Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Combined- MLA21-66 Pomona Woods Project
Permit Application Page 1 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us PERMIT APPLICATION Steps in the Permit Process: -Review application checklist to ensure all information is completed prior to submitting application. -Make sure septic has been applied for and water availability has been proven. -Make an appointment to meet with the Permit Technician by calling 360-379-4450. -This is not a standalone application; it must be accompanied by a project specific supplemental application. -Fees will be collected at intake. Additional fees may apply after review and payment is required before permit is issued. For Department Use Only Building Permit # Related Application #s: MLA # Site Information Assessor Tax Parcel Number: Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Access (name of street(s)) from which access will be gained: Present use of property: Description of Work (include proposed uses): Wastewater - Sewage Disposal This property is served by Port Townsend or Port Ludlow sewer system? YES NO If not served by sewer identified above, identify type of septic system below: Type of Sewage System Serving Property: Septic Septic Permit #: Community Septic Name of System: Case #: Are other residences connected to the septic system? Additions or repairs to sewage system: Is it a complete or partial system installation: Complete Partial Has a reserve drainfield been designated? Yes No Date of Last Operations & Maintenance check: Attach last report to application Describe or attach any drainfield easements, covenants or notices on title, which may impact the property: *Exhibit A* Permit Application Page 2 of 2 The authorized agent/representative is the primary contact for all project-related questions and correspondence. The County will mail / e-mail requests and information about the application to the authorized agent/representative and will copy (cc) the owner noted below. The authorized agent/representative is responsible for communicating the information to all parties involved with the application. It is the responsibility of the authorized agent/representative and owner to ensure their mailbox accepts County email (i.e., County email is not blocked or sent to “junk mail”). Applicant/Property Owner Information Property Owner: Name: Address: Phone #: E-mail Address: Please contact Authorized Agent/Representative with project info. (select only one). Property Owner Signature: Date: Note: For projects with multiple owners, attach a separate sheet with each owner(s) information and signatures. Applicant: Authorized Agent/Representative (If other than owner) Name: Address: Phone #: E-mail Address: Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO YES Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant Name: License # Address: Phone #: E-mail Address: Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO YES Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant Name: License # Address: Phone #: E-mail Address: Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO YES Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant Name: License # Address: Phone #: E-mail Address: By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein, and in any attachments, is true and correct to the best of his or her knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in making any issued permit null and void. I further agree to that all activities I intend to undertake or complete associated with this permit will be performed in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations and I agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. Applicant may request notice of the County’s intent to enter upon the property for visits related to this application and subsequent permit issuance. Signature: Print Name: Date: ______________ MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 1 of 2 Pomona Woods JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development POMONA WOODS PROJECT (MLA2021-00066) TABLE OF CONTENTS & EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit(s) Document Name Submitted Revised Exhibit A 01- Permit Application/ 01A- Exhibit List 6/23/2021 - Exhibit B 02-Supplemental Application 6/23/2021 - Exhibit C 03-SEPA Checklist 8/19/2021 11/22/2021 Exhibit D 04- Soils Report 8/19/2021 - Exhibit E 05-Stormwater Plan/05A-Stormwater Site Plan 8/9/2021 11/10/2021 11/17/2021 Exhibit F 07-Buildings Plans 6/23/2021 Exhibit G 08-Site Plan 6/26/2021 11/22/2021 Exhibit H 09-Geotech Report 6/14/2021 11/22/2021 Exhibit I 10-Communications 6/26/2021 - Exhibit J 11-Notices 9/15/2021 & 3/2/2022 - Exhibit K 12-Pre-Application Outline - - Exhibit L 13-Certification of Water Supply 1/31/2022 - Exhibit M 14-Fire Rescue Review Letter 2/3/2022 - Exhibit N 15-Affidavidt of Posting 9/2/2021 - Exhibit O 16-Public Comments 9/15/2021 - 9/30/2021 - Exhibit P 17-Agency-Department Comments 9/16/2021 - 1/10/2022 - MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 2 of 2 Pomona Woods Exhibit Q 18- Inadvertent Discovery Plan - - Exhibit R 19- Staff Report - - Exhibit S 20- SEPA Determination - - Exhibit T 21- Email Correspondence - - Exhibit U 22- Item Log - - Page 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Purpose The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to provide flexibility in the application of the use regulations contained in the Jefferson County Code (JCC) in order to accommodate uses that may be appropriate in an established district under certain circumstances, but inappropriate in the same district under other circumstances. The conditional use permit information sheet is designed to help you provide all the information necessary to facilitate a timely and well-informed decision on your application. You will use the Master Land Use Permit Application Form for all Conditional Use applications. Conditional use approval may involve either a Type II or Type III review process under the JCC, depending on the specific type of use. No conditional use permit can be granted unless consistency with the performance standards of JCC 18.20, the development standards of JCC 18.30 , the procedural requirements of Article VIII, Chapter 18.40 JCC, and other applicable requirements of the JCC have been satisfied. Types of Conditional Uses Conditional uses are typed and identified in Table 3-1 of the JCC, or may be classified as such by the Administrator pursuant to Article II, Chapter 18.15 JCC. There are three broad types of conditional uses identified in the JCC. Conditional [“C”] Use: Proposed uses that require a discretionary approval process and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Applications for uses listed as a "C" in Table 3-1 of the JCC are processed according to the procedures for Type III land use decision established in Article VIII, Chapter 18.40 JCC. Conditional Administrative [“C(a)”] Use: Proposed uses that require approval by the Administrator but do not require a public hearing. Applications for uses listed as an administrative conditional use permit (i.e., "C(a)") in Table 3-1 of the JCC are processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Article VIII of Chapter 18.40 JCC. Conditional Discretionary [“C(d)] Use: Proposed uses that, at a minimum, require approval by the Administrator but that, at the discretion of the Administrator, may be referred to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing and final decision. Applications for uses listed as discretionary conditional use permits (i.e., "C(d)") in Table 3-1 of the JCC are, at a minimum, processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Article VIII of Chapter 18.40 JCC. However, pursuant to JCC 18.40.520, the Administrator may on a case-by-case basis refer a discretionary conditional use permit application to the Hearing Examiner to be processed according to the procedures for Type III land use decisions. In order to refer a "C(d)" application to the Hearing Examiner, the Administrator must make one of the following findings: In the exclusive, discretionary judgment of the Administrator, the application involves potentially significant issues relatingto location, design, configuration, and potential impacts to surrounding properties and the community that can be moreappropriately considered and addressed through a public hearing before the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner; or In the exclusive, discretionary judgment of the Administrator, the application seeks approval of a use involving complexlegal issues necessitating special expertise in the decision-maker. Process Step 1 – Pre-Application Conference: A pre-application conference is required for all conditional use permits. Conceptual plans, county requirements, future permit requirements, etc., and answers to related questions are discussed at the conference. Information provided by Department of Community Development staff helps the applicant to prepare a better application and potentially decreases code-related questions and time required for formal review. Step 2 – Determination of Completeness: Following submittal of your application, county staff will make a determination within 28 days as to whether your application is substantially complete. Step 3 – Formal Application Review and Decision: Following the determination of completeness, a final decision must be made by the county within 120 calendar days. The final decision may be made by either the Administrator (for all “C(a)” and certain “C(d)” uses) or the Hearing Examiner (for all “C” and certain “C(d)” uses) depending on the type of conditional use. Public hearings before *Exhibit B* Page 2 the Hearing Examiner are required for all “C” uses and may be required for certain “C(d)” uses. In all conditional use permit cases the decision may be appealed. Approval Criteria Your conditional use application will be evaluated on the basis of the criteria listed in the relevant section of the Jefferson County Code (see JCC 18.40.530), and in some instances, inspection of the property. The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 as "C(a)," "C(d)" or "C") only if all of the following criteria are satisfied: The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and storm water control; The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel; The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel; The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the conditional use will not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties; The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use will not be hazardous to existing and anticipated traffic in the vicinity of the subject parcel; The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this Code and any other applicable local, state or federal law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in 18.20 and 18.30 of this Code; The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield; The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval; The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole; The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar actions in the area. In instances where all of the above findings cannot be made, the application shall be denied. The County, in accordance with JCC 18.40.540, may impose additional conditions on a particular use if it is deemed necessary for the protection of the surrounding properties, the neighborhood, or the general welfare of the public. The county may add conditions which: Increase requirements in the standards, criteria or policies established by the JCC; Stipulate an exact location for the conditional use on the subject property as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, property damage, erosion, landslides or traffic; Require structural features or equipment as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, property damage, erosion, landslides or traffic; or Contain restrictions or provisions deemed necessary to establish parity with uses permitted in the same zone with respect to avoiding nuisance generating features in matters of noise, odors, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic and physical hazards. Approval of the conditional use is effective for three (3) years from the date of original approval. If a building permit has not been issued within the three (3) year period, the conditional use approval will expire. Minor modifications to a previously approved conditional use may be approved subject to the provisions of JCC 18.40.570. Page 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION CONDITIONAL USE MLA # PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to provide flexibility in the application of the use regulations contained in the Jefferson County Code (JCC). No conditional use permit can be granted unless consistency with the performance standards of JCC 18.20, the development standards of JCC 18.30, the procedural requirements of JCC 18.40.280, and the approval criteria of JCC 18.40.530, and other applicable requirements of the UDC have been satisfied. Approval of the conditional use is effective for three (3) years from the date of original approval. If a building permit has not been issued within the three (3) year period, the conditional use approval will expire. The following questions will assist in the evaluation of the conditional use request: 1. Describe the requested conditional use. 2. Explain how the conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity and with the physical characteristics of the subject property. 3. Describe the infrastructure including but not limited to roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and stormwater control which will serve the requested conditional use. 4. Describe the location, size, and height of buildings, structures, signage, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the use. 5. Describe any noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, outdoor lights or other impacts will be generated by the conditional use. 6. Describe the pedestrian and vehicular traffic and parking area associated with the conditional use. Page 4 7. Will the proposed conditional use result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent of an airport or airfield? 8. Are there any significant adverse impacts on the human and natural environments caused directly by the conditional use? If yes, can these impacts be mitigated? 9. Describe how granting the conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel. 10. Describe how granting the conditional use will not be substantially detrimental to the public interest. 11. Does the conditional use have merit and value for the community as a whole? 12. Describe how the conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and any other applicable local, state or federal law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in JCC 18.20 and JCC 18.30. 13. Describe how the conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT By signing the application form, the applicant/owner attests that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. (APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE) (DATE) [NOTE: Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the Owner.] SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 23 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background [HELP] 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pomona Woods 2. Name of applicant: Ann Burkhart *Exhibit C* SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 23 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: PO Box 145, Port Hadlock, WA 98339, 206-480-8467 4. Date checklist prepared: 8/19/2021 Project is currently in the Conditional Use Permit application phase (under review by Jefferson County). 5. Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County DCD 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The road, well and septic installation will start as soon as the C.U.P. approved. Construction will start in Spring/Summer 2022. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. The retreat center and caretaker house are the only buildings planned at this time. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Geologic Hazard Assessment was completed by Stratum Group in July 2021 (attached). We also received a Custom Soil Resource Report for the area from NRCS data provided by WA State DNR forester Matt Provencher. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are currently in-process with Jefferson County DCD for a Conditional Use Type III Permit and Road Access Permit. In addition, we have prepared our Class IV-General Forest Practice Application Notification for DNR and had it reviewed by Ross Goodwin. As soon as we have the SEPA Final Determination letter we will submit it with a site map to DNR with payment. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. To date I am only aware of Jefferson County approvals and permits identified on the Submittal Checklist Residential / Commercial Building Application. As mentioned above, we are currently in process to get a Conditional Use Type III Permit from Jefferson County DCD. We have submitted all documentation, updated to respond to changes and questions from DCD, and will go before the Hearing Examiner with DCD is ready. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposed project, Pomona Woods, will be a 24 room retreat center with a commercial kitchen on-site to serve guests 3 meals a day. It is currently allowable under RR-20 zoning under Jefferson County Code 18.20.350 classification of Small-scale recreation and tourist uses. (9) Rural Recreational Lodging or Religious Conference Center/Retreat Facilities. Guests will always be there as one group, not for individual room stays (corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning off site, yoga workshop, family or friends gathering, etc). The SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 23 maximum square footage of the 2 story retreat building will be 12,000 SF and there will be 29 parking spaces for the retreat center. In addition, there will be a small caretaker house on-site with 2 parking spaces. The road will be just over 1,800 ft long and will have conduits to take electricity, cabel and water to the site and septic from the retreat and caretaker cabin to the septic field. The Stormwater Site Plan shows the planned location of the buildings, road and septic field. The size of the 2 parcels combined is 938,282 SF. The construction site for the retreat center and caretaker cabin combined will be 7,000 SF. The driveway will be 46,787 SF. Pomona Woods will incorporate smart building design, to meet or exceed Washington State Energy Code requirements. The plans include a high efficiency heat pump system, a high efficiency building envelope, low air leakage with a heat recovery ventilation system, energy efficient lighting, energy efficient water heating and kitchen appliances, and rooftop solar panels. To minimize use of concrete (and the associated high carbon footprint) and lessen the impact on the soil and fungal mycelium we will use helical screw piles vs. concrete foundation. We are partnering with an environmentally committed contractor to execute our sustainable, small-footprint vision. Our architect is LEED certified and the interior designer is GREENleader certified from the Sustainable Furnishings Council. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The presumed street address is 3030 Oak Bay Road (not official). Jefferson County Parcel #s 921183008 and 921183002. Section: 18, Township: 29N, Range: 1E (Base Site Plan attached). B. Environmental Elements [HELP] 1. Earth [help] a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? From the road to the top of the property the slope is 14%, but there are some flat areas at the top. The steepest areas of the site probably aren’t much more than 16 or 17%. From the attached Stratum Group Report, “Slopes throughout the properties are moderate slopes. Slopes along some of the relict valley slides are somewhat steeper. There is a moderately steep low cut slope along portions of the east side of the property associated with Oak Bay Road (Figure 4). No slope failures are evident along the cut slope. The slopes are forested with a mix stand of mature trees including western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, big leaf maple and red alder. The understory vegetation is SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 23 predominantly sword fern throughout most of the site. The upper very gentle slopes have thicker brush areas and more red alder.” The site is pictured below in a revised image below from Dan McShane. It now shows the steepest area, 30% slope, and the potential erosion areas due to periodic water flow. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Per the attached NRCS Soil Report: • Soils at the top (West) side of the property is SnC (Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slope. • There is a small section in the upper East section that is SnD (Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes) • The middle section is CfD (Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes) • Next to Oak Bay Road it is AmD (Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. From the attached Stratum Group Report: “The property is underlain by well drained dense silty to sandy hard glacial till. No evidence of previous, ongoing, or incipient landsliding is present on the property. The relict valleys on the property have stable slopes and the road cut above Oak Bay Road appears to be stable with no indications of potential sliding on the cut slopes.” In addition, per Jefferson County maps, the “slight” risk of landslide hazard and “intermediate”, not “unstable”, Shoreline Slope Stability are only on the lower three-quarters of the property. The retreat building and the caretaker cabin will be built at the Eastern, mostly flat quarter of the property. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 23 e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No excavation has been done on site. For the road, pit run and crushed granite will be used. Per Shold quote for the driveway: • Build construction access into job site by installing a 40' long 12" HDPE culvert and spreading 120 tons of 2" to 4" crushed basalt. • Spread, grade, and compact 760 yards of screened pit run over new driveway 16' Wide for 6" base course. • Spread, grade, and compact 420 tons of 3/4" minus crushed granite over new driveway 14' wide for 2" top course. The plan for the buildings is put them on diamond piers so minimal excavation will be done. Total anticipated cut and fill from the Stormwater calculation worksheet is 2,500 cu/yd of each.d f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Per Stratum Group quote in answer d., no, considering use of best practices identified in the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet that will be used for the project. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Per submitted Stormwater Calculation Worksheet, the total SF of the two parcels is 938,282 sq. ft. • Gravel driveway and parking is 46,787 SF • Building impervious is 6,710 SF Total Impervious is 53,497 Total Percent Impervious is 5.7% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Please refer to completed Stormwater Calculation Worksheet. 2. Air [help] a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Diminimous. There will be some impact of the actual construction (dust) but the builder, G. Little, will be following all best practices to minimize impact, including: • Cover all on ground stockpiles with poly membrane in dry months and straw during the wet months. • Spraying exposed soil and storage areas with water during dry periods. • Cleaning construction entrances and maintaining construction road as weather and construction activities dictate. The owner, Ann Burkhart, will be on-site monitoring as well. In addition, the 21.5 acres are heavily wooded which will shield neighbors from impact of construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 23 No. The property is surrounded by commercial forest on the West and North sides, one residence on South side and one next to road on the North. Oak Bay Road is the Eastern boundry with residences on the other side of the road near the water. If/when the commercial forest is logged there will be a possible temporary odor emission from heavy equipment. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: We are required to maintain a 250ft setback from the commercial forest and that area is heavily wooded. That will shield the Pomona Woods activities from any possible emissions. 3. Water [help] a. Surface Water: [help] 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. • Per Stratum Group report, “Periodic water flow may take place during unusual weather events such as rapid heavy snow melt on frozen ground. However, no significant erosion was observed in any of the valleys on the properties and with the exception of the very lower end of two of the valleys, there was no evidence of water.” • Jefferson County DCD Staff Biologist Donna Frostholm did an onsite review of all the valleys where they meet the road and determined there are no wetlands on-site. • A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of critical areas on the parcel, including water bodies, wetlands or watersheds within the Pomona Woods parcels. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of water bodies, wetlands within the Pomona Woods parcels. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of water bodies, wetlands within the Pomona Woods parcels. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of water bodies, wetlands within the Pomona Woods parcels. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no FEMA 100yr flood risk within the Pomona Woods parcels. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 23 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No waste materials will be discharged and a review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of water bodies, wetlands within the Pomona Woods parcels. b. Ground Water: [help] 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. We are working with Jefferson County PUD to do a waterline extension from the Quimper Water System. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The septic system is under design by Shold. A single septic system is proposed to treat and discharge domestic sewage from the retreat building and the caretaker house. The total footprint of the septic system is expected to be 5,000 square feet or less, and located primarily in the North-eastern portion of the subject property. 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. Per the revised Stormwater Calculation Worksheet and Site Plan we will be utilizing a dispersion method. The site is big enough and has mature forest to absorb the runoff. In addition, we will be installing rain gardens for both buildings, as described in question d. below. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. We will not be generating waste materials onsite (other than what is properly managed through the septic system). A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of critical areas on the parcel, including water bodies, wetlands or watersheds within the Pomona Woods parcels. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No. All the building run-off will be captured throught the rain gardens and, as back up, the full dispersion method described in the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet. There will be no alteration of natural drainage patterns. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 23 To meet MR#9 Operation & Maintenance, and ensure that the approved stormwater management facilities are appropriately mainted for the life of the project, we will be signing and implementing the Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement prepared by the Public Works Department of Jefferson County. Although not required, we will be installing a rain gardens to control runoff from the roof. The rain garden will be designed per best practices outlined in the Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington produced by Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State University Extension. