday, I do not have that luxury. But in layperson's terms, the proposal to extend the SEPA comment period as proposed appears to: 1) Not be authorized to by the WAC section sited, 2) Is based on nothing that indicates the initial Notice Period was in any manner deficient, and 3) exceeds the allowable 30-day maximum under SEPA. I am formally requesting the Public Notice Comment period not be extended, and Jefferson County proceed to reviewing the comments received. Thank you for your consideration. Dave Clarke  From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:39 PM To: Dave Clarke <daveclarkex@msn.com> Cc: jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com <jimfoxrealtor@gmail.com> Subject: Extension of SEPA comment period 9 Good afternoon Dave, Jefferson County has received extensive requests to extend the comment period for this project and we have decided to extend the comment period by three additional weeks. The authority to extend the comment period is allowed per WAC 197-11-510(1), which states that the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available. Given the unforeseen snow closures in combination with all the holidays, the Jefferson County SEPA responsible official has the authority to provide adequate time for the public comment period as a reasonable method. I will be noticing the extension in the Jefferson County Leader for Wednesday, January 5 print. The comment period deadline will now be January 19, 2022, by 4:30 PM. This will mean, next week I will have updated documents for your posting board notices, I got several complaints on the locations, so lets review this next week to determine if we need to move them. Happy New Year! Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 1 Helena Smith From:John Fleming Sent:Friday, January 7, 2022 11:30 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:RE: Extension of SEPA consultation and public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Attachments:Cape Geo Land Co BLA SEPA 7-29-2021 JCPW comments 1-4-2022 4pp.pdf; Cape George Land Co SEPA PW comments 1-4-2022 p4of4.docx; Cape George Land Co SEPA PW comments 1-4-2022 3pp.docx Shannen: Please find attached comments on the SEPA from Department of Public Works, both in PDF with acknowledgement initials, and MS word in case you need to copy and paste. Thank you, John 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. From: Shannen Cartmel Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:16 PM Subject: RE: Extension of SEPA consultation and public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Good afternoon, Please see the attached notice for the extension. This is published in the leader for today’s release. Please see the attachment. All case documents can be viewed here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx Comment deadline was extended until January 19, 2022. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 From: Shannen Cartmel Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:33 PM To: 'DAHP SEPA (DAHP)' <sepa@dahp.wa.gov>; 'ECY RE SEPA REGISTER' <separegister@ecy.wa.gov>; 'btracer@ejfr.org' <btracer@ejfr.org>; 'bgraham@jeffpud.org' <bgraham@jeffpud.org>; 'dsarff@skokomish.org' <dsarff@skokomish.org>; 'Marla Powers' <mpowers@pgst.nsn.us>; 'thpo@jamestowntribe.org' <thpo@jamestowntribe.org>; 'thpo@pgst.nsn.us' <thpo@pgst.nsn.us>; 'romac@pgst.nsn.us' <romac@pgst.nsn.us>; 'crossi@pnptc.org' <crossi@pnptc.org>; 'ataylor@jamestowntribe.org' <ataylor@jamestowntribe.org>; 'sbruch@jamestowntribe.org' 2 <sbruch@jamestowntribe.org>; 'Dennis Lewarch' <dlewarch@Suquamish.nsn.us>; 'Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP)' <stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; 'ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com' <ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com>; 'chief@ejfr.org' <chief@ejfr.org>; 'lrosenbury@ptschools.org' <lrosenbury@ptschools.org>; John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Eric Kuzma <ekuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Monte Reinders <MReinders@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Pinky Mingo <pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Emma Erickson <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov' <sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov>; 'R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov' <R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov>; 'allison.e.satter.civ@us.navy.mil' <allison.e.satter.civ@us.navy.mil>; Terry Duff <TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joe Nole <JNole@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'Scott Bancroft' <Sbancroft@jeffpud.org>; Sherrie Shold <SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'lbailey@cityofpt.us' <lbailey@cityofpt.us>; 'sking@cityofpt.us' <sking@cityofpt.us>; 'Chidley, Michael' <Michael.Chidley@jacobs.com> Subject: Extension of public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Good afternoon everyone, Due to the extensive requests to extend the comment period for this project, we have decided to extend the comment period by three additional weeks. The authority to extend the comment period is allowed per WAC 197-11-510(1), which states that the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available. Given the unforeseen snow closures in combination with all the holidays, the Jefferson County SEPA responsible official has the authority to provide adequate time for the public comment period as a reasonable method. I will be noticing the extension in the Jefferson County Leader for Wednesday, January 5 print and sending an updated email that morning. The comment period deadline will now be January 19, 2022, by 4:30 PM. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thank you. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 1 Helena Smith From:DAHP SEPA (DAHP) <sepa@dahp.wa.gov> Sent:Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:41 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:Elliott, Patrick; Sterner, Matthew Subject:DAHP Concur 2021-07-04274 RE: Extension of SEPA consultation and public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Attachments:2021-07-04274_DAHP_Concur_FollowIDP_CapeGeorge_MLA20-00152 _MLA21-00023.pdf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello Shannen, Please see the attached letter from the DAHP concurring with the results and recommendations in the survey report, and recommending that the Cape George project move forward follow an Inadvertent Discovery Plan. Feel free to contact me if you have questions about these recommendations. Best, Stephanie DAHP staff are working remotely until further notice. My hours are 8 am – 4:30 pm Monday - Friday. Staff no longer have land lines. For a directory of staff cell phone numbers please see the Meet the Staff page on our website. Stephanie Jolivette | Local Government Archaeologist (preferred pronouns: she / her / hers) Work Cell: 360-628-2755 | stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation | www.dahp.wa.gov 1110 Capitol Way S, Suite 30 | Olympia WA 98501 PO Box 48343 | Olympia WA 98504-8343 From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:16 PM Subject: RE: Extension of SEPA consultation and public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 External Email Good afternoon, 2 Please see the attached notice for the extension. This is published in the leader for today’s release. Please see the attachment. All case documents can be viewed here: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3351204/Row1.aspx Comment deadline was extended until January 19, 2022. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 From: Shannen Cartmel Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 2:33 PM To: 'DAHP SEPA (DAHP)' <sepa@dahp.wa.gov>; 'ECY RE SEPA REGISTER' <separegister@ecy.wa.gov>; 'btracer@ejfr.org' <btracer@ejfr.org>; 'bgraham@jeffpud.org' <bgraham@jeffpud.org>; 'dsarff@skokomish.org' <dsarff@skokomish.org>; 'Marla Powers' <mpowers@pgst.nsn.us>; 'thpo@jamestowntribe.org' <thpo@jamestowntribe.org>; 'thpo@pgst.nsn.us' <thpo@pgst.nsn.us>; 'romac@pgst.nsn.us' <romac@pgst.nsn.us>; 'crossi@pnptc.org' <crossi@pnptc.org>; 'ataylor@jamestowntribe.org' <ataylor@jamestowntribe.org>; 'sbruch@jamestowntribe.org' <sbruch@jamestowntribe.org>; 'Dennis Lewarch' <dlewarch@Suquamish.nsn.us>; 'Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP)' <stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; 'ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com' <ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com>; 'chief@ejfr.org' <chief@ejfr.org>; 'lrosenbury@ptschools.org' <lrosenbury@ptschools.org>; John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Eric Kuzma <ekuzma@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Monte Reinders <MReinders@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Pinky Mingo <pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Emma Erickson <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov' <sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov>; 'R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov' <R6CSplanning@dfw.wa.gov>; 'allison.e.satter.civ@us.navy.mil' <allison.e.satter.civ@us.navy.mil>; Terry Duff <TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joe Nole <JNole@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'Scott Bancroft' <Sbancroft@jeffpud.org>; Sherrie Shold <SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 'lbailey@cityofpt.us' <lbailey@cityofpt.us>; 'sking@cityofpt.us' <sking@cityofpt.us>; 'Chidley, Michael' <Michael.Chidley@jacobs.com> Subject: Extension of public comment period MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Good afternoon everyone, Due to the extensive requests to extend the comment period for this project, we have decided to extend the comment period by three additional weeks. The authority to extend the comment period is allowed per WAC 197-11-510(1), which states that the lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available. Given the unforeseen snow closures in combination with all the holidays, the Jefferson County SEPA responsible official has the authority to provide adequate time for the public comment period as a reasonable method. I will be noticing the extension in the Jefferson County Leader for Wednesday, January 5 print and sending an updated email that morning. The comment period deadline will now be January 19, 2022, by 4:30 PM. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thank you. Respectfully, Shannen Cartmel Lead Associate Planner 3 Jefferson County Community Development scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us 360-379-4454 State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov January 12, 2022 Shannen Cartmel Assistant Planner Jefferson County 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend, WA 98368 In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 2021-07-04274 Property: Cape George Development Project MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023 Re: Archaeology - Concur with Survey; Site 45JE430 (JE00430) Not Eligible; Follow IDP Dear Ms. Cartmel: The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) has been provided with documentation regarding the above referenced project. In response, we concur with the results and recommendations made in the survey report entitled “Cape George Development Project, Jefferson County, Washington.” Specifically, we agree that historical period artifact scatter site 45JE430 (JE00430) is NOT Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and therefore NO DAHP Permit is required for this project. Instead, we recommend that a standard Inadvertent Discovery Plan is followed during all ground disturbing activities. Please note that the recommendations provided in this letter reflect only the opinions of DAHP. Any interested Tribes may have different recommendations. We appreciate receiving copies of any correspondence or comments from Tribes or other parties concerning cultural resource issues that you receive. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the SHPO pursuant to Washington State law. Please note that should the project scope of work and/or location change significantly, please contact DAHP for further review. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please ensure that the DAHP Project Number (a.k.a. Project Tracking Code) is attached to any future communications about this project. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Stephanie Jolivette Local Governments Archaeologist (360) 586-3088 Stephanie.Jolivette@dahp.wa.gov 1 Helena Smith From:cdog@cablespeed.com Sent:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:15 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:CARY DEAN Subject:SEPA public comments #MLA20-00152 & MLA21-00023 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. My wife and I have lived at 60 Cape George Rd since 1983 and wish to voice our concerns of the above proposal. We feel the proposal of 68 parcels in a rural community will be detrimental to the rural area . We realize that growth is inevitable however a project of this size does not fit our area .We urge the county to take into consideration the parcel sizes of the surrounding parcels and to increase the buildable lot sizes as to the environmental impact of the tree removal , soil erosion , wind , water tables , city water supplies , mill smell , light and noise pollution , animal habitat , increased traffic flow . Jefferson county has the right to amend this proposal as to not affect the area in such a negative way and we hope you will do just that . We have seen many changes in our 38 years and feel confident that you will take into consideration the concerns of the people of the surrounding area . Thank You Cary and Michele Dean 1 Helena Smith From:Christopher Hanson <chris@hopti.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 11:24 AM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comment Concerning Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE APPLICATION MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Dear  Shannen,  This email is an additional comment concerning Pending SEPA Determination and TYPE I LAND USE  APPLICATION MLA20‐00152 / SUB2020‐00018 and MLA21‐00023 / ZON2021‐000016  My original comments were emailed to you on December 29, 2021  Additional comments by Chris Hanson.  In the project description it is noted that “Jefferson County issued an outstanding additional information  request on October 7, 2021”.  The information requested is significant to the scope of the final project.  This  information was due to the county on January 17th, 2022.  You informed me on January 12th that “The  applicant requested an additional 90‐day extension to provide the requested email that was granted. The new  deadline is April 18, 2022.”  In the Public Notice the following statement is made  “ This may be the only opportunity to comment on the  environmental impacts of the proposal”.  The additional information, due April 18th, will contain information concerning environmental aspects of this  project.  Without reviewing the applicant’s complete proposal, it is impossible to provide informed comment  about the environmental aspects of this project.  It seems unreasonable to not allow further comment when the project subject to comment is not yet  completely defined.  Please strongly consider deferring this request for public comment until the public has had an opportunity to  review the complete project.    Thank you very much.  Chris Hanson  141 Nelsons Landing Road  360 301 5720    1 Helena Smith From:John Mauro <JMauro@cityofpt.us> Sent:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 12:56 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Cc:Brent Butler; Mark McCauley; Judy Surber; David Nakagawara; Steve King; Laura Parsons Subject:Pending SEPA Determination and Type I Land Use Application MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 Attachments:22.1.19-SEPA comment.pdf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Dear Ms. Cartmel Please find attached the City of Port Townsend’s comments regarding the pending SEPA Determination and Type I Land Use application referenced above. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. Kind regards, John John Mauro | City Manager City of Port Townsend | www.cityofpt.us 250 Madison Street, Suite 2 | Port Townsend, WA 98368 P: 360.379.5043 | M: 360.531.2916 Follow us on Facebook: fb.me/CityofPT Help steer our future together with Engage PT: www.cityofpt.us/engage CITYOFPT NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act. January 19, 2022 Ms. Shannen Cartmel, Project Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 By email: scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us RE: Pending SEPA Determination and Type I Land Use Application MLA20-00152 / SUB2020- 00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 Dear Ms. Cartmel: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Type I Land Use Application MLA20-00152 / SUB2020-00018 and MLA21-00023 / ZON2021-000016 and for the strong inter- agency partnership we enjoy with Jefferson County and Jefferson County Department of Community Development. The proposed development of 68 lots will likely create additional traffic impacts on the Mill Road/Discovery and the Mill Road/SR20 intersections. The City is requesting a traffic impact analysis be performed including the relative impact of the development proposal on these intersections and any mitigation measures that would be appropriate. The City is working with WSDOT associated with changing the Mill Road/SR20 intersection into a compact roundabout. The traffic impact analysis should take into account this project. The City would be willing to consider mitigation measures that may be more efficiently accomplished by contributing to the WSDOT project providing the timing coincides with the project. In addition, we would like to raise the issue that the proposed development resembles urban densities without urban services. The City has concerns about urban levels of density outside of the assigned growth areas within Jefferson County without the provisions of urban services. The lack of sanitary sewer service and the lack of pedestrian and cycling facilities are noted concerns. The provision of private access roads would not be consistent with development patterns within the City. Finally, higher densities in an area of the County well beyond the current City limits make logical growth of the City difficult which is inconsistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have. Respectfully, John Mauro, City Manager CC: Brent Butler, Jefferson County DCD Director Mark McCauley, Jefferson County Administrator Judy Surber, City of Port Townsend DSD Co-Director Dave Nakagawara, City of Port Townsend DSD Co-Director Steve King, City of Port Townsend Public Works Director 1 Helena Smith From:Gary Zwissler <gary.zwissler@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:04 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Clark (Irvington) project   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Re: MLA20‐00152/SUB2020‐00018 and MLA 21‐00023/ZON2021‐000016.      Shannen, It’s come to my attention that Jefferson County granted Mr Clark a 90‐day extension to provide the county  with the information missing from his land use application. Consequently Mr Clark (dba Cape George Development LLC)  now has until April 18, 2022 to submit the required information.  Yet the public comment period expires January 19,  2022. My concern is the Public Notice specifically states, “This may be your only opportunity to comment on the  environmental impacts of the proposal.”  I believe the county accepting public comment that is based on incomplete  information, then subsequently making its SEPA determination after the public comment period ends and after the  applicant provides the missing information, robs the public of its ability to make a complete and thoughtful assessment  of this project.     Sincerely     Gary Zwissler    231 Gun Club Rd  Port Townsend  760‐415‐3383     1 Helena Smith From:Darren Ramsey <dramsey270@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:39 PM To:Shannen Cartmel Subject:Comment on MLA20-00152 and MLA21-00023   ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you  are not expecting them.      Hi Shannen, this is Darren Ramsey. I own 154 Mediterranean, the lot next to the proposed new lots AA and Z of the Cape  George Land Co.     My comments are:    If the developer removes all the trees, it would be unsightly but more importantly would un‐buffer the wind and could  result damage to my and neighboring properties from trees and there limbs falling.    I understand the developer will be moving in manufactured homes onto the new lots.  Would these be new homes that are energy‐efficient and using updated materials. Or would they be moving in older  units? My hope, of course, would be new.    I think the lots should be larger.    Will the developer be selling the land with the houses? Or is this a "park" that the homeowners lease the land?    Thank you for reviewing my concerns.  I'm not thrilled with the idea, but hope the owners can work with the county and the neighbors to keep the wonderful  forest feel of the area.    Regards, Darren