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/publications/1310027.pdf The full roof surfaces of the retreat building at 6,000 SF, and caretaker building at 710 SF, will each drain into a rain garden. Their locations are marked in the revised Stormwater Site Plan. The retreat building rain garden footprint, including the 1’ overflow area on all sides, will be 684 SF. The caretaker building rain garden footprint, including the 1’ overflow area on all sides, will be 105 SF. Building Roof SF Sizing Factor SF Top Surface Overflow Containment Retreat 6,000 9% 540 684 Cabin 710 9% 63.9 105 The Pomona Woods owner has experience with installation and maintenance of rain gardens as seen at: http://www.seattlechannel.org/CityStream/segments?videoid=x54377 4. Plants [help] a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: __X__deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __X__evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other __X__shrubs ____grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Where the retreat building, parking lot and caretaker cabin will be built the current vegetation is predominately nettles, berries, salal, sword fern, alder and some big leaf maple. A few cedars, hemlock and douglas firs may also have to be removed but every effort will be made to preserve trees of significant size/age that are in good health. • Clearing for constructions of structures equals 7,000 SF • Clearing for lawn and other compacted surface equals 5,155 SF Total equals 12,155 SF SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 23 For the road, cedar, douglas firs, hemlock, and sword fern will be the predominant species removed. • Clearing for the driveway and parking equals 46,787 SF Total percent of site cleared equals 6%. Septic SF of 27,622 was not included because Shold plan indicates that major clearing will not be necessary. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. A review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered species database IPaC Planning and Consultation the following Endangered Species are listed https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/EEJMUE4GYJDYVDPZ3ATBBIUVZE/resources • Golden Paintbrush THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: We will be leaving native vegetation in all areas except in the land disturbance areas indicated in the revised Stormwater Calculation Worksheet. Where landscaping is done close to the retreat center building we will focus on native plants, with the exception of a small grassy field for gathering and games with adjacent vegetable garden. The combined area of lawn and vegetable garden will be 4,000 SF. As indicated on the revised site plan (dated 11/19/2021) a Screen A Landscaping of at least 50’ will be maintained around the permiter of the property. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Holly, laurel 5. Animals [help] a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Observed onsite: ravens, robins, pileated woodpeckers and deer. Possible species in Port Hadlock/Irondale per iNaturalist https://www.inaturalist.org (excluding marine mammals, waterfowl and shorebirds). Fish species were also not included because there are no water bodies on site. Land Mammals Birds Continued Mule Deer Bald Eagle Douglas’ Squirrel Robin Coyote Dark Eyed Junco Common Racoon American Crow Eastern Gray Squirrel White Crowned Sparrow Virginia Opossum Spotted Towhee Townsend’s Chipmunk Song Sparrow Eastern Cottontail Barn Swallow Black Rat Anna’s Hummingbird Coast Mole Northern Flicker American Shrewmole Red-breasted Nuthatch Long-tailed Weasel House Finch Deer Mouse Chesnut Backed Chickadee SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 23 Townsend’s Vole Rufous Hummingbird Mountain Lion Red Winged Blackbird Bobcat Yellow-rumped Warbler Northwestern Deer Mouse European Starling Americn Beaver Downy Woodpecker Masked Shrew Cedar Waxwing Townsend’s Mole Steller’s Jay North American Porcupine House Sparrow Meadow Vole American Goldfinch Brown Rat Pileated Woodpecker American Black Bear Black-capped Chickadee Bushy-tailed Woodrat Golden-crowned Sparrow Vagrant Shrew Rock Pigeon Flying Squirrels Bushtit American Water Shrew Common Raven Trowbridge’s Shrew Violet-green Swallow Ambhibians Varied Thrush Northern Pacific Tree Frog Purple Martin Northern Red-legged Frod Ruby-crowned Kinglet Rough-skinned Newt Barred Owl Ensatina Pine Siskin Northern Salamander Red-tailed Hawk Long-toed Salamander Blcak-headed Grosbeak Western Red-backed Salamander Brown-headed Cowbird Birds Eurasian Collared-Dove Warbling Vireo House Wren Black-throated Gray Warbler Red-breasted Sapsucker Townsend’s Warbler Cooper’s Hawk Evening Grosbeak Red Crossbill Mountain Bluebird Savannah Sparrow Hutton’s Vireo Golden-crwoned Kinglet American Dipper Pacific Wren Canada Jay Hairy Woodpecker White-Winged Crossbill Bewisck’s Wren Townsend’s Solitaire Wilson’s Warbler Lincoln’s Sparrow Orange-crowned Warbler White-throated Sparrow Band-tailed Pigeon Lazuli Bunting Fox Sparrow Say’s Phoebe Turkey Vulture Evening Bats Purple Finch Old World Buntings Brown Creeper Ring-necked Pheasant Western Tanager California Quail Tree Swallow Cliff Swallow Sharp-Shinned Hawk Northern Rough Winged Swallow Northern Harrier Olive-sided Flycatcher Pacific-slope Flycatcher Brewer’s Blackbird Mourning Dove California Scrub-Jay Peregrine Falcon Merlin Marsh Wren Hermit Thrush Swainson’s Thrush Cackling Goose Willow Flycatcher Chipping Sparrow Yellow Warbler Western Meadowlark Common Yellowthroat SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 23 b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of Riparian Cover (PNPTC, 2009), Channel Migration Zones or Marbled Murrelet and Spotted Owl Habitat (USFWS). A review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered species database IPaC Planning and Consultation the following Endangered Species and Migratory Birds are listed https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/EEJMUE4GYJDYVDPZ3ATBBIUVZE/resources • Streaked Horned Lark (Threatened) • Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Threatened) THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of Riparian Cover (PNPTC, 2009), Channel Migration Zones or Marbled Murrelet and Spotted Owl Habitat (USFWS). A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of water bodies, wetlands within the Pomona Woods parcels. A review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered species database IPaC Planning and Consultation the following Endangered Species and Migratory Birds are listed https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/EEJMUE4GYJDYVDPZ3ATBBIUVZE/resources • Streaked Horned Lark (Threatened) • Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Threatened) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Preservation of the forest, creation of a rain garden as described in question 3.d. The rain garden will be planted with native species. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Per the site https://invasivespecies.wa.gov/find-a-priority-species/?_sft_priority-specie-type=invasive-animals. The possible species (non-aquatic) could include Bullfrog, but they have not been heard or seen on the property. 6. Energy and Natural Resources [help] a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Pomona Woods will incorporate smart building design, to meet or exceed Washington State Energy Code requirements. For the retreat building the plans include a high efficiency heat pump system for heating the building, a high efficiency building envelope, low air leakage with a heat recovery ventilation system, energy efficient lighting, energy efficient water heating and kitchen appliances, and rooftop solar panels. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. The building will be 2 stories high, shorter than the surrounding forest that will be maintained as a screen along the outer edge of the property. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 23 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Smart building design, to meet or exceed Washington State Energy Code requirements. The plans include high efficiency heat pump heating, a high efficiency building envelope, low air leakage with a heat recovery ventilation system, energy efficient lighting, energy efficient water heating and kitchen appliances, and potential rooftop solar panels. 7. Environmental Health [help] a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None. The retreat center will be for lodging and education/meetings in a group format. Non-toxic cleaning supplies will be used for housekeeping. There will be an outdoor firepit on site with sand buckets and a water spigot close by for thoroughly extinguishing fires. It will only be used if winds are below 15mph and there are no county burn bans. There will be no overhanging vegetation near the fire pit. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. There are no structures on the parcels and the only evidence of use is from selective logging. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. There are no pipeline or other chemicals/conditions that might affect the project development and design. The site has been walked and the parcel history reviewed on the Jefferson County Parcel Search. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Per Trent McKnight at G. Little Construction, the project builder, “we do not store or produce toxic or hazardous chemicals. Some paints, cabinet finish products, floor finishes have properties that could be defined as hazardous. With the philosophy of this project we will be looking to find alternatives to all of those products.” Regardless of the types of paints and finishes used, we will be ensuring that they are stored on-site in a way that prevents leaks and spills and that partially used product and packaging is properly disposed of off-site. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Pomona Woods will potentially utilize regular emergency services (fire, medical emergency, police). We will also reach out to county/Tri-Area emergency services to explore how we can be of service in the local disaster response plan since we will have rooms and a certain amount of food stored on site, as well as a generator. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 23 As a retreat center focused on connection to nature we will be actively monitoring forest health through daily walks throughout the forest, at least annual arborist/forester visits, and by keeping all systems such as the rain garden in good working order. Invasive plants like English Ivy, Himalayan blackberry and Holly will be promptly removed so they do not spread on-site or to the neighbors. The road will be reviewed annually to make sure drainages are working properly and there is no danger of erosion. To meet MR#9 Operation & Maintenance, and ensure that the approved stormwater management facilities are appropriately mainted for the life of the project, we will be signing and implementing the Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement prepared by the Public Works Department of Jefferson County. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None that I’m currently aware of. The Oak Bay Road traffic can barely be heard at the top (West) side of the property so it will not disturb even the outdoor activities near the retreat. While guests walk the trails on the property they will hear the traffic but it is just a light whoosh and not disruptive. The traffic on Oak Bay Road is light. If the commercial forest land is harvested that will be a temporary disruption. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Traffic: Most guests are likely to arrive via private car or rented van/bus via roads and WA State Ferry Service. Based on Pomona Woods proprietary business financial projections, where the number of guests per year is calculated, we estimate that the average number of guests on site at peak will be as shown in the table below. Average guests on site per night is 24, times 71% average occupancy in a year, times 365 days. Because the facility is only rented to groups most will carpool to the location and will be encouraged to do so. Guests will arrive in the between 8:00am-7:00pm on their arrival day and leave between 8:00am-11:00am on their departure day. Deliveries will be scheduled for business hours – 8:00am-5:00pm so as to not disturb neighbors or guests. Construction: There will be typical construction noise while the retreat center and caretaker cabin is being built. Guests/yr@ peak, yr 7 (24*.71*365)6,219.60 RT = yearly guest estimate*2 12,439.20 Divide by Av. Carpool 2-3 (used 2.5)4,975.68 Trips per day (divide by 365)13.63 6 commuting staff *2 for RT 12.00 Deliveries 2x Week *2 for RT 0.57 Total trips / day 25.63 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 23 Operations: During the day (9:00am-8:00pm) the guests may do some gathering outside for team building activities. It will never be more than 35 people and amplification won’t be allowed on site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Traffic: • Guests will be strongly encouraged to carpool or make use of shuttles • 15mph signs will be posted on the driveway to minimize noise and protect the road Short Term Construction: • Per noise ordinance 02-0209-15 construction related activities will be limited to 7:00AM to 10:00PM. G. Little is typically on site from 7:00AM to 3:30PM and will minimize the noise before 8:00AM. • Minimize noise during the first hour of the acceptable noise ordinance period by focusing on lower noise construction activities such as staging, team meetings, plan reviews and material mobilization. • MInimize weekend work and evening work. • Owner will be living on-site to monitor noise and other impacts. Long Term Business Operations: • Quiet hours at the retreat center will be 10:00PM - 8:00AM. • There will be no amplification allowed on-site. • Most of the meetings will be held indoors. • Guest contracts, website language and guest orientations will emphasize the need to respect neighbors. 8. Land and Shoreline Use [help] a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Site has not been used. Pomona Woods activities would not affect current land uses adjacent or nearby. Pomona Woods is designed to spark a lasting connection with nature, one's self, and each other – all while adding value to the local community. We will host small group retreats for the purpose of education, enrichment and connection. To ensure and manage minimal impact on the site and for neighbors, and create a uniquely intimate experience for guests, we will limit occupancy to a maximum of 35 guests. We will not be hosting individual bookings at our retreat. Per Jefferson County Unifed Development Code requirement in 18.30.140(1), outdoor safety lights will be located lower than 20 feet and will be aimed low to encourage star gazing by guests. They will be energy-efficient and shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel. They will also be directed downward and away from adjoining properties. Roll shades will be installed on the windows so they can come down at night to control glare. The at least 50 feet of forest screening that will be maintained around the property will provide additional shielding. Quiet hours from 10:00PM - 8:00AM will be strictly maintained. No amplification will be allowed outside any time of day. The property line to the South will be professionally surveyed and will be clearly marked every 50 feet with no trespassing signs to make sure SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 23 guests do not wander off the property onto neighbor’s land. The dirt walking trails will not go within the 50 feet screening area identified in the site plan. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? There is evidence of a harvest around the early 1900s (spring board notches in cedar stumps) and then 1-2 other selective harvests, per the WA State DNR forester who came on site to provide advice on keeping the forest healthy. The land is not designated as a commercial forest. There is no evidence of regular, sustained use of any kind on the property. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No. If the commercial forest on the W and N sides are harvested it will be noticed, but we have to maintain a 250 ft setback anyway for all buildings. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. A review of Jefferson County Assesor and Treasurer records for the 2 parcels confirms no improvement/buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Per question c. there are no structures to demolish. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Parcel # 921183002 is RR5 and Parcel # 921183008 is RR20 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural Residential (In the Tri-Area Planning Area) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of critical areas on the parcel, including water bodies, wetlands or watersheds within the Pomona Woods parcels. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. A review of the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application showed no evidence of critical areas within the Pomona Woods parcels. Exception: Per Jefferson County maps, the “slight” risk of landslide hazard and “intermediate”, not “unstable”, Shoreline Slope Stability are only on the lower three-quarters of the property. The retreat building and the caretaker cabin will be built at the Eastern, mostly flat quarter of the property. The lower third of the property is in the Coastal SIPZ “<100ppm chloride and ¼ mile from shoreline” but we will be connecting to the Quimper Water System. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 23 1 person will live on site in the caretaker cabin and up to 7 people will work on site. Guests on site will be limited to 35 so maximum total people on site at any time is 43. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. No one has been living on-site and there are no structures on-site, so no one will be displaced. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No one has been living on-site and there are no structures on-site, so no one will be displaced. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: There are no existing land use plans. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: We are required to maintain a 250 ft setback to the adjacent forest lands so will have no impact on them. There are no agricultural lands close by. 9. Housing [help] a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. No housing for sale or rental. This is a retreat center for short-term guests. There will be 24 single rooms and capacity will be capped at 35 people. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. No one has been living on-site and there are no structures on-site, so no one will be displaced. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No one has been living on-site and there are no structures on-site, so no one will be displaced. 10. Aesthetics [help] a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 27 ft. (2 stories). Either Hardie board or cedar plank (dark brown) will be used on the exterior. Approx. 4,500 sq ft of windows. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. There is a mature forest throughout the 2 parcels which are higher than the 2 story retreat building. A natural forest screening of 50Ft. will be maintained around the edge of the property. In addition, the only close neighbor (on the S Side) is downhill from the project site. See picture below. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 23 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Natural forest screening of 50Ft. will be maintained around the edge of the property. Sign: We have not designed the actual sign yet but it will be as per 18.30.150 (h) a “Directional sign” meant to designate the location of Pomona Woods and will be submitted for permit when designed. We will design something similar to the picture below, but not to exceed 4 ft high and 8 ft wide (32 square feet). The sign will be located on the North side of the entrance road to the property, at least 10 feet back from Oak Bay Road (past the brush trimming line for Oak Bay Road) and parallel to the road. The illumination will be shielded and directed so the light intensity/brightness shall not adversely affect surrounding properties or create a hazard or nuisance to the traveling public. The sign location is noted on the site plan. 11. Light and Glare [help] a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? We will have safety lights outside to mark paths and the large glass windows will emit light at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. Per Jefferson County Unifed Development Code requirement in 18.30.140(1), outdoor safety lights will be located lower than 20 feet and will be aimed low to encourage star gazing by guests. They will be energy-efficient and shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel. They will also be Neighbor Retreat Building SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 23 directed downward and away from adjoining properties. Roll shades will be installed on the windows so they can come be lowered at night to control glare. The at least 50 feet of forest screening that will be maintained around the property will provide additional shielding so they will not be a safety hazard or interfere with views. In addition, the only close neighbor (on the S Side) is downhill from the project site. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None I am aware of. Surounding land is either commercial forest or residential. The residence to the South is at least 97ft. from the property line. At the Eastern end of the property next to Oak Bay Road the residence to the North is 138ft from the property line. That residence is far down hill from the retreat building. The distances were measured using tools on the Jefferson County Public Land Records Mapping Application. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Per Jefferson County Unifed Development Code requirement in 18.30.140(1), outdoor safety lights will be located lower than 20 feet and will be aimed low to encourage star gazing by guests. They will be energy-efficient and shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel. They will also be directed downward and away from adjoining properties. Roll shades will be installed on the windows so they can come down at night to control glare. The at least 50 feet of forest screening that will be maintained around the property will provide additional shielding so they will not be a safety hazard or interfere with views. 12. Recreation [help] a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Biking local rural roads, hiking foothills and mountains of the Olympics and the Salish Sea shoreline, water sports in Sound and lakes, farm visits, art, culture and history of Port Townsend. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. It would benefit from and contribute to them because guests will learn about them and use them as is intended. We will focus on supporting local businesses such as recreational opportunities. Part of our vision is to connect guests with the local community through farm visits and dinner lectures from craftspeople, environmentalists, storytellers, artists and local tribal members. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Since any impact will be positive, there is no need to reduce or control impacts. With maximum 35 guests at a time, any increase in demand will be slight. 13. Historic and cultural preservation [help] a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. None are on site. The closest historical sites are Fort Townsend and Fort Flagler. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 23 b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. There is no evidence on the property site. The Chimacum Tribe used to occupy the Port Hadlock area. After their decline, the area became inhabited by the S’Klallam Tribe. Port Hadlock was an important tribal center known as the Capital of Puget Sound Clans. https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/edoc/1719247/Chapter3-PortHadlockEnvironmentalReportSEPA,September2008.pdf According to a Historylink.org article, “Chimacum, just south of Port Hadlock and three miles east of Discovery Bay, is a community that was once the site of an Indian village. It was named for the Chem-a-kum, a now-extinct Indian tribe that once inhabited the valley.” https://www.historylink.org/file/7472 Chimacum is about 5 miles from the property. According to the Jamestown S’Klallum Tribe website, Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary is an area of cultural importance. It is located near Anderson Lake State Park, just over 6 miles from the property. https://jamestowntribe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Tamawas-Rock-Sanctuary.pdf c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Research over the Internet was conducted with a focus on the websites listed above in questions b. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. If potentially significant archaeological sites are discovered during excavation, construction will be halted and a qualified archaeologist will be retained to determine an appropriate course of action. 14. Transportation [help] a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The project site is served by county road Oak Bay Road, which, per conversation with John Fleming of Jefferson County, has a daily traffic count of 2,000-3,000 cars. The access is shown on the attached site plan next to milepost 3. Oak Bay Road in front of the property is a long straight stretch. According to JeffCo data, https://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/DocumentCenter/View/12232/2021-Local- Traffic-Safety-Plan-Appendices: 7 accidents occurred • 1 was alcohol related • 2 involved hitting a deer • 1 was mechanical • 2 were driver error • 1 involved a group of cyclists From 2015-2019 no serious injury or fatal crashes occurred on Oak Bay Road. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 20 of 23 Per the Department of Public Works Memorandum dated September 30, 2021 regarding Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments: “Public Works Department Recommendation: Based on the minor increase in traffic, and low accident rate history along Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of the proposed project, the Department recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation.” b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Oak Bay Road is served by the #7 Jefferson County Transit Bus that goes from Port Townsend to Poulsbo (transit center). c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? 31 parking places will be created as a part of the project (See PW Base Site Plan for dimensions). None exist currently. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). NO. Per the Department of Public Works Memorandum dated September 30, 2021 regarding Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments, “Public Works Department Recommendation: Public Works Department Recommendation: Based on the minor increase in traffic, and low accident rate history along Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of the proposed project, the Department recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Most guests are likely to arrive via private car or rented van/bus via roads and WA State Ferry Service. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Based on Pomona Woods proprietary business financial projections, where the number of guests per year is calculated, we estimate that the average number of guests on site at peak will be as shown in the table below. Average guests on site per night is 24, times 71% average occupancy in a year, times 365 days. Because the facility is only rented to groups most will carpool to the location and will be encouraged to do so. Guests/yr@ peak, yr 7 (24*.71*365)6,219.60 RT = yearly guest estimate*2 12,439.20 Divide by Av. Carpool 2-3 (used 2.5)4,975.68 Trips per day (divide by 365)13.63 6 commuting staff *2 for RT 12.00 Deliveries 2x Week *2 for RT 0.57 Total trips / day 25.63 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 21 of 23 During peak season – May to September – occupancy may reach 90% with a maximum of 35 guests on site at a time. The guests would stay 2-3 nights at a time. The facility will be rented out as a whole, not for individual room rental. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No. Oak Bay Road is predominately residential. 35 guests and 7 staff coming and going would have minimal overall impact on the 2-3,000/day cars that move on the road (traffic data from https://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/DocumentCenter/View/12232/2021-Local-Traffic-Safety-Plan-Appendices Per the Department of Public Works Memorandum dated September 30, 2021 regarding Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments, Public Works Department Recommendation: Based on the minor increase in traffic, and low accident rate history along Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of the proposed project, the Department recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Guests will be encouraged to car pool or hire group transport. The entrance to the property is on a straight road with a low accident rate history. The bushes at the entrance to the property will be kept trimmed to ensure visibility. 15. Public Services [help] a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. There would be a diminimous impact on public services for maximum capacity of 35 guests and 7 staff. We will become a PUD customer for water and electricity. We will also require Fire Department and Police Protection. Some guests may make use of public transit available on Oak Bay Road. The owner will make use of local health care. No school service will be required. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. While we won’t be able to reduce the fact we may need the services described above, we will be extending the Quimper Water System at owner expense and will work with local emergency services disaster planning to see how we can be a part of that plan by potentially providing emergency shelter. 16. Utilities [help] a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other ___________ There are no utilities currently available at the site. Power is at the road. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 22 of 23 On site septic will be built by Shold. Electricity will be brought in via the new driveway and will be provided by Jefferson PUD. We will also extend the Quimper Water System from Eagle Ridge Road to the end of the property so we can bring water up the road to have water service from Jefferson PUD. As soon as the Type III Conditional Use Permit is approved Shold will build the road and trench for the utilities. The retreat building and caretaker residence described in the site plan will be constructed starting in 2022. C. Signature [HELP] The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ___________________________________________________ Name of signee __Ann M. Burkhart___________________________________ Position and Agency/Organization __Owner____________________________ Date Submitted: _November 17, 2021____________ D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions [HELP] (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 23 of 23 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Jefferson County Area, Washington Burkhart Property Natural Resources Conservation Service June 28, 2021 *Exhibit D* Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Jefferson County Area, Washington...............................................................13 AmD—Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes..........................13 CfD—Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes................................14 SnC—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes........................15 SnD—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes......................16 Soil Information for Forestland...........................................................................18 Suitabilities and Limitations for Use....................................................................18 Land Management..........................................................................................18 Compaction Potential (WA).........................................................................18 Potential for Seedling Mortality....................................................................24 Suitability for Hand Planting........................................................................28 Windthrow Hazard (WA)..............................................................................32 Vegetative Productivity....................................................................................38 Forest Productivity (Tree Site Index): Douglas-fir (King 1966 (795))...........38 Soil Reports........................................................................................................42 Land Management..........................................................................................42 Damage by Fire and Seedling Mortality on Forestland...............................42 Forestland Planting and Harvesting............................................................44 Vegetative Productivity....................................................................................45 Forestland Productivity................................................................................46 Rangeland and Forest Vegetation Classification, Productivity, and Plant Composition.................................................................................47 References............................................................................................................51 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 53161205316170531622053162705316320531637053164205316120531617053162205316270531632053163705316420520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 48° 0' 3'' N 122° 43' 49'' W48° 0' 3'' N122° 43' 23'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 49'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 27, 2019—May 10, 2019 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AmD Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 2.1 9.8% CfD Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 11.2 51.8% SnC Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 6.3 29.1% SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 2.0 9.3% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Jefferson County Area, Washington AmD—Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t62j Elevation: 50 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 240 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Alderwood Setting Landform:Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope, nose slope, talf Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly loam Bw1 - 7 to 21 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bw2 - 21 to 30 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bg - 30 to 35 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cd1 - 35 to 43 inches: very gravelly sandy loam 2Cd2 - 43 to 59 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 39 inches to densic material Drainage class:Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water capacity:Very low (about 2.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Forage suitability group: Limited Depth Soils (G002XF303WA) Other vegetative classification: Limited Depth Soils (G002XF303WA) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Minor Components Everett Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Kames, eskers, moraines Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Hydric soil rating: No Mckenna Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions, drainageways Landform position (three-dimensional):Dip Down-slope shape:Concave, linear Across-slope shape:Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Shalcar Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Depressions Landform position (three-dimensional):Dip Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Norma Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Depressions, drainageways Landform position (three-dimensional):Dip Down-slope shape:Concave, linear Across-slope shape:Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes CfD—Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2gqc Elevation: 50 to 500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 16 to 30 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Cassolary and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Description of Cassolary Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Glacial drift and/or marine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: sandy loam H2 - 3 to 23 inches: sandy loam H3 - 23 to 49 inches: stratified fine sandy loam to silty clay loam H4 - 49 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 20 to 32 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water capacity:Moderate (about 8.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Forage suitability group: Sloping to Steep Soils (G002XN702WA) Other vegetative classification: Sloping to Steep Soils (G002XN702WA) Hydric soil rating: No SnC—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2gt6 Elevation: 100 to 690 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Sinclair and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sinclair Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Basal till Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 8 to 25 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 25 to 60 inches: gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to densic material Drainage class:Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water capacity:Very low (about 2.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Forage suitability group: Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Other vegetative classification: Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Hydric soil rating: No SnD—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2gt7 Elevation: 50 to 690 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Sinclair and similar soils:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Sinclair Setting Landform:Terraces Parent material:Basal till Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 8 to 25 inches: gravelly sandy loam H3 - 25 to 60 inches: gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to densic material Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Drainage class:Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water capacity:Very low (about 2.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Forage suitability group: Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Other vegetative classification: Limited Depth Soils (G002XN302WA) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Soil Information for Forestland Suitabilities and Limitations for Use The Suitabilities and Limitations for Use section includes various soil interpretations displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each interpretation. Land Management Land management interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in evaluating existing conditions in planning and predicting the soil response to various land management practices, for a variety of land uses, including cropland, forestland, hayland, pastureland, horticulture, and rangeland. Example interpretations include suitability for a variety of irrigation practices, log landings, haul roads and major skid trails, equipment operability, site preparation, suitability for hand and mechanical planting, potential erosion hazard associated with various practices, and ratings for fencing and waterline installation. Compaction Potential (WA) This interpretation is designed to predict the potential for soil compaction from operation of ground-based equipment for forest harvesting and site preparation activities when soils are moist. Soil compaction reduces porosity and increases bulk density by reducing the interaggregate pore space. Compacted soils are less favorable for good plant growth because of high soil bulk density and hardness, reduced pore space, and poor aeration and drainage. Root penetration and growth is decreased in compacted soils because the hardness or strength of these soils prevents the expansion of roots. Supplies of air, water, and nutrients that roots need are also less favorable when compaction decreases soil porosity and drainage. Interpretation ratings are based on soil properties in the upper 12 inches of the profile. Factors considered are soil texture, soil structure, and rock fragment content. Initial ratings are based on the following soil texture groups: 18 Low compaction potential: loamy sand, loamy fine sand, loamy coarse sand, sand, fine sand, coarse sand Medium compaction potential: silty clay, clay, sandy clay, sandy clay loam, sandy loams with less than 15 percent clay High compaction potential: loam, silt, silt loam, silty clay loam, very fine sandy loam, sandy loams with 15 percent or more clay. Ratings are reduced by one class, such as from "high" to "medium" for strong soil structure grade. Ratings are reduced by one class for rock fragment content of 35 to 60 percent by volume, and are reduced by two classes for rock fragment content of greater than 60 percent. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the soil compaction potential. A "High" rating indicates that the potential for compaction is significant. The growth rate of seedlings will be reduced following compaction. After initial compaction, this soil is still able to support standard equipment, but will continue to compact with each subsequent pass. The soil is moisture sensitive, exhibiting large changes in density with changing moisture content. A "Medium" rating indicates that the potential for compaction is significant. The growth rate of seedlings may be reduced following compaction. After the initial compaction (i.e., the first equipment pass), this soil is able to support standard equipment with only minimal increases in soil density. The soil is intermediate between moisture insensitive and moisture sensitive. A "Low" rating indicates that the potential for compaction is insignificant. This soil is able to support standard equipment with minimal compaction. The soil is moisture insensitive, exhibiting only small changes in density with changing moisture content. Numerical ratings indicate the soil compaction potential The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.00. They indicate gradations between the point where compaction potential is highest (1.00) and the point at which compaction potential is lowest (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Survey. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. Custom Soil Resource Report 20 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Compaction Potential (WA)53161205316170531622053162705316320531637053164205316120531617053162205316270531632053163705316420520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 48° 0' 3'' N 122° 43' 49'' W48° 0' 3'' N122° 43' 23'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 49'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons High Medium Low Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines High Medium Low Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points High Medium Low Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 27, 2019—May 10, 2019 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 22 Tables—Compaction Potential (WA) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AmD Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes High Alderwood (85%)Soil texture, 0-12 inches (1.00) 2.1 9.8% Rock fragments, 0-12 inches (1.00) Soil structure grade, 0-12 inches (1.00) McKenna (5%)Soil texture, 0-12 inches (1.00) Rock fragments, 0-12 inches (1.00) Soil structure grade, 0-12 inches (1.00) Norma (2%)Soil texture, 0-12 inches (1.00) Rock fragments, 0-12 inches (1.00) Soil structure grade, 0-12 inches (1.00) CfD Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Medium Cassolary (100%) Rock fragments, 0-12 inches (1.00) 11.2 51.8% Soil structure grade, 0-12 inches (1.00) Soil texture, 0-12 inches (0.50) SnC Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Medium Sinclair (100%)Rock fragments, 0-12 inches (1.00) 6.3 29.1% Soil structure grade, 0-12 inches (1.00) Soil texture, 0-12 inches (0.50) SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Medium Sinclair (100%)Rock fragments, 0-12 inches (1.00) 2.0 9.3% Soil structure grade, 0-12 inches (1.00) Custom Soil Resource Report 23 Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Soil texture, 0-12 inches (0.50) Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Medium 19.5 90.2% High 2.1 9.8% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Options—Compaction Potential (WA) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Potential for Seedling Mortality The ratings in this interpretation indicate the likelihood of death of naturally or artificially propagated tree seedlings, as influenced by soil characteristics, physiographic features, and climatic conditions. Considered in the ratings are flooding, ponding, depth to a water table, content of lime, reaction, available water capacity, soil moisture regime, soil temperature regime, aspect, and slope. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The soils are described as having a "low," "moderate," or "high" potential for seedling mortality. "Low" indicates that seedling mortality is unlikely. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. "Moderate" indicates that seedling mortality can occur because one or more soil properties are less than desirable. Fair performance can be expected, and some maintenance is needed. "High" indicates that seedling mortality can occur because of one or more soil properties and that overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. Numerical ratings indicate gradations between the point at which the potential for seedling mortality is highest (1.00) and the point at which the potential is lowest (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition Custom Soil Resource Report 24 of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. Custom Soil Resource Report 25 26 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Potential for Seedling Mortality 53161205316170531622053162705316320531637053164205316120531617053162205316270531632053163705316420520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 48° 0' 3'' N 122° 43' 49'' W48° 0' 3'' N122° 43' 23'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 49'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons High Moderate Low Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines High Moderate Low Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points High Moderate Low Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 27, 2019—May 10, 2019 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 27 Tables—Potential for Seedling Mortality Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AmD Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Moderate Alderwood (85%)Available water (0.50) 2.1 9.8% CfD Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Low Cassolary (100%) 11.2 51.8% SnC Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes High Sinclair (100%)Available water (1.00) 6.3 29.1% SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes High Sinclair (100%)Available water (1.00) 2.0 9.3% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Low 11.2 51.8% High 8.3 38.3% Moderate 2.1 9.8% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Options—Potential for Seedling Mortality Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Suitability for Hand Planting Ratings for this interpretation indicate the expected difficulty of hand planting of forestland plants. The ratings are based on slope, depth to a restrictive layer, content of sand, plasticity index, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a water table, and ponding. It is assumed that necessary site preparation is completed before seedlings are planted. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. "Well suited" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified management aspect and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no Custom Soil Resource Report 28 maintenance is needed. "Moderately suited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified management aspect. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. "Poorly suited" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified management aspect. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. "Unsuited" indicates that the expected performance of the soil is unacceptable for the specified management aspect or that extreme measures are needed to overcome the undesirable soil properties. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. Custom Soil Resource Report 29 30 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Suitability for Hand Planting 53161205316170531622053162705316320531637053164205316120531617053162205316270531632053163705316420520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 48° 0' 3'' N 122° 43' 49'' W48° 0' 3'' N122° 43' 23'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 49'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Unsuited Poorly suited Moderately suited Well suited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Unsuited Poorly suited Moderately suited Well suited Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Unsuited Poorly suited Moderately suited Well suited Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 27, 2019—May 10, 2019 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 31 Tables—Suitability for Hand Planting Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AmD Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Moderately suited Alderwood (85%)Rock fragments (0.50) 2.1 9.8% CfD Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Well suited Cassolary (100%) 11.2 51.8% SnC Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Moderately suited Sinclair (100%)Sandiness (0.50)6.3 29.1% SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Moderately suited Sinclair (100%)Sandiness (0.50)2.0 9.3% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Well suited 11.2 51.8% Moderately suited 10.4 48.2% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Options—Suitability for Hand Planting Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Windthrow Hazard (WA) This interpretation is designed to predict windthrow hazard for commercial forest tree species when the soils have a high moisture content. Wind is a major cause of damage in North American forests. In addition to lost timber revenue, windthrow creates a number of problems for forest managers. Windthrown trees provide bark beetle habitat, increase fuel loading, and limit the mobility of wildlife and recreationists. Salvage of windthrow is dangerous and costly, and disrupts silvicultural and integrated resource management planning. Freshly exposed stand edges and partially cut stands are particularly prone to wind damage. Factors considered in the ratings include depth to root-restricting layers such as bedrock and dense glacial till, depth to a seasonal high water table, landform Custom Soil Resource Report 32 positions that are exposed to high winds such as mountain ridges, and content of volcanic cinders and pumice. Rating classes for windthrow hazard are "Low', "Medium" and "High", based on the following criteria: • Depth to root-restricting layer Low - Greater than or equal to 100 cm Medium - 50 to 99 cm High - Less than 50 cm • Depth to seasonal high water table Low - Greater than or equal to 100 cm Medium - 50 to 99 cm High - Less than 50 cm • Landform positions exposed to high winds The following term are used to identify these landform positions. Rating classes are increased by one class, such as from "Low" to "Medium" if these landform positions are associated with a soil map unit component and depth to root-restricting layer or water table is less than 100 cm. Landform - ridge Hillslope profile - summit Geomorphic component, mountains - mountaintop Geomorphic component, hills - interfluve • Cindery or Pumiceous Taxonomic Particle-Size Class - The rating classes are increased by one rating class, such as from "Medium" to "High" for soils in these particle-size classes. These soils have weak cohesion between soil particles, which makes them more susceptible to windthrow. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the windthrow hazard. Numerical rating are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.00. They indicate gradations between the point where windthrow hazard is highest (1.00) and the point at which windthrow hazard is lowest (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those Custom Soil Resource Report 33 that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. Custom Soil Resource Report 34 35 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Windthrow Hazard (WA)53161205316170531622053162705316320531637053164205316120531617053162205316270531632053163705316420520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 48° 0' 3'' N 122° 43' 49'' W48° 0' 3'' N122° 43' 23'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 49'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons High Medium Low Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines High Medium Low Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points High Medium Low Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 27, 2019—May 10, 2019 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 36 Tables—Windthrow Hazard (WA) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AmD Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes High Alderwood (85%)Depth to root- restricting layer (0.50) 2.1 9.8% Depth to seasonal high water table (0.50) Exposed landform position (0.50) McKenna (5%)Depth to seasonal high water table (1.00) Depth to root- restricting layer (0.50) Shalcar (3%)Depth to seasonal high water table (1.00) Norma (2%)Depth to seasonal high water table (1.00) CfD Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Medium Cassolary (100%) Depth to seasonal high water table (0.50) 11.2 51.8% SnC Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Medium Sinclair (100%)Depth to root- restricting layer (0.50) 6.3 29.1% Depth to seasonal high water table (0.50) SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Medium Sinclair (100%)Depth to root- restricting layer (0.50) 2.0 9.3% Depth to seasonal high water table (0.50) Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Medium 19.5 90.2% Custom Soil Resource Report 37 Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI High 2.1 9.8% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Options—Windthrow Hazard (WA) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Vegetative Productivity Vegetative productivity includes estimates of potential vegetative production for a variety of land uses, including cropland, forestland, hayland, pastureland, horticulture and rangeland. In the underlying database, some states maintain crop yield data by individual map unit component. Other states maintain the data at the map unit level. Attributes are included for both, although only one or the other is likely to contain data for any given geographic area. For other land uses, productivity data is shown only at the map unit component level. Examples include potential crop yields under irrigated and nonirrigated conditions, forest productivity, forest site index, and total rangeland production under of normal, favorable and unfavorable conditions. Forest Productivity (Tree Site Index): Douglas-fir (King 1966 (795)) The "site index" is the average height, in feet, that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years. The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stands. This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this attribute, only the representative value is used. Custom Soil Resource Report 38 39 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Forest Productivity (Tree Site Index): Douglas-fir (King 1966 (795))53161205316170531622053162705316320531637053164205316120531617053162205316270531632053163705316420520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 520130 520180 520230 520280 520330 520380 520430 520480 520530 520580 520630 48° 0' 3'' N 122° 43' 49'' W48° 0' 3'' N122° 43' 23'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 49'' W47° 59' 52'' N 122° 43' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons <= 105 > 105 and <= 110 > 110 and <= 111 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines <= 105 > 105 and <= 110 > 110 and <= 111 Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points <= 105 > 105 and <= 110 > 110 and <= 111 Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Jefferson County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 27, 2019—May 10, 2019 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 40 Table—Forest Productivity (Tree Site Index): Douglas-fir (King 1966 (795)) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (feet)Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AmD Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 111 2.1 9.8% CfD Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 110 11.2 51.8% SnC Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 105 6.3 29.1% SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 105 2.0 9.3% Totals for Area of Interest 21.6 100.0% Rating Options—Forest Productivity (Tree Site Index): Douglas- fir (King 1966 (795)) Units of Measure: feet Tree: Douglas-fir Site Index Base: King 1966 (795) Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Custom Soil Resource Report 41 Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Land Management This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to land management. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Land management interpretations are tools designed to guide the user in evaluating existing conditions in planning and predicting the soil response to various land management practices, for a variety of land uses, including cropland, forestland, hayland, pastureland, horticulture, and rangeland. Example interpretations include suitability for a variety of irrigation practices, log landings, haul roads and major skid trails, equipment operability, site preparation, suitability for hand and mechanical planting, potential erosion hazard associated with various practices, and ratings for fencing and waterline installation. Damage by Fire and Seedling Mortality on Forestland This table can help forestland owners or managers plan the use of soils for wood crops. Interpretive ratings are given for the soils according to the limitations that affect the potential for fire damage and for seedling mortality. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the potential for fire damage and for seedling mortality. Low indicates that the soil has features that reduce its potential for fire damage or seedling mortality. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. Moderate indicates that the soil has features that result in a moderate potential for fire damage or seedling mortality. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. High indicates that the soil has one or more properties that result in a high potential for fire damage or seedling mortality. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. Numerical ratings in the table indicate gradations between the point at which the potential for fire damage or seedling mortality is highest (1.00) and the point at which the potential is lowest (0.00). The paragraphs that follow indicate the soil properties considered in rating the soils. More detailed information about the criteria used in the ratings is available in the "National Forestry Manual," which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or on the Internet. Custom Soil Resource Report 42 Ratings in the column potential for damage to soil by fire are based on texture of the surface layer, content of rock fragments and organic matter in the surface layer, thickness of the surface layer, and slope. The soils are described as having a low, moderate, or high potential for this kind of damage. The ratings indicate an evaluation of the potential impact of prescribed fires or wildfires that are intense enough to remove the duff layer and consume organic matter in the surface layer. Ratings in the column potential for seedling mortality are based on flooding, ponding, depth to a water table, content of lime, reaction, salinity, available water capacity, soil moisture regime, soil temperature regime, aspect, and slope. The soils are described as having a low, moderate, or high potential for seedling mortality. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National forestry manual. Report—Damage by Fire and Seedling Mortality on Forestland [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Damage by Fire and Seedling Mortality on Forestland–Jefferson County Area, Washington Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Potential for damage to soil by fire Potential for seedling mortality Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value AmD—Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Alderwood 85 Low Moderate Available water 0.50 CfD—Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Cassolary 100 Low Low Texture/surface depth/rock fragments 0.10 SnC—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Sinclair 100 Low High Available water 1.00 SnD—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Sinclair 100 Low High Available water 1.00 Custom Soil Resource Report 43 Forestland Planting and Harvesting This table can help forestland owners or managers plan the use of soils for wood crops. Interpretive ratings are given for the soils according to the limitations that affect planting and harvesting on forestland. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to a specified aspect of forestland management. Well suited indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified management aspect and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. Moderately suited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified management aspect. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. Poorly suited indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified management aspect. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. Unsuited indicates that the expected performance of the soil is unacceptable for the specified management aspect or that extreme measures are needed to overcome the undesirable soil properties. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The paragraphs that follow indicate the soil properties considered in rating the soils. More detailed information about the criteria used in the ratings is available in the "National Forestry Manual," which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or on the Internet. Ratings in the columns suitability for hand planting and suitability for mechanical planting are based on slope, depth to a restrictive layer, content of sand, plasticity index, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a water table, and ponding. The soils are described as well suited, moderately suited, poorly suited, or unsuited to these methods of planting. It is assumed that necessary site preparation is completed before seedlings are planted. Ratings in the column suitability for use of harvesting equipment are based on slope, rock fragments on the surface, plasticity index, content of sand, the Unified classification, depth to a water table, and ponding. The soils are described as well suited, moderately suited, or poorly suited to this use. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National forestry manual. Report—Forestland Planting and Harvesting [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. Custom Soil Resource Report 44 The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Forestland Planting and Harvesting–Jefferson County Area, Washington Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Suitability for hand planting Suitability for use of harvesting equipment Suitability for mechanical planting Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value CfD—Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Cassolary 100 Well suited Moderately suited Unsuited Slope 0.50 Slope 0.90 Dusty 0.01 SnC—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Sinclair 100 Moderately suited Moderately suited Poorly suited Sandiness 0.50 Sandiness 0.50 Rock fragments 0.68 Dusty 0.01 Sandiness 0.25 Slope 0.20 SnD—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Sinclair 100 Moderately suited Moderately suited Unsuited Sandiness 0.50 Sandiness 0.50 Slope 0.90 Slope 0.50 Rock fragments 0.68 Dusty 0.01 Sandiness 0.25 AmD—Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Alderwood 85 Moderately suited Moderately suited Unsuited Rock fragments 0.50 Slope 0.50 Slope 0.85 Dusty 0.01 Rock fragments 0.81 Vegetative Productivity This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present vegetative productivity data. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Vegetative productivity includes estimates of potential vegetative production for a variety of land uses, including cropland, forestland, hayland, pastureland, horticulture and rangeland. In the underlying database, some states maintain crop yield data by individual map unit component. Other states maintain the data at the map unit level. Attributes are included for both, although only one or the other is likely to contain data for any given geographic area. For other land uses, productivity data is shown only at the map unit component level. Examples include potential crop yields under irrigated and Custom Soil Resource Report 45 nonirrigated conditions, forest productivity, forest site index, and total rangeland production under of normal, favorable and unfavorable conditions. Forestland Productivity This table can help forestland owners or managers plan the use of soils for wood crops. It shows the potential productivity of the soils for wood crops. Potential productivity of merchantable or common trees on a soil is expressed as a site index and as a volume number. The site index is the average height, in feet, that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years. The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stands. Commonly grown trees are those that forestland managers generally favor in intermediate or improvement cuttings. They are selected on the basis of growth rate, quality, value, and marketability. More detailed information regarding site index is available in the "National Forestry Manual," which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or on the Internet. The volume of wood fiber, a number, is the yield likely to be produced by the most important tree species. This number, expressed as cubic feet per acre per year and calculated at the age of culmination of the mean annual increment (CMAI), indicates the amount of fiber produced in a fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stand. Trees to manage are those that are preferred for planting, seeding, or natural regeneration and those that remain in the stand after thinning or partial harvest. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Forestry Manual. Report—Forestland Productivity Forestland Productivity–Jefferson County Area, Washington Map unit symbol and soil name Potential productivity Trees to manage Common trees Site Index Volume of wood fiber Cu ft/ac/yr AmD—Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Alderwood Douglas-fir 111 157.00 Douglas-fir, Red alder Pacific madrone —— Red alder —— Western hemlock —— Western redcedar —— CfD—Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Cassolary Douglas-fir 110 157.00 Douglas-fir Western hemlock —— Western redcedar —— Custom Soil Resource Report 46 Forestland Productivity–Jefferson County Area, Washington Map unit symbol and soil name Potential productivity Trees to manage Common trees Site Index Volume of wood fiber Cu ft/ac/yr SnC—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Sinclair Douglas-fir 105 143.00 Douglas-fir Red alder —— Western hemlock —— Western redcedar —— SnD—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Sinclair Douglas-fir 105 143.00 Douglas-fir Red alder —— Western hemlock —— Western redcedar —— Rangeland and Forest Vegetation Classification, Productivity, and Plant Composition In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of rangeland or forest understory vegetation are closely related to the kind of soil. Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water. This table shows, for each soil that supports vegetation, the ecological site, plant association, or habitat type; the total annual production of vegetation in favorable, normal, and unfavorable years; the characteristic vegetation; and the average percentage of each species. An explanation of the column headings in the table follows. An ecological site, plant association, or habitat type is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time throughout the soil development process; a characteristic hydrology, particularly infiltration and runoff that has developed over time; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The hydrology of the site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated. Each is influenced by the others and influences the development of the others. The plant community on an ecological site, plant association, or habitat type is typified by an association of species that differs from that of other ecological sites, plant associations, or habitat types in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total production. Descriptions of ecological sites are provided in the Field Office Technical Guide, which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Descriptions of plant associations or habitat types are available from local U.S. Forest Service offices. Custom Soil Resource Report 47 Total dry-weight production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation for favorable, normal, and unfavorable years. In a favorable year, the amount and distribution of precipitation and the temperatures make growing conditions substantially better than average. In a normal year, growing conditions are about average. In an unfavorable year, growing conditions are well below average, generally because of low available soil moisture. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content. Characteristic vegetation (the grasses, forbs, shrubs, and understory trees that make up most of the potential natural plant community on each soil) is listed by common name. Under rangeland composition and forest understory, the expected percentage of the total annual production is given for each species making up the characteristic vegetation. The percentages are by dry weight for rangeland. Percentages for forest understory are by either dry weight or canopy cover. The amount that can be used as forage depends on the kinds of grazing animals and on the grazing season. Range management requires knowledge of the kinds of soil and of the potential natural plant community. It also requires an evaluation of the present range similarity index and rangeland trend. Range similarity index is determined by comparing the present plant community with the potential natural plant community on a particular rangeland ecological site. The more closely the existing community resembles the potential community, the higher the range similarity index. Rangeland trend is defined as the direction of change in an existing plant community relative to the potential natural plant community. Further information about the range similarity index and rangeland trend is available in the "National Range and Pasture Handbook," which is available in local offices of NRCS or on the Internet. The objective in range management is to control grazing so that the plants growing on a site are about the same in kind and amount as the potential natural plant community for that site. Such management generally results in the optimum production of vegetation, control of undesirable brush species, conservation of water, and control of erosion. Sometimes, however, an area with a range similarity index somewhat below the potential meets grazing needs, provides wildlife habitat, and protects soil and water resources. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National range and pasture handbook. Custom Soil Resource Report 48 Rangeland and Forest Vegetation Classification, Productivity, and Plant Composition–Jefferson County Area, Washington Map unit symbol and soil name Ecological Site, Plant Association, or Habitat Type Total dry-weight production Characteristic rangeland or forest understory vegetation Composition Favorable year Normal year Unfavorable year Rangeland Forest understory Lb/ac Lb/ac Lb/ac Pct dry wt Pct dry wt AmD—Alderwood gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Alderwood ————— CfD—Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Cassolary ————hairy brackenfern longtube twinflower oceanspray red huckleberry salal SnC—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes Sinclair ————Cascade Oregongrape evergreen huckleberry hairy brackenfern huckleberry other shrubs other perennial forbs salal trailing blackberry western swordfern Custom Soil Resource Report 49 Rangeland and Forest Vegetation Classification, Productivity, and Plant Composition–Jefferson County Area, Washington Map unit symbol and soil name Ecological Site, Plant Association, or Habitat Type Total dry-weight production Characteristic rangeland or forest understory vegetation Composition Favorable year Normal year Unfavorable year Rangeland Forest understory Lb/ac Lb/ac Lb/ac Pct dry wt Pct dry wt SnD—Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Sinclair ————Cascade Oregongrape evergreen huckleberry hairy brackenfern huckleberry other shrubs other perennial forbs salal trailing blackberry western swordfern Custom Soil Resource Report 50 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 51 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 52 Start HERE! A guide to using stormwater forms Use the quantities reported in this worksheet to determine which minimum requirements apply to your project and what forms will be required using the “Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements.” Step 1 Yes no All projects must read and complete the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet. Small Projects may submit the Worksheet S Small Project Certification sheet. Applicants who are able to sign the certification may STOP HERE. Submit the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet and Worksheet “S” with your appli- cation. No additional submittal is necessary. Step 2 Step 2.1 Step 2.1 Medium Projects must complete worksheets A1, B1, and C or equivalent. Large Projects refer to Worksheet L to determine applicable worksheets are required or if a state-licensed engineer must prepare the submittal. A Note on Engineered Stormwater Submittal: -Many applicants complete stormwater submittal forms independently without professional expertise. For example, full dispersion, if feasible on the site (See Worksheet C), is typically easiest to implement for many different surface types such as roof, driveway, patio etc. -Applicants may opt to submit an engineered stormwater plan even if it isn’t required. This option may be attractive to those who are unsure how some of the requirements will be achieved on the site.In some instances, engineering will be required. Certain Large projects must be engineered (See Worksheet L). Gathering information on infiltration feasibility may need an engineer’s expertise. Or, sites with greater than 15% slopes may require applicants hire a geologist to recommend if a drainage method is appropriate. Discharging directly to a marine water via tightline must be engineered. If you cannot do full dispersion on parcels larger than 5 acres, engineering is required. In other instances, site constraints will require an engineered design. -Jefferson County staff may assist by providing and/or explaining Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual The project requires or the applicant elects to submit an engineered stormwater plan. The plan is attached hereto with minimum requirement narrative, drawings, calculation, modeling output, construction pollution prevention plan, and site plan. Circle one: Step 3 If you answered YES above, STOP, no further submittal is required. Otherwise, proceed with the following steps. Complete Worksheet A1 Medium/Large Project Report and Stormwater Site Plan or equivalent. Step 3.1 Complete Worksheet C to determine which BMPs are possible and appropriate for your site. Circle the first BMP that is feasible (i.e. none of the infeasibility criteria is checked) for each surface type. Circle the corresponding BMP on Worksheet A1. Step 4 Complete Worksheet B1 Medium/Large Project Construction Pollution Prevention Plan and Worksheet B2 Construction Site Plan or equivalent. A Note on Commercial Projects: •Jefferson County Public Works (JCPW) reviews commercial projects and charges a review fee. JCPW may charge additional fees for any required inspections. •Any commercial projects proposing infiltration facilities may complete Worksheet E—Infiltration Test. Grain size analysis may be used instead of PIT. Commercial projects may elect to use BMP T5.10A and would not need a PIT, just a soil evaluation. •Any development for cottage industries may require a commercial public works review if full dispersion is infeasible. *Exhibit E* stormwater calc worksheet QR code – REV. 5/31/2019 page 1 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us STORMWATER CALCULATION WORKSHEET PARCEL # PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: DETERMINING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS: This stormwater calculation worksheet should be completed first to classify the proposal as “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The size determines whether a Stormwater Site Plan is required in conjunction with a stand-alone stormwater management permit application, building permit application, or other land use approval application that involves stormwater review. The basic information will also be helpful for completing a Stormwater Site Plan, if required. Land-disturbing activity is any activity that results in movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing, grading, filling, excavation, and compaction associated with stabilization of structures and road construction. Native vegetation is vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Examples include species such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, CONVERSION OF NATIVE VEGETATION, AND VOLUME OF CUT/FILL Calculate the total area to be cleared, graded, filled, Answer the following two questions related to excavated, and/or compacted for proposed development conversion of native vegetation: project. Include in this calculation the area to be cleared for: Does the project convert ¾ acres or more of Construction site for structures _________________ sq/ft native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? Drainfield, septic tank, etc. ____________________ sq/ft Circle: Yes No Well, utilities, etc. ___________________________ sq/ft Does the project convert 2 ½ acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Driveway, parking, roads, etc. ___________________sq/ft Circle: Yes No Lawn, landscaping, etc. ______________________ sq/ft Other compacted surface, etc. _________________ sq/ft Indicate Total Volumes of Proposed: (Includes BMP T5.13 Fill Volume) Temporary construction area ______________ sq/ft Total Land Disturbance ____________________ sq/ft Cut __________ Fill __________ (cu/yd) PARCEL SIZE (I.E., SITE) Size of parcel _________ acres An acre contains 43,560 square feet. Multiply the acreage by this figure. Size of parcel in square feet _________________ sq/ft Scan the QR code to access the digital form stormwater calc worksheet QR code – REV. 5/31/2019 page 2 of 2 ~ Applicants for “small” projects must comply only with Minimum Requirement #2—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. Please submit the Small Project Certification (Worksheet “s). The proponent is responsible for employing the 12 Elements to control erosion and prevent sediment and other pollutants from leaving the site during the construction phase of the project. Pick up the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Fact Sheet. ~ Applicants for “medium” projects—those that must meet only Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 must submit Worksheet A1 and B1, a stormwater site plan and a construction stormwater pollution prevention site plan (See Reference A1A and B1A for guidance).). ~ “Large” projects—those that must meet all 9 Minimum Requirements— must submit Worksheet A1 and B1, a stormwater site plan and a construction stormwater pollution prevention site plan (See Reference A1A and B1A for guidance). Large projects also may require engineering. See Worksheet L to determine additional large project requirements. APPLICANT SIGNATURE By signing the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet, I as the applicant/owner attest that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also certify that this application is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affected property. ________________________________________ ________________________ (LANDOWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE) (DATE) STORMWATER CALCULATIONS – IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Impervious surface is a hard surface that either prevents or slows the entry of water into the soil as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. NEW EXISTING Structures (all roof area) _________________sq/ft Structures (all roof area) _________________sq/ft Sidewalks _________________sq/ft Sidewalks _________________sq/ft Patios _________________sq/ft Patios _________________sq/ft Solid Decks _________________sq/ft Solid Decks _________________sq/ft (without infiltration below) (without infiltration below) Driveway, parking, roads, etc _______________sq/ft Driveway, parking, roads, etc _______________sq/ft Other _________________sq/ft Other _________________sq/ft Total New _________________sq/ft Total Existing _________________sq/ft TOTAL NEW + TOTAL EXISTING* _________________sq/ft *This amount will be used to check total lot coverage. DEVELOPMENT v. REDEVELOPMENT Divide the total existing impervious surface above by the size of the parcel and convert to a percentage. ____________% Does the site have > 35% or more existing impervious surface? The proposal is considered new development. Answer questions in Figure 2.4.1 Flow Chart for New Development to determine project size (next page). The proposal is considered redevelopment Answer questions in Figure 2.4.2. Flow Chart for Redevelopment to determine project size (next page). yes no This is a "large" project. Large projects refer to Worksheet L for submittal requirements. At a minimum, all large Project must submit Worksheet A1, B1, and C or equivalent. This is a "medium" project. Submit Worksheet A1,B1 and C or equivalent. Complete "Small" Project Certification Worksheet Project must follow Construction Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet Figure 2.4.1 Flow Chart for New Development This is a "large" project. Large projects refer to Worksheet L for submittal requirements. At a minimum, all large Project must submit Worksheet A1, B1, and C or equivalent. Figure 2.4.2 Flow Chart for Redevelopment Worksheet L Large Projects Large Projects subject to Minimum Requirements #1 -9 must complete Worksheet A1 as applicable. Also complete Worksheet B1. No Further action needed. Demonstrate full dispersion on site plan. Is the project on a parcel 5 acres or larger? Yes The proponent must submit a stormwater report and site plan prepared by a licensed engineer that complies with the 2012 Department of Ecology Stormwater Man- agement Manual for West- ern Washington as amended in 2014. The report prepared by the engineer must demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard and all minimum requirements. no For each surface consider the BMPs in the order listed in List #1 page 5 in Worksheet A1, except, raingardens may not be used. This process is equiva- lent to List #2 in the 2012 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington as amended in 2014. Is the project in the Urban Growth Area? Yes no Does the project meet feasibility criteria for full dispersion (see Worksheet C1)? Yes no Yes no Does the project discharge to a sub basin draining to salt water, Dosewallips River, or Hoh River? Use List #3 on Worksheet A1 page 6. No further action is needed. construction Pollution Prevention Page 1 of 3 5/31/2019 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION Best Management Practices (BMPs) Fact Sheet For “small” projects (as determined through the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet), submit Worksheet “S” Small Project Certification. Additionally, the applicant shall consider the twelve Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention elements and implement applicable BMPs. A set of useful BMPs for typical rural residential construction is attached. There is no additional submittal required as part of the permit application. For “medium” and “large” projects, applicants must submit a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Stormwater Site Plan (applicants may use Worksheet B1 or equivalent). The following twelve elements must be considered for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention before and during the construction phase of the project: 1. Mark Clearing Limits 7. Protect Drain Inlets 2. Establish Construction Access 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets 3. Control Flow Rates 9. Control Pollutants 4. Install Sediment Controls 10. Control De-Watering 5. Stabilize Soils 11. Maintain Best Management Practices 6. Protect Slopes 12. Manage The Project Each of the twelve elements is described in more detail below: 1. Mark Clearing Limits By minimizing the limits of clearing on the site, a builder can minimize stormwater runoff and provide effective control of pollution. 2. Establish Construction Access Much of the sediment that leaves a construction site does so on the wheels of delivery and construction vehicles that drive off a project site. Construction access must be limited to a single location and a properly constructed Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) should be included on the site. 3. Control Flow Rates Stormwater that leaves a project site unimpeded may exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater control facilities downstream and may contain sediment that may be deposited as the velocity of the runoff decreases. Stormwater protection on a construction site should include measures to control the flow rate of runoff from the site. This can be done by installing a Sediment Trap (BMP C240) or other measure that will impede the flow of water off a construction site. 4. Install Sediment Controls In addition to limiting the rate of stormwater flow off a construction site, measures should be put in place to treat the runoff and remove sediment. Limiting of the cleared area (Element 1) will assist in this effort, but there will be exposed soils that may move with the runoff. Suggested BMPs for controlling sediment include Straw Wattles (BMPC235), Brush Barrier (BMP C231), Gravel Filter Berm (BMP C232), and Silt Fence (BMP C233). Installation of a Sediment Trap (Element 3) is an additional sediment control feature. construction Pollution Prevention Page 2 of 3 5/31/2019 5. Stabilize Soils An additional measure that can minimize sediment transport in runoff is to stabilize soils on the site with mulch or some other covering. This will limit the amount of soil that is exposed to rainfall, thus limiting the sediment that could potentially leave the site. BMPs that could be used for this include Mulching (BMP C121), Nets and Blankets (BMP C122), and Plastic Covering (BMP C123). During periods of dry weather dust can become a problem and sediment could be transported from the site in high winds. BMP C140 Dust Control should be followed to limit loss of soils in windy conditions. 6. Protect Slopes If the cleared area includes slopes of 3:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) or steeper, the slopes should be protected to limit runoff. If the slopes are not protected, rills and gullies may form, transporting sediment to the lower elevations and potentially off the construction site. The slopes should be graded to minimize erosion and runoff at the downstream end of the slopes, and runoff should be collected and treated. The following BMPs could be used Surface Roughening (BMP C130), Interceptor Dike and Swale (BMP C200), and Pipe Slope Drains (BMP C204). 7. Protect Drain Inlets Runoff from urban construction sites often discharges into existing stormwater collection systems. Water enters the collection system through drain inlets. If there are drain inlets downstream of a construction site, they should be protected using BMP C220 Storm Drain Inlet Protection. 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets Any temporary on-site channels or ditches that are used to control runoff should be stabilized to prevent erosion in the channel. BMP C202 Channel Lining and BMP C209 Outlet Protection should be used. 9. Control Pollutants The best way to control pollution is to limit the source of pollution. Construction debris should be maintained in a safe location. Vehicle maintenance on the construction site should be minimized and any spill should be promptly cleaned up. Concrete spillage should be kept to a minimum and cleaning of the concrete trucks after they have unloaded should be done in an area that will not drain off site (see BMP C151 Concrete Handling). 10. Control Dewatering In some cases, excavation for the foundation or below ground structures will encounter ground water. This water must be removed (dewatered) from the excavation. Discharge of this ground water must be treated in a manner that will not cause damage downstream due to flow rates or added pollution. There are no specific BMP identified for this activity, but the water should be handled with care to assure that soils or other pollutants are not added to this flow. 11. Maintain BMPs Installation of the appropriate BMPs is not adequate to completely control stormwater runoff. The BMPs that have been installed on the project must be inspected and maintained during the duration of the construction project. In addition, the temporary controls that were installed for construction should be removed within 30 days of completion of the work. Typically, once construction has been completed, the temporary facilities are not maintained, and by removing the facilities, it will ensure that these won’t fail and discharge water or sediment that had been previously trapped or contained. 12. Manage the Project Management of a project has four aspects: 1. Phasing construction to prevent transportation of runoff and sediment, 2. Limiting the work during seasons where large amounts of rainfall could be anticipated, 3. Coordination with Utilities and other Contractors, and 4. Inspection and Monitoring. All of these for aspects are important and must be followed to ensure a project that will have minimal impact on the environment. Volume II of the Manual contains additional BMPs that could be used on-site. The applicant is encouraged to review the Manual to see if other BMPs may be applicable to, or more useful on, a particular site. construction Pollution Prevention Page 3 of 3 5/31/2019 Best Management Practices from 2014 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual The following BMPs for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention are sediment and erosion control measures for the construction phase of typical rural residential development. Some projects may not require implementation of all of these BMPs; others may require additional measures not listed here. Click on the BMP to learn more about each BMP’s purpose and design: II-4.1 Source Control BMPs BMP C101: Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C102: Buffer Zones BMP C103: High Visibility Fence BMP C105: Stabilized Construction Entrance / Exit BMP C106: Wheel Wash BMP C107: Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121: Mulching BMP C122: Nets and Blankets BMP C123: Plastic Covering BMP C124: Sodding BMP C125: Topsoiling / Composting BMP C126: Polyacrylamide (PAM) for Soil Erosion Protection BMP C130: Surface Roughening BMP C131: Gradient Terraces BMP C140: Dust Control BMP C150: Materials on Hand BMP C151: Concrete Handling BMP C152: Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention BMP C153: Material Delivery, Storage and Containment BMP C154: Concrete Washout Area BMP C160: Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead BMP C162: Scheduling II-4.2 Runoff Conveyance and Treatment BMPs BMP C200: Interceptor Dike and Swale BMP C201: Grass-Lined Channels BMP C202: Channel Lining BMP C203: Water Bars BMP C204: Pipe Slope Drains BMP C205: Subsurface Drains BMP C206: Level Spreader BMP C207: Check Dams BMP C208: Triangular Silt Dike (TSD) (Geotextile-Encased Check Dam) BMP C209: Outlet Protection BMP C220: Storm Drain Inlet Protection BMP C231: Brush Barrier BMP C232: Gravel Filter Berm BMP C233: Silt Fence BMP C234: Vegetated Strip BMP C235: Wattles BMP C236: Vegetative Filtration BMP C240: Sediment Trap BMP C241: Temporary Sediment Pond BMP C251: Construction Stormwater Filtration Worksheet A1 Medium & Large Project Report Submit a site plan demonstrating the project. Refer to REFERENCE A1A for examples of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that you can use. Remember that all site plans submitted for the project must be consistent and accurate. page 1 of 6 Minimum Requirement # 1 : Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan Describe both existing and proposed site conditions for the following items as applicable in the space below each bullet point. Attach additional pages if needed. • structures • • roads • • utility locations• • wellhead locations • • septic drainfield locations and type • • stormwater run-on from neighboring properties • • expected excavation depths and volumes • • expected work to be done in Right-of-Way (ROW) Complete the following: Minimum Requirement # 2 : Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) A SWPPP is designed to be a stand-alone document that addresses construction stormwater management concerns. This document is required to be kept by the contractor performing the work at the jobsite for reference and update during the life of the project. Construction BMP’s must be indicated on the stormwater site plan. REFERENCE B1A includes diagrams of common BMP’s that may be used on the site plan. My completed SWPPP (WORKSHEET B1 or equivalent) is included in this application packet! Minimum Requirement # 3 : Source Control of Pollution (not construction related) The intent of source control is to prevent stormwater from coming in contact with pollutants. Source control BMPs can be operational or structural in nature. A roof over a material storage area is an example of a structural source control BMP. Washing your vehicle on the lawn rather than in the street is an operational BMP. This requirement is generally not applicable to Single Family Residences (SFRs); however, ways to minimize pollution from moving downstream should be considered during the design phase of every project. Specifications on standard source control BMPs that are applicable to various commercial and industrial-type facilities can be found in Volume IV of the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) (continued on page 2). Worksheet A1 Medium & Large Project Report page 2 of 6 Check one of the following boxes that best represents your project with regards to MR #3. Minimum Requirement # 3 : Source Control of Pollution (continued from page 1) My project is a Single Family Residence (SFR) and after considering operational and structural measures to prevent stormwater from coming in contact with pollutants, I have: determined this MR to not be applicable. made appropriate adjustments to my project. My project is not a SFR and after reviewing Vol. IV of the SWMMWW, I have determined that this MR is not applicable because of the following reason: My project is not a SFR and after reviewing Vol. IV of the SWMMWW, I have determined that the following source control BMPs are applicable to my project and shall be incorporated into the project design and operation. Worksheet A1 Medium & Large Project Report Minimum Requirement # 4 : Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems Creating new drainage patterns results in more site disturbance and more potential for erosion and sedimentation during and after construction. to the maximum extent possible, proponents must 1) maintain the natural on-site drainage pattern and concentrated discharge location at the downstream property boundary, and 2) prevent erosion at and downstream of the discharge location. NOTE: All outfalls require energy dissipation. See Table 4.5.1 in Vol. V of the SWMMWW for minimum design standards for rock protection at outfalls. Choose the option below that best describes your project: page 3 of 6 The project site does not currently have any intermittent, seasonal, or continuous concentrated water moving across any part of the property and the proposed improvements to the site will not create new concentrated flow paths or not discharging to existing drainage systems. The project site has existing concentrated flow drainage systems and outfalls. (NOTE: These items must be graphically shown on the Site Plan or equivalent, to include: type, slope, dimensions, channel lining, direction of flow, buffer, etc.) Select below how it will be addressed. This project will not alter the existing drainage system in any way. If the existing outfall(s) show signs of erosion and scour, energy dissipation measures will be installed or improved upon. Construction activity of any kind will not occur within at least 10 ft. of the edge of the channelized flow. BMP C102: BUFFER ZONES will be implemented during the life of the project to include visible flagging or other demarcation technique. The existing concentrated drainage system traversing the property will be impacted as part of this project, as described in the space below and shown on the site plans. Engineering calculations are required that show the altered drainage design can accommodate the existing flows and the added runoff contributed by the project. Worksheet A1 Medium & Large Project Report page 4 of 6 My project is a large project. Refer to Worksheet L. If full dispersion isn’t feasible, use LIST #1 (List #2 and List #1 are the same except raingardens are not permitted in List #2). Minimum Requirement # 5 : On-site Stormwater Management On-site stormwater management techniques shall be implemented where possible to accommodate the permanently added stormwater runoff being generated by development. Some on-site stormwater management techniques provide better stormwater detention and treatment than others; however, they are not always appropriate for use due to varying individual site characteristics. Therefore, techniques are presented to applicants on the next pages in a hierarchical order and shall be considered for use in the order listed. The first technique on the list that is determined to be possible shall be implemented. See WORKSHEET C to determine which techniques are feasible. Runoff from developments occurring in drainage basins that drain directly or indirectly to a creek require a higher level of stormwater management, thus, the techniques are presented in three lists below: All properties will be in one of these three categories: My project is located in a drainage subbasin that drains to directly or indirectly to freshwater. PROCEED to Page 5 to use LIST #1. My Project will discharge to a subasin draining to salt water, Dosewallips River, or Hoh River. PROCEED to Page 6 to use LIST #3. Worksheet A1 Medium & Large Project Report My project does not have disturbed soils not covered by impervious surfaces. 1. Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth Disturbed soils shall be amended (BMP T5.13: ). My project does not have Roof areas. 1. Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30) OR Downspout Full Infiltration (BMP T5.10A) 2. Rain Garden (LARGE PROJECTS CANNOT USE) (BMP T5.14A) 3. Downspout Dispersion System (BMP T5.10B) 4. Perforated Stub-Out Connection (BMP T5.10) 5. Each BMP above is infeasible, see WORKSHEET C. STOP. COMPLETE AND SUBMIT WORKSHEET B1. NO OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. My project does not have Other Hard Surface areas 1. Full dispersion (BMP T5.30) 2. Permeable Pavement (BMP T5.15) OR Rain Garden (LARGE PROJECTS CANNOT USE) (BMP T5.14A) Minimum Requirement # 5 : On-site Stormwater Management (continued) LIST # 1 : Applicable to projects that directly or indirectly drain to freshwater. INSTRUCTIONS: Check the first option that will work for Each Category Below: For each category below, proceed through the LIST from top down. Use WORKSHEET C to determine if the BMP can be used. If number 1 on the list is not possible, document why on WORKSHEET C and move down to number 2, and so on. Category A: Lawn and Landscape Areas Category B: Roofs Category C: Other Hard Surfaces, e.g. gravel and paved driveways, solid decks and patios without infiltration below 3. Sheet Flow Dispersion (BMP T5.12) OR Concentrated Flow Dispersion (BMP T5.11)4. Each item above is infeasible, see WORKSHEET C. STOP. COMPLETE AND SUBMIT WORKSHEET B1. NO OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. Worksheet A1 Medium & Large Project Report Minimum Requirement # 5 : On-site Stormwater Management (continued) LIST # 3 : Applicable to project that discharges to a subbasin draining to saltwater, the Dosewallips River, or the Hoh River. My project does not have disturbed soils not covered by impervious surfaces. 1. Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth Disturbed soils shall be amended (BMP T5.13: ). My project does not have Roof areas. 1. Downspout Full Infiltration (BMP T5.10A) *Optional - may elect to install BMP T5.14A Rain Garden* 2. BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion System 3. BMP T5.10C: Perforated Stub-Out Connection 4. Each BMP above is infeasible, see WORKSHEET C. My project does not have Other Hard Surface areas *Optional - may elect to install BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavement OR BMP T5.14A: Rain Garden* 1. BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion 2. BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow Dispersion 3. Each item above is infeasible, see WORKSHEET C. STOP. COMPLETE AND SUBMIT WORKSHEET B1. NO OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. page 6 of 6 INSTRUCTIONS: For each category, choose one option. Use Worksheet C to determine if the BMP can be used on the site. Category A: Lawn and Landscape Areas Category B: Roofs Category C: Other Hard Surfaces NOT TO SCALE Plan View Profile View Section A-A A A infiltration trench 4" rigid or 6" flexibleperforated pipe sump w/solid lid roofdrain 4" rigid or 6" flexibleperforated pipe 6"6" 12"washed rock 1 12 " - 34" varies roof drain fine mesh screen 10' min. 1' min1' min CB sumpw/solid lid overflow splash block 5' min. filter fabric 6" 12" 24" 24" compacted backfill 4" rigid or 6" flexibleperforated pipe washed rock 1 12" - 34" NOT TO SCALE House Roofdownspout Roofdownspout flow Catch basin(yard drain) 48 Inch diameterhole filled with 1 12- 3" washed drainrock Plan View Section View House Roofdownspout Overflow Splash block flow Fine mesh screen Catch basin(yard drain) Min. 4" dia.PVC pipe Topsoil Sides of hole linedwith filter fabric Mark center of holewith 1" capped PVCor other means flushwith surface Min. 1' above seasonal high groundwater table 48 Inch diameterhole filled with 1 12- 3" washed drainrock 15' min. 1.REQUIRED ON ALL AREAS SUBJECT TO CLEARING AND GRADING THATHAVE NOT BEEN COVERED BY AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, INCORPORATEDINTO A DRAINAGE FACILITY OR ENGINEERED AS STRUCTURAL FILL ORSLOPE.SYMBOL:SA NOTES: AREA REQUIRING SOIL AMENDMENT ND NON-DISTURBED AREA (SOIL AMENDMENT NOTREQUIRED) 2" MULCH 3" OF COMPOSTINCORPORATED INTOSOIL TO 8" DEPTH SUBSOIL SCARIFIED4" BELOW COMPOSTAMENDED LAYER (12"BELOW SOILSURFACE) GRASS: SEED OR SOD 1 3/4" OF COMPOSTINCORPORATED INTOSOIL TO 8" DEPTH SUBSOIL SCARIFIED 4"BELOW COMPOSTAMENDED LAYER (12"BELOW SOILSURFACE) PLANTING BEDS TURF (LAWN) AREAS 0" 8" 12" DEFINITIONS: AT THE END OF PROJECT, ALL AREAS DISTURBED AND NOT COVERED WITH AN IMPERVIOUSSURFACE MUST BE AMENDED PER THE SOIL AMENDMENT DETAIL BELOW. LABEL ALL AREAS DISTURBED AND NOT COVERED WITH AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE,INCORPORATED INTO A DRAINAGE FACILITY, OR ENGINEERED AS A STRUCTURAL FILL ORSLOPE. SEE DEFINITIONS BELOW. DO NOT REFERENCE AN ALTERNATE PLAN SHEET. PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE VOLUME OF COMPOST REQUIRED. THE ACTUAL VOLUME OFCOMPOST REQUIRED WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD. NON-DISTURBED AREA (ND): VEGETATED AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO LANDDISTURBING ACTIVITY DO NOT REQUIRE SOIL AMENDMENT IF THEY ARE FENCED ANDCONTINUOUSLY PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. THE FENCING MUST BE INPLACE AT THE FIRST GROUND DISTURBANCE INSPECTION. NO DISTURBANCE, INCLUDINGVEHICLE TRAFFIC OR MATERIAL STORAGE, IS ALLOWED IN THESE AREAS UNTIL FINALINSPECTION. LABEL THESE AREAS AS (ND) IN THE PLAN VIEW. SOIL AMENDMENT AREA (SA): VEGETATED OR COMPOST AREAS (TURF AND LANDSCAPE)MUST BE AMENDED PER THE SOIL AMENDMENT DETAIL AND THE SUBSOIL MUST BELOOSENED. THIS INCLUDES AREAS IMPACTED BY CLEARING AND GRADING, STOCKPILING,SITE ACCESS, PATHWAYS AND MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT STORAGE. LABEL THESEAREAS AS (SA) IN THE PLAN VIEW. See the Western Washington Rain Garden Handbook for more detailed raingarden design informa�on. See the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manualfor Western Washington BMP T7.30 for Bioreten�on design. Notes:1.Scarify subgrade 3" min. beforebioretention soil installation2.Compact BSM to 85% per ASTM1577 Edge ofpavementor curb-cut 3" woodchip mulch,aggregate, or sod Sidewalk 3" woodchip mulch,aggregate, or sod3" coarse compostin ponding area 18" Bioretention SoilMedia (BSM) BSM bottom widthvaries, 1' minimum Provide a 1" dropfrom the edge ofpavement Provide a 1" dropfrom the edge ofsidewalk 6" min. freeboard Overflow standpipe Ponding depthvaries Seasonal high water table, bedrock,or other impervious layer Minimum separation varies,see design guidance 4. A Vegetated Flow Path of at least 25’ between structure, propertyline, stream, etc. NOT TO SCALE A rough-in inspection is required prior to infiltration facility or pipe burial. Call 360-379-4455 to schedule an inspection. REFERENCE A1A - Permanent Stormwater BMP Options Inltration Trench Drywell Post-Contstruction Soil Quality &Depth Raingarden or Bioretention Dispersion TrenchA A.1 C Perforated Stub-out Connection See the DOE Manual, Volume 3, for requirements. B D E Ff Site plan looking too crowded? Use the letters on this page as reference instead of drawing the BMP. Be sure to indicate location, sizing (if applicable) and pipe locations. Worksheet B1 Construction Protection: Medium and Large Projects(SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) Submit a site plan demonstrating the construction protective measures or best management practices that will be used for the project during the construction phase. Refer to REFERENCE B1A for examples of Construction Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that you can use. The activities that take place during construction are the highest risk for stormwater problems such as erosion and sediment control (you may need to provide an additional site plan with greater detail for stormwater features. If so, make sure it is consistent with the primary site plan. Remember that all site plans submitted for the project must be consistent and accurate). page 1 of 6 Element 1: Preserve Vegetation / Mark Clearing Limits The goal of this element is to preserve native vegetation and to clearly show the limits of disturbance. Choose any of the following that apply: The site was cleared as part of clearing activity that is subject to an enforcement action and will be re-vegetated. Restoration may be necessary to comply with Critical Area Regulations or stormwater requirements. Buffer Zones- BMP C102 may apply if Critical Areas exist on-site and buffer zones shall be protected. The perimeter of the area to be cleared shall be marked prior to clearing operation with visible flagging, orange plastic barrier fencing and/or orange silt fencing as shown on the SWPPP site plan. Vehicles will only be allowed in the areas to be graded, so no compaction of the undeveloped areas will occur. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: C101 Preserving Natural Vegetation C102 Buffer Zones C103 High Visibility Fence It is necessary to disturb the entire property during this project due to existing site conditions, property constraints, and proposed design. I understand that all disturbed land not covered by hard surface at the end of the project is subject to soil amendment requirements per BMP T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth. Element 2: Construction Access The goal of this element is to provide a stabilized construction entrance/exit to prevent or reduce or sediment track out. Choose one of the following: The driveway to the construction area already exists and will be used for construction access. All equipment and vehicles will be restricted to staying on that existing impervious surface. If sediment is tracked off site, the road- way will be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. A stabilized construction entrance will be installed prior to any vehicles entering the site, at the location shown on the SWPPP site plan. If sediment is tracked off site, the roadway will be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: C105 Stabilized Construction Entrance / Exit C106 Wheel Wash C107 Construction Road / Parking Area Stabilization Worksheet B1 Construction Protection: Medium and Large Projects(SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) Element 3: Control Flow Rates The goal of this element is to construct retention or detention facilities when necessary to protect properties and waterways downstream of development sites from erosion and turbid discharges. This element does not apply to my project because (check any that apply): page 2 of 6 Site is mildly sloped (<5%), There are no individually sloped sections greater than 10%, The bulk of the project is scheduled to occur during dry season (May 1-Sept 30) Sediment control BMPs shall be placed at the locations shown on the SWPPP Site Plan. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: C233 Silt FenceC231 Brush Barrier C234 Vegetated Strip C232 Gravel Filter Berm C235 Wattles Element 4: Sediment Control The goal of this element is to construct sediment control BMPs that minimize sediment discharges from the site. Select one of the two statements applicable to the project. The site has already been stabilized and re-vegetated. Element 5: Stabilize Soils • Soil stockpiles will be located within the disturbed area shown on the SWPPP Site Plan. • Soil excavated for the foundation will be backfilled against the foundation and graded to drain away from the building. • No soils shall remain exposed and unworked for more than 7 days from May 1 to September 30 or more than 2 days from October 1 to April 30. • Once the disturbed landscape areas are graded, the grass areas will be amended. • All stockpiles will be covered with plastic or burlap if left unworked. The goal of this element is to stabilize exposed and unworked soils by implementing erosion control BMPs. Select one of the three statements applicable to the project. My project will ensure the following: This element does not apply to my project because: My project must implement specific BMP’s to ensure compliance. (Check BMP’s you will use on the next page). Worksheet B1 Construction Protection: Medium and Large Projects(SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) page 3 of 6 C120 Temporary & Permanent Seeding C123 Plastic CoveringC121 Mulching C124 SoddingC122 Nets & Blankets C125 Topsoil / Composting C131 Gradient Terraces C140 Dust Control C235 Wattles Element 6: Protect Slopes The goal of this element is to design and construct cut-and-fill slopes in a manner to minimize erosion. Select one of the two statements applicable to the project. No cut slopes over 4 feet high or slopes steeper than 2 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical, and no fill slopes over 4 feet high will exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. Therefore, there is no requirement for additional engineered slope protection. The above checkbox is not checked. My submittal is designed by a licensed geologist to protect slopes. Based on the licensed professionals recommendation (please attach their evaluation), the following BMP’s will be used: C120 Temporary & Permanent Seeding C204 Pipe Slope Drains C205 Subsurface Drains C206 Level Spreader C207 Check Dams C208 Triangular Silt Dike (Geotextile-Encased Check Dam) Catch basins on the site or immediately off site in the right-of-way are shown on the SWPPP Site Plan. Storm drain inlet protection shall be installed. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: C220 Storm Drain Inlet Protection The site has open ditches in the right-of-way or private road right-of-way. There are no catch basins on or near the site. Element 7: Protect Permanent Drain Inlets The goal of this element is to protect storm drain inlets during construction to prevent stormwater runoff from entering the conveyance system without being filtered or treated. Select one of the three statements applicable to the project. Worksheet B1 Construction Protection: Medium and Large Projects(SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) A wattle shall be placed at the end of the swale to prevent erosion at the outlet of the swale. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: C202 Channel Lining C207 Check Dams C235 WattlesC209 Outlet Protection page 4 of 6 Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets The goal of this element is to design, construct, and stabilize on-site conveyance channels to prevent erosion from entering existing stormwater outfalls and conveyance systems. Select one of the three statements applicable to the project. Construction will occur during the dry weather. No storm drainage channels or ditches shall be constructed either temporary or permanent. There are no existing or proposed stormwater conveyance channels on the project site. C151 Concrete Handling C152 Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention C153 Material Delivery, Storage, and Containment C154 Concrete Washout Area If one or more of the checkboxes above are unchecked. Any and all pollutants, chemicals, liquid products and other materials that have the potential to pose a threat to human health or the environment will be covered, contained, and protected from vandalism. All such products shall be kept under cover in a secure location on-site. Concrete handling shall follow BMP C151 C154. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: Element 9: Control Pollutants This element does not apply to my project because (circle any that apply - If any box is unchecked this element applies. The goal of this element is to design, install, implement and maintain BMPs to minimize the discharge of pollutants from material storage areas, fuel handling, equipment cleaning, management of waste materials, etc. There will be no concrete work, There will be no sawcutting work, There will be no hazardous materials on-site, There will be no fertilizer or pesticide application, There will be no heavy equipment associated with this project, There will be no pressure washing, equipment maintenance or dewatering Worksheet B1 Construction Protection: Medium and Large Projects(SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) C203 Water Bars C236 Vegetated Filtration C206 Level Spreader Element 10: Control De-watering No dewatering of the site is anticipated. Dewatering of the site is anticipated. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: page 5 of 6 Select one of the two statements applicable to the project. The goal of this element is to handle turbid or contaminated water from dewatering (removal of water) separately from stormwater. Describe the steps you will take: Element 12: Manage the Project The SWPPP will be implemented at all times. If applicable to the project, erosion control BMPs will be implemented in the following sequence: 1. Mark clearing limits 2. Install stabilized construction entrance 3. Install protection for existing drainage systems and permanent drain inlets 4. Establish staging areas for storage and handling polluted material and BMPs 5. Install sediment control BMPs 6. Grade and install stabilization measures for disturbed areas 7. Maintain BMPs until site stabilization, at which time they may be removed Element 11: Maintain Best Management Practices Best Management Practices or BMPs shall be inspected and maintained during construction and removed within 30 days after the County Inspector or determines that the site is stabilized, provided that they may be removed when they are no longer needed. The goal of this element is to maintain and repair all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs to assure continued performance. The goal of this element is to ensure that the owner and those performing the site work comply with the SWPPP and properly coordinate to ensure that all BMPs are deployed at the proper time to achieve full compliance with county regulations throughout the project. Worksheet B1 Construction Protection: Medium and Large Projects(SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) C102 Buffer Zone C103 High Visibility Fence C233 Silt Fence C231 Brush Barrier C234 Vegetated Strip Applicant or Representative Signature Element 13: Protect Low Impact Development BMPs page 6 of 6 The goal of this element is to protect permanent stormwater management BMPs from siltation and compaction during construction. The permanent stormwater management BMPs used for runoff from roofs and other hard surfaces include: full dispersion, roof downspout full infiltration or dispersion systems, perforated stubout connections, rain gardens, bioretention systems, permeable pavement, sheetflow dispersion, and concentrated flow dispersion. Methods that will be used to protect permanent stormwater management BMPs include: Sequencing the construction in a fashion to install these permanent BMPs at the latter part of the construction grading operations, Excluding equipment from the BMPs and the associated areas, Using the erosion and sedimentation control BMPs listed below to protect facilities such as drywells, raingardens, permeable pavement, or bioretention from accumulating sediment during construction and before site restoration. If this option is selected check the BMPS you will use below: Other Complete construction stormwater control BMP details are found in Volume II of the DOE Stormwater Management Manual. REFERENCE B1A - Construction BMP Options Site plan looking too crowded? Use the letters on this page as reference instead of drawing the BMP. Be sure to indicate location, sizing (if applicable) use the proper symbol indicated on each BMP. 1 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Roofs BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional CommentsIf needed Lawn and Landscaped Areas BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional CommentsIf needed Minimum Requirement #5 (On-Site Stormwater Management) The following tables summarize the criteria that can be used to justify why you cannot use various stormwater management best management practices (BMPs) for consideration for Minimum Requirement #5. This information is also included under the detailed descriptions of each BMP in the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW [2014]). Where any inconsistencies or lack of clarity exists, the requirements in the main text of the SWMMWW shall be applied. HOW TO USE: Evaluate the feasibility of the BMPs in priority order based on Worksheet A1 page 5 (List #1) or 6 (List #3) or Worksheet L for Large Projects (List #2). Only one criterion needs to be selected for a BMP before evaluating the next BMP on the list. Full Dispersion BMP T5.30, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3 A 65 to 10 ratio of forested or native vegetation area to impervious area cannot be achieved. A minimum forested or native vegetation flowpath length of 100 feet (25 feet for sheet flow from a non-native pervious surface) and protected by easement cannot be achieved. Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. There is an alternatie septic system on this lot or an adjacent lot (mound, sand filter pressure distribution, Glendon, aerobic treatment unit). Therefore, there is not at least 3 feet or more of permeable soil from the proposed final grade to the seasonal high groundwater table or other impermeable layer. There is not at least 1 foot or more of permeable soil from the proposed bottom of the infiltration system to the seasonal high groundwater table or other impermeable layer. Downspout Full Infiltration BMP T5.10A, SWMMWW Volume III, Section 3.1.1 Post-construction Soil Quality and Depth(BMP T5.13 SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3) Lawn and landscape area is on till slopes greater than 33 percent. Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. List #1, #2 and #3 List #1 and #2 List #1, #2 and #3 None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for lawn and landscaped areas. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for roofs. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. 2 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Roofs (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Where professional geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion, slope failure, or down-gradient flooding. Within an area whose ground water drains into an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard area. Where the only area available for siting would threaten the safety or reliability of pre-existing underground utilities, pre-existing underground storage tanks, pre-existing structures, or pre-existing road or parking lot surfaces. Where the only area available for siting does not allow for a safe overflow pathway to stormwater drainage system or private storm sewer system. Where there is a lack of usable space for bioretention areas at re-development sites, or where there is insufficient space within the existing public right-of-way on public road projects. Note: Criteria with setback distances are as measured from the bottom edge of the bioretention soil mix. Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria must be based on an evaluation of site-specific conditions and a written recommendation from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g., engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist): Where infiltrating water would threaten shoreline structures such as bulkheads. Where infiltrating water would threaten existing below grade basements. Bioretention or Rain Gardens BMP T7.30 or T5.14A SWMMWW Volume V, Section 7.4 List #1 (both) and List #2 (bioretention only) Downspout Full Infiltration (cont.) BMP T5.10A, SWMMWW Volume Slopes steeper than 25% or less than 200’ from slope steeper than 40%. Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for roofs. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. 3 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Roofs (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Bioretention or Rain Gardens (cont.) BMP T7.30 or T5.14A SWMMWW Volume V, Section 7.4 Where land for bioretention is within an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard area (as defined by PAMC 15.20). Where the site cannot be reasonably designed to locate bioretention areas on slopes less than 8 percent. Within 50 feet from the top of slopes that are greater than 20 percent and over 10 feet of vertical relief. For properties with known soil or groundwater contamination (typically federal Superfund sites or state cleanup sites under the Model Toxics Control Act [MTCA]): • Within 100 feet of an area known to have deep soil contamination.• Where groundwater modeling indicates infiltration will likely increase or change the direction of the migration of pollutants in the groundwater.• Wherever surface soils have been found to be contaminated unless those soils are removed within 10 horizontal feet from the infiltration area. Within 100 feet of a closed or active landfill. Within 10 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is 1,100 gallons or less. As used in these criteria, an underground storage tank means any tank used to store petroleum products, chemicals, or liquid hazardous wastes of which 10 percent or more of the storage volume (including volume in the connecting piping system) is beneath the ground surface. Within 100 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is greater than 1,100 gallons. The following criteria can be cited as reasons for infeasibility without further justification (though some require professional services to make the observation):Within setback provided for BMP T7.30 (SWMMWW Volume V, Section 7.4) Where they are not compatible with surrounding drainage system as determined by the county (e.g., project drains to an existing stormwater collection system whose elevation or location precludes connection to a properly functioning bioretention area). 4 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Roofs (cont.) BMP and Applicable Lists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional CommentsIf needed Where field testing indicates potential bioretention/rain garden sites have a measured (a.k.a., initial) native soil saturated hydraulic conductivity less than 0.30 inches per hour. A small-scale or large-scale PIT in accordance with SWMMWW Volume III, Section 3.3.6 (or an alternative small scale test specified by the local government) shall be used to demonstrate infeasibility of bioretention areas. If the measured native soil infiltration rate is less than 0.30 in/hour, bioretention/rain garden BMPs are not required to be evaluated as an option in List #1 or List #2. In these slow draining soils, a bioretention area with an underdrain may be used to treat pollution-generating surfaces to help meet Minimum Requirement #6, Runoff Treatment. If the underdrain is elevated within a base course of gravel, it will also provide some modest flow reduction benefit that will help achieve Minimum Requirement #7. Where the minimum vertical separation of 3 feet to the seasonal high groundwater elevation or other impermeable layer would not be achieved below bioretention that would serve a drainage area that exceeds the following thresholds (and cannot reasonably be broken down into amounts smaller than indicated): o 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) o 10,000 square feet of impervious area o 0.75 acres of lawn and landscape. Any area where these facilities are prohibited by an approved cleanup plan under the state MTCA or Federal Superfund Law, or an environmental covenant under Chapter 64.70 RCW. Within 100 feet of a drinking water well, or a spring used for drinking water supply. Bioretention or Rain Gardens (cont.) Where the minimum vertical separation of 1 foot to the seasonal high groundwater or other impermeable layer would not be achieved below bioretention that would serve a drainage area less than the above thresholds 5 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Roofs (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Perforated Stub-Out Connections BMP T5.10C SWMMWW Volume III, Section 3.1.3 For sites with septic systems, the only location available for the perforated portion of the pipe is located up-gradient of the drainfield primary and reserve areas. This requirement can be waived if site topography will clearly prohibit flows from intersecting the drainfield or where site conditions (soil permeability, distance between systems, etc.) indicate that this is unnecessary.There is a mound, sandfilter, Glenden or aerobic treatment device on this or an adjacent lot. Therefore, there is not at least 1 foot of permeable soil from the proposed bottom (final grade) of the perforated stub-out connection trench to the highest estimated groundwater table or other impermeable layer. The only location available for the perforated stub-out connection is under impervious or heavily compacted soils. The only location available is on or above slopes greater than 20% Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. For splash blocks, a vegetated flowpath at least 50 feet in length from the downspout to the downstream property line, structure, stream, wetland, slope over 15 percent, or other impervious surface is not feasible. For trenches, a vegetated flowpath of at least 25 feet in between the outlet of the trench and any property line, structure, stream, wetland, or impervious surface is not feasible. A vegetated flowpath of at least 50 feet between the outlet of the trench and any slope steeper than 15 percent is not feasible. Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. Downspout Dispersion Systems BMP T5.10B SWMMWW Volume III, Section 3.1.2 List #1, #2 and #3 List #1, #2 and #3 Within 10 feet of small on-site sewage disposal drainfield, including reserve areas, and grey water reuse systems. For setbacks from a “large on-site sewage disposal system,” see Chapter 246-272B WAC. None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for roofs. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for roofs. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for roofs. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. 6 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Other Hard Surfaces BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Where professional geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion, slope failure, or downgradient flooding. Within an area whose ground water drains into an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard area. Where infiltrating and ponded water below the new permeable pavement area would compromise adjacent impervious pavements. Where infiltrating water below a new permeable pavement area would threaten existing below grade basements. Where infiltrating water would threaten shoreline structures such as bulkheads. Down slope of steep, erosion prone areas that are likely to deliver sediment to the area of pervious pavement. Where fill soils are used that can become unstable when saturated. Excessively steep slopes where water within the aggregate base layer or at the subgrade surface cannot be controlled by detention structures and may cause erosion and structural failure, or where surface runoff velocities may preclude adequate infiltration at the pavement surface. Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria must be based on an evaluation of site-specific conditions and a written recommendation from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g., engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist): Permeable Pavement BMP T5.15, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3 List #1 and #2 Full Dispersion BMP T5.30 SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3 A 65 to 10 ratio of forested or native vegetation area to impervious area cannot be achieved. A minimum forested or native vegetation flowpath length of 100 feet (25 feet for sheet flow from a non-native pervious surface) cannot be achieved. Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. List #1 and #2 None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for hard surfaces. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. * Note that Raingardens may be used in lieu of permeable pavement if subject to List #1. 7 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Other Hard Surfaces (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Permeable Pavement(cont.) BMP T5.15, SWMMWW Vol-ume V, Section 5.3 Within an area designated as an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard. Within 50 feet from the top of slopes that are greater than 20 percent. For properties with known soil or groundwater contamination (typically federal Superfund sites or state cleanup sites under MTCA): • Within 100 feet of an area known to have deep soil contamination. • Where groundwater modeling indicates infiltration will likely increase or change the direction of the migration of pollutants in the groundwater. • Wherever surface soils have been found to be contaminated unless those soils are removed within 10 horizontal feet from the infiltration area. • Any area where these facilities are prohibited by an approved cleanup plan under the state MTCA or Federal Superfund Law, or an environmental covenant under Chapter 64.70 RCW. Within 100 feet of a closed or active landfill. Within 100 feet of a drinking water well, or a spring used for drinking water supply, if the pavement is a pollution- generating surface. The following criteria can be cited as reasons for infeasibility without further justification (though some require professional services to make the observation): Where permeable pavements cannot provide sufficient strength to support heavy loads at industrial facilities such as ports. Where installation of permeable pavement would threaten the safety or reliability of pre-existing underground utilities, per-existing underground storage tanks, or pre-existing road subgrades. * Note that Raingardens may be used in lieu of permeable pavement if subject to List #1. 8 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Within 10 feet of a small on-site sewage disposal drainfield, including reserve areas, and grey water reuse systems. For setbacks from a “large on-site sewage disposal system,” see Chapter 246-272B WAC. Within 10 feet of any underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes, regardless of tank size. As used in these criteria, an underground storage tank means any tank used to store petroleum products, chemicals, or liquid hazardous wastes of which 10 percent or more of the storage volume (including volume in the connecting piping system) is beneath the ground surface. At multi-level parking garages, and over culverts and bridges. Where the site design cannot avoid putting pavement in areas likely to have long-term excessive sediment deposition after construction (e.g., construction and landscaping material yards). Where the site cannot reasonably be designed to have a porous asphalt surface at less than 5 percent slope, or a pervious concrete surface at less than 10 percent slope, or a permeable interlocking concrete pavement surface (where appropriate) at less than 12 percent slope. Grid systems upper slope limit can range from 6 to 12 percent; check with manufacturer and local supplier. Where the subgrade soils below a pollution-generating permeable pavement (e.g., road or parking lot) do not meet the soil suitability criteria for providing treatment. See soil suitability criteria for treatment in the SWMMWW Volume III, Section 3.3.7. Note: In these instances, the county may approve installation of a 6 inch sand filter layer meeting county specifications for treatment as a condition of construction. Where underlying soils are unsuitable for supporting traffic loads when saturated. Soils meeting a California Bearing Ratio of 5 percent are considered suitable for residential access roads. Where replacing existing impervious surfaces unless the existing surface is a non-pollution generating surface over an outwash soil with a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 4 inches per hour or greater. Other Hard Surfaces (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Permeable Pavement(cont.)BMP T5.15, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3 * Note that Raingardens may be used in lieu of permeable pavement if subject to List #1. 9 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Where appropriate field testing indicates soils have a measured (a.k.a., initial) subgrade soil saturated hydraulic conductivity less than 0.3 inches per hour. Only small-scale PIT or large-scale PIT methods in accordance with SWMMWW Volume III, Section 3.3.6 (or an alternative small scale test specified by the local government) shall be used to evaluate infeasibility of permeable pavement areas. (Note: In these instances, unless other infeasibility restrictions apply, roads and parking lots may be built with an underdrain, preferably elevated within the base course, if flow control benefits are desired.) Roads that receive more than very low traffic volumes, and areas having more than very low truck traffic. Roads with a projected average daily traffic volume of 400 vehicles or less are very low volume roads (AASHTO 2001) (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2013). Areas with very low truck traffic volumes are roads and other areas not subject to through truck traffic but may receive up to weekly use by utility trucks (e.g., garbage, recycling), daily school bus use, and multiple daily use by pick-up trucks, mail/parcel delivery trucks, and maintenance vehicles. Note: This infeasibility criterion does not extend to sidewalks and other non-traffic bearing surfaces associated with the collector or arterial. At sites defined as “high-use sites” (refer to the Glossary in the SWMMWW Volume I). In areas with “industrial activity” as identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). Where the risk of concentrated pollutant spills is more likely such as gas stations, truck stops, and industrial chemical storage sites. Where routine, heavy applications of sand occur in frequent snow zones to maintain traction during weeks of snow and ice accumulation. Where the seasonal high groundwater or an underlying impermeable/low permeable layer would create saturated conditions within 1 foot of the bottom of the lowest gravel base course. Other Hard Surfaces (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Permeable Pavement(cont.)BMP T5.15, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3 None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for hard surfaces. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. (List #1 may use Raingardens in lieu of Permeable Pavement). CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. * Note that Raingardens may be used in lieu of permeable pavement if subject to List #1. 10 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Other Hard Surfaces (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Where professional geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion, slope failure, or down-gradient flooding. Within an area whose ground water drains into an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard area. Where the only area available for siting would threaten the safety or reliability of pre-existing underground utilities, pre-existing underground storage tanks, pre-existing structures, or pre-existing road or parking lot surfaces. Where the only area available for siting does not allow for a safe overflow pathway to stormwater drainage system or private storm sewer system. Where there is a lack of usable space for bioretention areas at re-development sites, or where there is insufficient space within the existing public right-of-way on public road projects. Note: Criteria with setback distances are as measured from the bottom edge of the bioretention soil mix. Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria must be based on an evaluation of site-specific conditions and a written recommendation from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g., engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist): Where infiltrating water would threaten shoreline structures such as bulkheads. Where infiltrating water would threaten existing below grade basements. The following criteria can be cited as reasons for infeasibility without further justification (though some require professional services to make the observation): Within setback provided for BMP T7.30 (SWMMWW Volume V, Section 7.4) Where they are not compatible with surrounding drainage system as determined by the county (e.g., project drains to an existing stormwater collection system whose elevation or location precludes connection to a properly functioning bioretention area). Bioretention or Rain Gardens BMP T7.30, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 7.4 List #1 (both) and List #2 (bioretention only) 11 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Other Hard Surfaces (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Bioretention or Rain Gardens (cont.) BMP T7.30, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 7.4 Where land for bioretention is within an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard area (as defined by PAMC 15.20). Where the site cannot be reasonably designed to locate bioretention areas on slopes less than 8 percent. Within 50 feet from the top of slopes that are greater than 20 percent and over 10 feet of vertical relief. For properties with known soil or groundwater contamination (typically federal Superfund sites or state cleanup sites under the Model Toxics Control Act [MTCA]): • Within 100 feet of an area known to have deep soil contamination.• Where groundwater modeling indicates infiltration will likely increase or change the direction of the migration of pollutants in the groundwater.• Wherever surface soils have been found to be contaminated unless those soils are removed within 10 horizontal feet from the infiltration area. Within 100 feet of a closed or active landfill. Within 10 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is 1,100 gallons or less. As used in these criteria, an underground storage tank means any tank used to store petroleum products, chemicals, or liquid hazardous wastes of which 10 percent or more of the storage volume (including volume in the connecting piping system) is beneath the ground surface. Within 100 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is greater than 1,100 gallons. Where the minimum vertical separation of 1 foot to the seasonal high groundwater or other impermeable layer would not be achieved below bioretention that would serve a drainage area less than the above thresholds 12 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Other Hard Surfaces (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Where field testing indicates potential bioretention/rain garden sites have a measured (a.k.a., initial) native soil saturated hydraulic conductivity less than 0.30 inches per hour. A small-scale or large-scale PIT in accordance with SWMMWW Volume III, Section 3.3.6 (or an alternative small scale test specified by the local government) shall be used to demonstrate infeasibility of bioretention areas. If the measured native soil infiltration rate is less than 0.30 in/hour, bioretention/rain garden BMPs are not required to be evaluated as an option in List #1 or List #2. In these slow draining soils, a bioretention area with an underdrain may be used to treat pollution-generating surfaces to help meet Minimum Requirement #6, Runoff Treatment. If the underdrain is elevated within a base course of gravel, it will also provide some modest flow reduction benefit that will help achieve Minimum Requirement #7. Where the minimum vertical separation of 3 feet to the seasonal high groundwater elevation or other impermeable layer would not be achieved below bioretention that would serve a drainage area that exceeds the following thresholds (and cannot reasonably be broken down into amounts smaller than indicated): o 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) o 10,000 square feet of impervious area o 0.75 acres of lawn and landscape. Any area where these facilities are prohibited by an approved cleanup plan under the state MTCA or Federal Superfund Law, or an environmental covenant under Chapter 64.70 RCW. Within 100 feet of a drinking water well, or a spring used for drinking water supply. Within 10 feet of small on-site sewage disposal drainfield, including reserve areas, and grey water reuse systems. For setbacks from a “large on-site sewage disposal system,” see Chapter 246-272B WAC. Bioretention or Rain Gardens (cont.) BMP T7.30, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 7.4 None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for hard surfaces. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. 13 Worksheet C What’s the best option for your site? Other Hard Surfaces (cont.) BMP andApplicableLists Reason why the BMP will not work on site.Additional Comments If needed Sheet Flow Dispersion BMP T5.12, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3 Positive drainage for sheet flow runoff cannot be achieved. Area to be dispersed (e.g., driveway, patio) cannot be graded to have less than a 15 percent slope. For flat to moderately sloped areas, at least a 10 foot-wide vegetation buffer for dispersion of the adjacent 20 feet of contributing surface cannot be achieved. For variably sloped areas, at least a 25 foot vegetated flowpath between berms cannot be achieved. Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. Concentrated Flow Dispersion BMP T5.11, SWMMWW Volume V, Section 5.3 A minimum 3 foot length of rock pad and 50 foot flowpath OR a dispersion trench and 25 foot flowpath for every 700 sq. ft. of drainage area followed with applicable setbacks cannot be achieved. More than 700 sq. ft. drainage area drains to any dispersion device. Siting and design criteria cannot be achieved on site. List #1, #2 and #3 List #1, #2 and #3 None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for hard surfaces. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. None of the above boxes are checked. This is the BMP that must be used for hard surfaces. On Worksheet A1, indicate that this will be the BMP used. CONTINUE to complete the form for other surface types applicable to the project. If none, STOP. Bldg Roof SF Sizing Factor SF RG L W sf top surface Retreat 6000 0.09 540 55 10 550 Cabin 710 0.09 63.9 13 5 65 L W SF 57 12 684 15 7 105 Calculations for Rain Garden Overflow containment 21.54 acresO AK BA Y ROADSEPTIC DRAINFIELDCAT. BROOF6,000 SFAREA 2STAIRS & RAMPSLIGHT BLUE1,155 SFCAT. BCARETAKER BUILDING710 SFCAT. CROAD37,565 SFCAT. CROAD4,878 SFCAT. CPARKING9,222 SFAREA 627,622 SFCAT. ALAWN4,000 SFCHECK DAMS AS NEEDED ALONG ROAD SWALEC207FULL DISPERSION WITH 100' NATIVE VEGITATIVE FLOW PATHSPomona Woods Owner: Ann Burkhart 206-480-8467pomonawoods@gmail.comSCALE IN FEET050100150200N3030 OAK BAY ROADSTORMWATER SITE PLAN100' - 0"100' - 0"100' - 0"1 0 0 ' - 0 "RAIN GARDEN684 SFRAIN GARDEN105 SF*Exhibit E*Nov 17 2021Mar 02 2022 *Exhibit F* NEW PRIVATE ROADRETREAT FACILITY12,000 sf maximum, 2 stories high.24 rooms, maximum guest capacity of 30 guestsLobby 1 large meeting area 1 breakout room2 public bathrooms on each floorCommercial kitchen to prepare food for guests onlyDining area for maximum 30 people Caretaker's ResidenceSCALE IN FEET050100150200N21.54 acresParking 24 stallsOAK BAY ROA DSITEVICINITY MAP3030 OAK BAY ROADDRAINAGE: TO BE ENGINEERED FOR ON SITE RETAINAGE OF ALL NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACESSEPTIC DRAINFIELDSetback Line250' - 0"250' - 0"DeliveriesCOMMERCIAL FORESTCOMMERCIAL FORESTGateAPPROVAL STAMPI s s u e D a t e :P r o j e c t N o.:7551 42nd Ave NESeattle, WA 98115T323 301 0302designerprb@gmail.comBURKHART DESIGNOriginal drawing is 24 x 366/2/2021 4:36:33 PMPomona WoodsA1.0SITE PLAN921 183 0082 June 20213030 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock WA 98339ISSUE DESCRIPTION DATE*Exhibit F* 716 SFDINING572 SFHall180 SFGuest Room46 SFStorage35 SFPublic35 SFStaff38 SFFridge25 SFFreezerRampPorchRamp411 SFKitchen918 SFLobby26 SFJanitor35 SFPublic180 SFGuest Room47 SFBath589 SFWalkway395 SFBreakout36 SFRestroom36 SFRestroom42 SFStor.Deck940 SFMeeting RoomAPPROVAL STAMPI s s u e D a t e :P r o j e c t N o.:7551 42nd Ave NESeattle, WA 98115T323 301 0302designerprb@gmail.comBURKHART DESIGNOriginal drawing is 24 x 366/2/2021 1:52:31 PMPomona WoodsA2.0FLOOR PLANS921 183 0082 June 20213030 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock WA 98339ISSUE DESCRIPTION DATEArea Schedule (Gross Building)Level AreaLevel 01 6119 SFLevel 02 5872 SF11990 SF1/8" = 1'-0"1Level 011/8" = 1'-0"2Level 02 Level 01334' -5"Level 02344' -5"Site Model354' -5"Parapet Top357' -5"3' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"23' - 0"Average Grade4' - 0"27' - 0"Level 01334' -5"Level 02344' -5"Site Model354' -5"Parapet Top357' -5"Level 01334' -5"Level 02344' -5"Site Model354' -5"Parapet Top357' -5"Level 01334' -5"Level 02344' -5"Site Model354' -5"Parapet Top357' -5"APPROVAL STAMPI s s u e D a t e :P r o j e c t N o.:7551 42nd Ave NESeattle, WA 98115T323 301 0302designerprb@gmail.comBURKHART DESIGNOriginal drawing is 24 x 366/2/2021 1:58:54 PMPomona WoodsA3.0ELEVATIONS921 183 0082 June 20213030 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock WA 98339ISSUE DESCRIPTION DATE3/16" = 1'-0"1West3/16" = 1'-0"2East3/16" = 1'-0"3North3/16" = 1'-0"4South 130' - 0" 135' - 0" 140' - 0" 145' - 0" 150' - 0" 155' - 0" 160' - 0" 165' - 0" 170' - 0" 175' - 0" 180' - 0" 185' - 0" 190' - 0" 195' - 0" 200' - 0" 205' - 0" 210' - 0" 215' - 0" 220' - 0" 225' - 0" 230' - 0" 235' - 0" 240' - 0" 245' - 0" 250' - 0" 255' - 0" 255' - 0" 255' - 0" 260' - 0" 265' - 0" 270' - 0" 275' - 0" 280' - 0" 285' - 0" 290' - 0" 295' - 0" 300' - 0" 305' - 0" 310' - 0" 315' - 0" 320' - 0" 325' - 0" 330' - 0" 335' - 0" 340' - 0" 345' - 0" 350' - 0" 355' - 0" 145' - 0" 150' - 0" 155' - 0" 160' - 0" 165' - 0" 170' - 0" 175' - 0" 175' - 0" 175' - 0" 180' - 0" 180' - 0" 180' - 0" 185' - 0" 190' - 0" 195' - 0" 200' - 0" 205' - 0" 210' - 0" 215' - 0" 220' - 0" 225' - 0" 230' - 0" 235' - 0" 240' - 0" 245' - 0" 250' - 0" 255' - 0" 260' - 0" 265' - 0" 270' - 0" 275' - 0" 280' - 0" 285' - 0" 290' - 0" 295' - 0" 300' - 0" 305' - 0" 310' - 0" 315' - 0" 320' - 0" 325' - 0" 330' - 0" 335' - 0" 340' - 0" 345' - 0" 350' - 0" 355' - 0" 360' - 0" 150' - 0" 155' - 0" 160' - 0" 165' - 0" 170' - 0" 175' - 0" 180' - 0" 185' - 0" 190' - 0" 195' - 0" 200' - 0" 205' - 0" 210' - 0" 215' - 0" 220' - 0" 225' - 0" 230' - 0" 235' - 0" 240' - 0" 240' - 0" 240' - 0" 245' - 0" 250' - 0" 255' - 0" 260' - 0" 265' - 0" 270' - 0" 275' - 0" 280' - 0" 285' - 0" 290' - 0" 295' - 0" 300' - 0" 305' - 0" 310' - 0" 315' - 0" 320' - 0" 325' - 0" 330' - 0" 335' - 0" 340' - 0" 345' - 0" 350' - 0" 355' - 0" 1002000Retreat BuildingManager's Residence2 9 p a r k in g s ta llsExisting Drainage CulvertMile 3 MarkerStake with yellow flag tape921183002NEW PRIVATE ROAD21.54 acresO AK BA Y R OA D Future Septic DrainfieldSetback LineCommercial ForestCommercial ForestScale 1" = 100'OAK BA Y ROAD adaboardwalk pathpullout2 parking stalls250' - 0"Screen-A Landscaping (50' Green Hatched Area) 198,443 sf Landscaping is the already existing natural stand of mature (some over 100 years) evergreen (primarily cedar, fir, hemlock) and deciduous (big leaf maple and alder) trees. The understory consists mostly of 6 foot high sword ferns with some salal, huckleberry and other native species.Proposed Sign LocationdeliveriesLAWN92118300811.1%PUD water main extention250' - 0"82' - 0"Pomona Woods Owner: Ann Burkhart 206-480-8467pomonawoods@gmail.comSITE PLAN*Exhibit G*Nov 22 20212.39 in10.60 in10.45 inMar 02 2022 Stratum Group File: 5.1.20 1 PO Box 2546, Bellingham, Washington 98227 Phone: (360) 714-9409 July 14, 2021 Ann Burkhart pamonawoods@gmail.com P.O. Box 145 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Re: Geologic Hazard Assessment Jefferson County Parcels 921183008 and 921183002 Jefferson County, WA This geologic hazard evaluation was conducted to assess the risk of landslide and erosion at the property. It is my understanding that you are planning on building an access drive from Oak Bay Road to the upper western portion of the property and the western, upper portion of the site will be developed with a retreat center. Jefferson County Public Land Records landslide map indicates that the properties are located within an area mapped as a slight landslide hazard area and the Shoreline Stability map indicates the properties are in an intermediate slope stability area. Based on my geology hazard assessment, it is my opinion that the subject properties are not at risk from landslides or erosion. Furthermore, building an access drive onto the property to access the upper west portion of the property and development of the upper western part of the property can be accomplished without increasing the risk of landslides or erosion on or off the site as long as the recommendations in the report are followed and grading and stormwater for the development area managed in a manner consistent with best management practices and with the Western Washington Stormwater Manual. The moderate slopes on the property are underlain compact gravely sand with silt glacial drift and is not subject to failure or erosion given the moderate slopes. This geologic hazard assessment included a field inspection of the site and vicinity. The evaluation also included review of the available geologic mapping, lidar (light detecting and ranging) imagery and our own notes and observations we have made in the vicinity of the site and at locations with similar geologic conditions. GENERAL GEOLOGY The Geologic Map of the Port Ludlow and southern half of the Hainsville 7.5-minute Quadrangles, Jefferson and Kitsap Counties, Washington (Polenz and others, 2015) indicates that the property is underlain by Vashon glacial till deposits (Figure 1). *Exhibit H* July 14, 2021 Jefferson County Parcels 921183008 and 921183002 Geologic Hazard Assessment Stratum Group File: 5.1.21 2 Figure 1. Clipped and annotated geologic mapped (Polenz and others, 2015) showing the subject property location. Qgt = Vashon Stade lodgment till, Qgic = Vashon Stade ice-contact deposits, Qgos = Vashon Stade recessional outwash sand, Qgdme = Everson glacial marine drift, Qmw = mass wasting, ΦEmq = Quimper Sandstone, blue line is late ice age shoreline. The Vashon till was deposited directly by glacial ice during the last glacial period when glacial ice from the north covered the area between 18,000 and 14,000 years ago. The till is dense and hard and consist of very poorly sorted clay through boulders. My observations of the property and area are consistent with the geology map described above. The overall aspect of the properties is they are located on the east slope of a glacial scoured drumlin (elongate hill formed by the flowing ice). SITE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS Oak Bay Road bounds the east of the properties. The properties slope down to the east with moderate slopes. The slope has valley-like features associated with past drainage across the slope from west to east (Figure 2). These valleys are dry features with no evidence of water flow or active or ongoing erosion (Figure 3). I interpret these valleys as relict drainages that formed shortly after glacial ice left the area. At the late stages of the last glacial period freshly exposed bare land under harsher conditions with remnant ice in the vicinity was highly erodable. Numerous valleys like these are present in the region and others (Polenz and others, 2014 and 2015 and Contreras and others, 2014) have made similar interpretations. Periodic water flow may take place during unusual weather events such as rapid heavy snow melt on frozen ground. However, no significant erosion was observed in any of the valleys on the properties and with the exception of the very lower end of two of the valleys, there was no evidence of water. July 14, 2021 Jefferson County Parcels 921183008 and 921183002 Geologic Hazard Assessment Stratum Group File: 5.1.21 3 Figure 2. Lidar bare earth imagery from Jefferson County GIS. Note valleys crossing the property. Figure 3. View of relict valley on central portion of property. Slopes throughout the properties are moderate slopes. Slopes along some of the relict valley slides are somewhat steeper. There is a moderately steep low cut slope along portions of the east side of the property associated with Oak Bay Road (Figure 4). No slope failures are evident along the cut slope. The slopes are forested with a mix stand of mature trees including western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock, big leaf maple and red alder. The understory vegetation is predominantly sword fern throughout most of the site. The upper very gentle slopes have thicker brush areas and more red alder. The property is underlain by dense glacial till with silty sand being the dominate sediment (Figure 5). July 14, 2021 Jefferson County Parcels 921183008 and 921183002 Geologic Hazard Assessment Stratum Group File: 5.1.21 4 Figure 4. View of the east edge of property looking south showing the road cut for Oak bay Road Figure 5. Typical very dense silty sand glacial till found throughout the site, July 14, 2021 Jefferson County Parcels 921183008 and 921183002 Geologic Hazard Assessment Stratum Group File: 5.1.21 5 Geologic Hazard Assessment The property is underlain by well drained dense silty to sandy hard glacial till. No evidence of previous, ongoing, or incipient landsliding is present on the property. The relict valleys on the property have stable slopes and the road cut above Oak Bay Road appears to be stable with no indications of potential sliding on the cut slopes. Valleys on the property are relict landforms and have stable side slopes and there is no erosion taking place within the valley areas. Review of lidar bare earth imagery revealed no indications of any large scale or small scale sliding on the site of vicinity. Based on my understanding of the geology units and observations, it is my opinion that there are no landslide hazards on the site. July 14, 2021 Jefferson County Parcels 921183008 and 921183002 Geologic Hazard Assessment Stratum Group File: 5.1.21 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on my geologic hazard assessment, the property is not a landslide or erosion hazard area and will not be at risk of landslides or erosion. Furthermore, development will not increase the risk of landslides or erosion as long as the recommendations of this report are followed. The building of a road onto the site can be accomplished such that the road will not be at risk from landslides and will not increase the risk of landslides on or off the site as long. Grading for the road should be done in a manner consistent with standard grading practices and consistent with the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington for pollution prevention. No specific access road plans had been developed at the time of my site visit, but I noted that there were multiple routes that could be followed to access the upper part of the property where buildings will be proposed. The only issue will be grading and angling the road up the slope to meet desired grade. This can be readily accomplished particularly from the area on the northeast part of the site. Stormwater from the access drive and buildings should be fully dispersed consistent with the Stormwater Manual and based on the size of the property, forested condition and soil types this can be readily accomplished. For building foundations, soil bearing of 3,000 psf may be used as long as foundation footings are placed on unweathered glacial till. Stratum Group appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you. Should you have any questions regarding this assessment please contact our office at (360) 714-9409. Sincerely yours, Stratum Group Dan McShane, L.E.G., M.Sc. Licensed Engineering Geologist JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us _________________________________________________________________________________ SquareONE Resource Center | Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning July 23, 2021 POMONA WOODS LLC PO BOX 145 PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 RE: SITE ADDRESS: OAK BAY RD CASE #: MLA21-00066 Dear POMONA WOODS LLC: Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff have reviewed the application materials for the above proposed project and have determined that your application is not complete. The following information is needed by October 21, 2021 to constitute a complete application: 1. Parking Plan: According to the submitted site plan, the applicant is proposing 24 parking stalls. The applicant has also proposed that there will be “a maximum of 40 people on-site at a time, including staff”. Please provide a parkingplan (narrative and site plan) that describes how parking will be provided for all guests, employees, and propertyowners. The parking plan must meet the requirements in JCC 18.30.100 and JCC 18.20.170. Please note that if the proposed parking stalls exceed 40 stalls, SEPA would be required (WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(iv)). 2. Landscaping Plan: The applicant has proposed to provide “Screen-A” landscaping for the Retreat Center,Caretaker Residence, and Parking Lot. The Landscaping Plan must demonstrate how the proposed project will meet the requirements in JCC 18.30.130(3), (5), (6), (7) and (8). Please see JCC 18.30.130(7)(a) to review the submittal requirements of the Landscaping Site Plan. 3. Stormwater Management Permit: The applicant is proposing 57,000 square feet of new impervious surface. Any project that proposes over 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface is considered a “Large Stormwater Project”.JCC 18.30.060 and JCC 18.30.070 requires the project applicant to submit a stormwater plan meeting MinimumRequirements #1 through #9 of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for WesternWashington. Please review, fill out, and sign a Large Stormwater Packet and return the packet to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. The Large Stormwater Packet includes the stormwater calculationworksheet and the construction stormwater pollution prevention plan. The Large Stormwater Packet shall beaccompanied by a Stormwater Site Plan and Permanent Stormwater Control Plan. 4. Sign: The applicant is proposing a small sign at the driveway entrance along Oak Bay Road. Please submit a signsite plan, design, and proposed dimensions (JCC 18.30.150). 5. Stream Verification Letter: The applicant has submitted the following statement in the Conditional Use Permit Application: “The seasonal streams on the property will be protected - in fact trails will be thoughtfully designed forguests to enjoy them, the woods, and the occasional wildlife to be seen”. The proposed New Private Road may belocated in the buffer area of the potential on-site seasonal non-fish bearing stream (Type “Ns” Stream). The required buffer for a Type “Ns” Stream is 50-75 ft depending on the property grade (JCC Table 18.22.630(1): Stream Buffers). Please consult a professional biologist to prepare a Habitat Reconnaissance Letter (Stream Verification Letter) toconfirm the presence of the stream, the stream type, and the associated stream buffer (JCC 18.22.650). If the streamis confirmed to be present on the property, the project site plan must also be revised to show the stream location and the regulated stream buffer. *Exhibit I* Pursuant to JCC18.40.110(3)(b), if an applicant does not submit additional information, does not request additional time to submit the required information within the ninety (90) calendar day period, or does not appeal the decision, the application will be considered abandoned and therefore withdrawn and the applicant shall forfeit the application fee. The Department of Community Development shall not be responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending expiration. Please advise the Department of Community Development in writing of your intentions. Sincerely, _____________________________________ Department of Community Development Staff Ann Burkhart Pomona Woods LLC PO Box 145 Port Hadlock, WA 98339-0145 July 26, 2021 Amanda Hunt Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: CASE #: MLA21-00066 Dear Ms. Woods, Per your letter of July 23, 2021, I am responding to request for further information on my CUP application. 1.Parking Plan: Please see attached Pomona Woods Site Plan with updates to the parking plan. We added 2 parking spaces next to the caretaker cabin and 5 in the main area. Although I will be encouraging carpooling this meets requirements for 1 per room and 1 per staff member. Since I submitted the CUP I took my financial plan out 10 years and I don’t anticipate going past 7 staff, including the caretaker. This revised plan includes 31 spots (24 guest and 7 staff), 1 of which is a handicapped spot, as required in 18.30.100 (b), (c) and (f) 2.Landscaping Plan: All 21.5 acres of the two parcels are heavily forested with mature (some over 100 years) evergreen (primarily cedar, fir, hemlock) and deciduous (big leaf maple and alder) trees. Understory consists of 6 foot plus sword ferns, salal, huckleberry. We will only be removing trees and shrubs where the buildings, road and parking are to be located so a more than adequate “Screen-A” landscaping will be maintained, as shown on the revised attached Site Plan. This screening will provide a deep, continuous, year-round screen well above the eight foot requirement. This forest screen will be maintained as long as the business is owned by Pomona Woods LLC. This should meet all the requirements outlined in 18.30.103 (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8). 3.Stormwater Management Plan: We are working on this and will send under separate cover ASAP. I apologize. I did not realize that a finished plan was required for the CUP. 4.Sign: We have not designed the sign yet (we won’t open doors for 2 years), but it will be as per 18.30.150 (h) a “Directional sign” meant to designate the location of Pomona Woods and will be submitted for permit when designed. We will design something similar to the picture below, but not to exceed 4 ft high and 8 ft wide (32 square feet). The sign will be located on the North side of the entrance road to the property, at least 6 feet back from Oak Bay Road (past the brush trimming line for Oak Bay Road). 5.Stream Verification Letter: I used the wrong word in my application when I said “The seasonal streams on the property will be protected.” Per the provided Geologic Hazard Assessment from Stratum Group, “Oak Bay Road bounds the east of the properties. The properties slope down to the east with moderate slopes. The slope has valley-like features associated with past drainage across the slope from west to east (Figure 2). These valleys are dry features with no evidence of water flow or active or ongoing erosion (Figure 3). I interpret these valleys as relict drainages that formed shortly after glacial ice left the area. At the late stages of the last glacial period freshly exposed bare land under harsher conditions with remnant ice in the vicinity was highly erodible. Numerous valleys like these are present in the region and others (Polenz and others, 2014 and 2015 and Contreras and others, 2014) have made similar interpretations. Periodic water flow may take place during unusual weather events such as rapid heavy snow melt on frozen ground. However, no significant erosion was observed in any of the valleys on the properties and with the exception of the very lower end of two of the valleys, there was no evidence of water.” Thank you for your guidance and review of the Pomona Woods plans. We are looking forward to becoming a part of the Jefferson County community. Best regards, Ann Burkhart Ann Burkhart, Owner, Pomona Woods LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Department of Community Development Staff September 1, 2021 POMONA WOODS LLC PO BOX 145 PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 RE: SITE ADDRESS: OAK BAY RD MLA #: MLA21-00066 Dear POMONA WOODS LLC: Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff has reviewed the application materials for the above project proposal and has determined that the application is substantially complete. Additional information needed for project review may be requested in writing by the Director or Project Planner. Please call the Department of Community Development if you have any questions. The proposed start date for the Notice of Application and Comment period is Wednesday, September 15th. Please confirm with the assigned planner (Amanda Hunt) if the applicant is available to pick up Notice Boards on Tuesday, September 14th. Sincerely, JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us _________________________________________________________________________________ SquareONE Resource Center | Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning October 15, 2021 Dear Reviewer, RE: MLA21-00066 - ZON2021-00040 Jefferson County has forwarded the attached application to you for review and comment because your agency is responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements or may otherwise be affected by the following proposal: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist, retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for- profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,355 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A care taker residence (for two on- site caretakers), septic system, parking lot, lawn area, two access roads, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 43,607 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone on the property. No other Critical Areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Location: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 - Township 29N - Range 1E; Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Please provide comments on the Department of Ecology Comment Letter (dated 09/30/2021), public water access opportunities, aquifer/water capacity issues, correspondence with the PUD, and any information regarding the success of well drilling on the property. Please also submit any other applicable comments. Comments must be received within fourteen (14) calendar days or by October 29, 2021. If no written response has been received within fourteen (14) days, your agency will be presumed to have no comments. If necessary, the UDC administrator may grant an extension of time for comment. Please contact at (360)-379-4450 if you desire an extension of time or have additional questions regarding this proposal. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, _____________________________ Amanda Hunt, Assistant Planner October 15, 2021 Date November 10, 2021 POMONA WOODS LLCPO BOX 145PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 RE:SITE ADDRESS: OAK BAY RD CASE #: MLA21-00066 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Dear POMONA WOODS LLC: The Department of Community Development is in the process of reviewing your application. The following information is needed to continue review of your project. 1.SEPA CHECKLIST: Please see the attached Annotated SEPA Checklist. The comments with (*) are general DCD review comments that do not require further action from the applicant. The comments with (**) is information that needs to be specified and described in the SEPA Environmental Checklist. Please revise and re-submit the SEPA Checklist with the requested information. FYI- In compliance with state requirements, the applicant must answer all questions in the SEPA Checklist. If the applicant answers “no” or “not applicable”, the applicant must provide an explanation for those answers. Other important tips to keep in mind is to avoid using descriptive words like “mostly”, quantify answers when appropriate, and use percentages and data points to defend answers. The goal is to throughly define the proposal so that Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) can determine how the project satisfies the Jefferson County Code. 2.STORMWATER SITE PLAN: Additional review from the Department of Public Works (PW) shall be required to approve the new locations of buildings, road, and parking lot in conjunction with the current proposed Stormwater Management Plan. The revised site plan (dated 11/10/2021) will be sent by Ms. Hunt to PW for further review. Please note that additional revisions may be requested upon PW review. 3.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: According to the Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Letter, dated September 30th, 2021 and prepared by John Fleming PE, Development Review Engineer, Jefferson County Public Works, the following is required prior to completed the following: a. To meet MR#9 Operation & Maintenance, and ensure that the approved stormwater management facilities are appropriately maintained for the life of the project, prior to final project approval, the proponent shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with Jefferson County. The Public Works Department will send a copy of the Agreement to the proponent which has been signed by the Public Works Director. The proponent shall sign the Agreement before a notary, file it with the Jefferson County Auditor, and provide Public Works with a copy of the recorded document. County Auditor 2021 recording fees are $103.50 for the first page and $1 for each additional page. b. Prior to DCD project approval, the proponent shall pay all costs related to the Department’s application review, plan review, inspections, and preparation of the Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement. In accordance with the Jefferson County Public Works Department Fee Schedule, the Department’s hourly development review fee is $90 for 2021. In the event that approval for the proposal is denied by Jefferson County or the proposal is not completed, the proponent shall still be responsible for paying the Department’s fee. Please see the attached PDF’s for the Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Letter and the Public Works Review Invoice. 4.FOREST PRATICE PERMIT: Please provide Jefferson County DCD an update regarding the Forest Practice Application correspondence with Ross Goodwin (Department of Natural Resources). 5.WELL/PUD CONNECTION: Please notify Jefferson County DCD what water source the applicant is planning to install for the proposal (i.e. private well or connection to the Quimper Water System). 6.PUBLIC COMMENTS: The following are common public concerns received during the public comment period: •• Increased traffic• Impact to adjacent residential development and use• Increased stormwater runoff and land instability • Increased noise and light pollution • Loss of privacy and security Does the applicant have any best management practices proposed to mitigate for and address these issues? Examples of plans submitted by previous applicants to address traffic, runoff, erosion, and construction noise issues are a traffic control plans, temporary erosion and sedimentation control plans, and construction and noise best management practices. Some examples of construction and noise best management practices include spraying exposed soil and storage areas with water during dry periods, covering exposed earthen stockpiles and loads of excavated material being transported from the site, choosing lower-noise construction activities such as using a hydraulic cutter instead of a circular saw, and scheduling the construction activities strategically so the noisiest activities occur during the most noise-tolerant periods least likely to trigger complaints from stakeholders. Please submit the above information to the Department of Community Development within 90 days of the date of this letter which would be 2/8/2022. Please call 360-379-4450 to speak with the assigned planner if you have any questions. Sincerely, Amanda Hunt_____________________________________ Department of Community Development Staff Date: 11/10/2021 Invoice ID: 2021ZON2021-00040 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Invoice Date Due: 12/10/2021 REMIT TO: BILLING ADDRESS: Please return the above portion with your payment DPW Cond Use Pmt (hrly) DCD029 517.50 Tech Fee DCD003 25.87 $543.37Total Amount Due: Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 POMONA WOODS LLC PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 PO BOX 145 Permit Number: ZON2021-00040 DPW Cond Use Pmt (hrly) DCD029 517.50 Tech Fee DCD003 25.87 Total Amount Due:$543.37 Payment is accepted by cash, check, debit or credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Discover). To pay by credit card, go to http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/617/Credit-Card-E-Check-Payments-for-Permits, and click on the "Online Credit Card & echeck Payments" link on the left side of the page. For questions: call 360-379-4450. Pomona Woods Retreat Center Community FAQ What IS Pomona Woods? Pomona Woods vision is to inspire a lasting connection to nature, community and each other – all while adding value to the local community. We will host small group retreats for the purpose of education, enrichment and connection. To ensure and manage minimal impact on the site, and create an intimate experience for guests, we will limit occupancy to a maximum of 35 guests. We will not be hosting individual bookings at our retreat. We will be designing to and seek LEED (green building) certification, fully integrating sustainable, small footprint planning and execution. The integration of our retreat design and communication materials will inspire and delight guests to take make sustainable decisions in their own lives and workplaces. A focus on nature and habitat preservation is a cornerstone of our low footprint operating philosophy. While comfortable, the retreat isn’t fancy. The all-in-one building will be purpose-built for group interactions and will incorporate numerous sustainability features such as solar panels, cisterns to collect water for landscaping, rain gardens, and low impact and recycled building materials and furniture. Our retreat will not include features associated with spas or resorts such as gyms, massage, hot tubs, etc. Guests of Pomona Woods will enjoy delicious food, made in-house, with many locally sourced, sustainably grown ingredients. Care will be put forth to create guest excursions and team building options that will enrich the overall experience and connect the retreat to the local economic, cultural, natural, historic, and indigenous community. How will Pomona Woods Contribute to the community? ● Current property taxes on for the two parcels are $2,502.23/year. We anticipate this will increase to $38,000-$40,000 per year for Jefferson County after the structures are built. ● Based on revenue projections, by year five Pomona Woods will generate an additional $100,000+ annually in Sales and Use and Lodging Tax for Jefferson County. This does not include taxes from money guests spend off site. ● By year five, Pomona Woods will hire 6 local people, adding to the community employment base. ● We will focus on supporting local businesses for goods and services, such as local farmers, producers, artisans, maintenance, repair services etc. - further strengthening the local economy. ● We will support local arts and culture by providing a space for local artists, musicians, poets, writers, storytellers to hold workshops for people from around the Sound and world. In addition, we will showcase local artists with revolving exhibitions in the public areas. ● Part of our vision is to connect guests with the local community through farm visits and dinner lectures from craftspeople, environmentalists, storytellers, artists and local tribal members. ● In the winter we plan to hold 1-3 community workshops, cooking classes or other small events of local interest. ● We will collaborate with other local businesses, not-for-profits and community members around relevant local issues like housing and environmental protection and restoration. How is only 4.6% of the land impacted for buildings and roads? Per our submitted Stormwater Calculation Worksheet, the structure plus driveway, parking and roads equal 53,497 square feet. The total property is 21.5 acres or 938,282 square feet. That calculates at 5.7% of the forest being impacted. Another 3.5% impact will be for the septic and a small lawn. At least half of this impact, the location of the retreat building, parking lot, lawn and caretaker cabin will be built in an area where the current vegetation is mostly scrub and alder. In all areas every effort will be made to preserve trees of significant size and age that are in good health. Our commitment to habitat and ecosystem stewardship will include planting native vegetation to restore any vegetation temporarily impacted during construction. To help put the impact in perspective, we looked at the public record for one house in neighboring Eagle Ridge. The house had 4,200 sq ft of impervious surface associated with it. The Pomona Woods land contains 2 parcels so another buyer of the property could have built 2 houses of at least the same size, totaling 8,400 sq ft impervious surface. The impervious surface calculation for Pomona Woods buildings is 6,710 - less than the potential impact if this had been a residential development. The impervious surface calculation for a road (36,897 sq feet) would be the same for residential as it is for Pomona Woods, but we have made the road slightly longer to ensure the grade allows for a gravel road, not a paved road surface like was used for Eagle Ridge. In addition, much of the road follows the old logging road, requiring reduced tree removal and less land disturbance. What sort of traffic impact do you anticipate? We calculated daily traffic based on number of guests and staff, occupancy rates over the year and trips back and forth. Once we reach peak as a business, in about 5-7 years, we estimate 26 cars/day on Oak Bay Road, which is 1% of the daily traffic, using Jefferson County figures of 2,500 cars/day. Deliveries will be scheduled during standard business hours. Per the Department of Public Works Memorandum dated September 30, 2021 regarding Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments: “Based on the minor increase in traffic, and low accident rate history along Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of the proposed project, the Department recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation.” Guests/yr@ peak, yr 7 (24*.71*365) 6,219.60 RT = yearly guest estimate*2 12,439.20 Divide by Av. Carpool 2-3 (used 2.5) 4,975.68 Trips per day (divide by 365) 13.63 6 commuting staff *2 for RT 12.00 Deliveries 2x Week *2 for RT 0.57 Total trips / day 25.63 Will the development or construction create unstable slopes or risk of landslide? The main retreat building, with a roof size of 6,000 square feet, will be at the far Western edge of the 21.5 acres. Given the significant amount of mature forest that will be maintained, the county will only require use of dispersion method for roof and road runoff. That said, we will be installing a rain garden to manage run off from the retreat and caretaker buildings. The natural slope of the land runs East, not South, so any runoff will not impact direct neighbors even without that precaution. Jefferson County representatives have determined that there are no wetlands on the parcels. Per Jefferson County maps, the “slight” risk of landslide hazard and “intermediate”, not “unstable”, Shoreline Slope Stability are only on the lower three-quarters of the property. The retreat building and the caretaker cabin will be built at the Eastern, mostly flat quarter of the property. Only the lower third of the property is in the Coastal SIPZ “<100ppm chloride and ¼ mile from shoreline”– which is not where the well will be installed. Some neighbors have experienced well problems during the drought. Will Pomona Woods impact the aquifer? We are working with Jefferson PUD to extend the Quimper Water System and will not be installing a well as originally planned. This will be of benefit to neighbors along the extension who can now connect to reliable water at less expense. You talk about sustainable design – what specifically do you mean? Pomona Woods will be designing for LEED certification by the U.S. Green Building Council. Some of the building features planned so far include a high efficiency heat pump system, a high efficiency building envelope, low air leakage with a heat recovery ventilation system, energy efficient lighting, energy efficient water heating and kitchen appliances, and rooftop solar panels. To minimize use of concrete (and the associated high carbon footprint) and lessen the impact on the soil and fungal mycelium we will use helical screw piles vs. concrete foundation. Will Pomona Woods create light and sound pollution? Outdoor safety lights will be aimed low to encourage star gazing by guests. Indoor lights from the building and car lights from the road will not be visible to neighbors due to at least 50 feet of forest screening that will be maintained around the property. Quiet hours from 10:00PM - 8:00AM will be strictly maintained. No amplified music will be allowed outside any time of day. During the construction phase we would be happy to send interested neighbors periodic “construction updates” in advance of major phases, traffic, or disruption. Will this project result in increased crime in the neighborhood? Guests will be arriving as a group for educational activities and will be known to each other. All guests will be fully identified by Pomona Woods management prior to arrival. While not a luxury destination, Pomona Woods will not be a bargain location, and guests will be there for the program, not criminal activities. To address “destination prowling” parking areas will have motion sensor lighting and cameras and guests will be asked to keep valuables out of cars and lock their vehicles. Who is Ann Burkhart? Ann Burkhart is the sole owner and on-site manager of Pomona Woods. She was born and raised in Seattle and her family has been in the Northwest for generations. Prior to starting this venture, Ann worked helping companies source agricultural commodities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner – for Starbucks and the Earthworm Foundation. She was a board member for EarthCorps and Global Visionaries and just graduated as a Sound Water Steward. Pomona Woods is a family endeavor. Ann’s brother Paul is the project architect, and brother Kevin is advising on landscaping and trails. Her mother Carol is providing some financial support for the project. The Pomona Woods name comes from the owner’s great grandfather’s apple orchard in Dayton, WA – Pomona Ranch. James and Fannie Dumas’ ranch was one of the first in Washington state, planted in 1897. Pomona is also the name of a Roman wood nymph associated with trees and fruitful abundance. The name connects our retreat to a family history of a stewardship of the land, entrepreneurial spirit and a touch of whimsy. Why will people come to Pomona Woods? ● To solve problems or create a shared vision by coming together in the same physical space (corporate and not-for-profit team building and strategic planning off-sites) ● To build community through shared interests (quilting, literature, nature, low-footprint lifestyle, etc.) ● To learn or practice a shared discipline, seek inspiration, heal and grow (yoga, art, various wellness practices, writing, etc.) ● To play, laugh and build shared experiences (family and friend groups) ● To support an environmentally committed, woman-owned facility that inspires, educates and sets an example for how reducing our footprint can contribute to our collective well-being. Please publish one time. PUBLISH DATE: September 15, 2021 BILL: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION AND PENDING SEPA DETERMINATION MLA21-00066 APPLICANT: POMONA WOODS LLC PO BOX 145 PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 Application Received Date: June 23, 2021 Application Complete Date: September 1, 2021 Application Notice Date: September 15, 2021 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 - Township 29N - Range 1E; Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,355 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on-site caretakers), septic system, parking lot, lawn area, two access roads, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 43,607 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). COMMENT PERIOD AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. All interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) receive notice of and participate in any hearings; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment (s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Comments concerning this application should be submitted to the Department by 4:30 p.m. on September 30, 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. Comments submitted after this date may not be considered in the staff report. SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process of SEPA, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11- 355 is being used. DCD reviewed the proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a DNS. This determination is based upon a review of the SEPA Checklist, project submissions, and other available information. Additional conditions or mitigation measures may be required under SEPA. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. There will not be another comment period after the threshold (final) SEPA determination is made. Project Planner: Amanda Hunt, 360-379-4458 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community Development web page at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ *Exhibit J* JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION AND PENDING SEPA DETERMINATION MLA21-00066 APPLICANT: POMONA WOODS LLC PO BOX 145 PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 Application Received Date: June 23, 2021 Application Complete Date: September 1, 2021 Application Notice Date: September 15, 2021 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 - Township 29N - Range 1E; Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,355 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A care taker residence (for two on-site caretakers), septic system, parking lot, lawn area, two access roads, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 43,607 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). COMMENT PERIOD AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. All interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) receive notice of and participate in any hearings; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment (s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Comments concerning this application should be submitted to the Department by 4:30 p.m. on September 30, 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. Comments submitted after this date may not be considered in the staff report. SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process of SEPA, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-355 is being used. DCD reviewed the proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a DNS. This determination is based upon a review of the SEPA Checklist, project submissions, and other available information. Additional conditions or mitigation measures may be required under SEPA. The SEPA Official has determined that: This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. There will not be another comment period after the threshold (final) SEPA determination is made. If the threshold determination is a DNS or a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MDNS), parties of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the final Notice of Decision. A Determination of Significance (DS) may not be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. If a DNS or MDNS is appealed to the Hearing Examiner, parties of record may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the Appellate Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the final Hearing Examiner Notice of Decision. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: This is a Type III permit application that is subject to SEPA review. An open record hearing will be scheduled. Separate public notice of the SEPA threshold (final) determination by the Administrator and the date of the hearing will be provided at least 15 days prior to the hearing. Appeals of the Administrator's threshold decision will be handled at the same hearing. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven calendar days prior to such a hearing. APPEALS: Appeals of SEPA decisions are described above in the "SEPA Environmental Review" section. The final permit decision for this Type III permit application will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Appellate Hearing Examiner may not be further appealed except to Superior Court. Project Planner: Amanda Hunt, 360-379-4458 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community Development web page at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Please publish one time. PUBLISH DATE: March 2, 2022 BILL: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: POMONA WOODS LLC PO BOX 145 PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 Application Received Date: June 23, 2021 Application Complete Date: September 1, 2021 Public Hearing Notice Date: March 2, 2022 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 - Township 29N - Range 1E; Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: TYPE III CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC (“the applicant”) proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist and recreational retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,155 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on-site caretakers), septic system, main parking lot (29 stalls), caretaker parking area (2 stalls), lawn area, one access road, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 53,497 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, Class IV General Forest Practice Application, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this proposal on March 2, 2022. PUBLIC HEARING AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The public hearing will be conducted on Thursday, March 17, 2022 over a virtual conference video call. The hearing will begin at or about 1:00PM. Please see the following link to the Jefferson County Office of the Hearing Examiner webpage (https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/789/Office-of-the-Hearing-Examiner). The link to the virtual conference can be found on the Office of the Hearing Examiner webpage calendar 1-7 days prior to the public hearing. The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development or online at the following link (https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/586/Public-Notices). All interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) attend the virtual public hearing; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment(s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450, or sent via email to the assigned planner (Ms. Hunt; ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us). SEPA INFORMATION AND DETERMINATION: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on March 2, 2022. Parties of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner by submitting a written statement to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development within 14 calendar days after the SEPA threshold determination is issued (JCC 18.40.330). Project Planner: Amanda Hunt, 360-379-4458, ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community Development web page at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ JEFFERSON COUNTY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION MLA21-00066 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Jefferson County Hearings Examiner on a Type III Land Use Application. APPLICANT: POMONA WOODS LLC PO BOX 145 PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-0145 Application Received Date: June 23, 2021 Application Complete Date: September 1, 2021 Public Hearing Notice Date: March 2, 2022 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 - Township 29N - Range 1E; Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: TYPE III CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC (“the applicant”) proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist and recreational retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,155 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on-site caretakers), septic system, main parking lot (29 stalls), caretaker parking area (2 stalls), lawn area, one access road, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 53,497 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, Class IV General Forest Practice Application, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this proposal on March 2, 2022. PUBLIC HEARING AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The public hearing will be conducted on Thursday, March 17, 2022 over a virtual conference video call. The hearing will begin at or about 1:00PM. Please see the following link to the Jefferson County Office of the Hearing Examiner webpage (https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/789/Office-of-the-Hearing-Examiner). The link to the virtual conference can be found on the Office of the Hearing Examiner webpage calendar 1-7 days prior to the public hearing. The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development or online at the following link (https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/586/Public-Notices). All interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) attend the virtual public hearing; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment(s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450, or sent via email to the assigned planner (Ms. Hunt; ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us). SEPA INFORMATION AND DETERMINATION: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on March 2, 2022. Parties of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner by submitting a written statement to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development within 14 calendar days after the SEPA threshold determination is issued (JCC 18.40.330). Project Planner: Amanda Hunt, 360-379-4458, ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 For further information, please visit the Jefferson County Department of Community Development web page at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Public Hearing Notice Board – Noticed on March 1, 2022 by Ms. Hunt Notice of Public Hearing – March 2, 2022 1 Pre-Application Conference, PRE21-00009 Department of Community Development Pomona Woods Retreat Center Proposal Small-Scale Recreation & Tourism County Attendees: Susan Porto [Emma Erickson], EH; Randy Marx [Carter Erickson], EH; Mina Kwansa, EH; Joel Peterson, DCD; Tom Aumock, fire consultant to DCD Time & Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2021; 10:30—11:30 am. Owner/Applicant/Representatives: Ann and Paul Burkhart, Owners Location: No address—ca. 3030 Oak Bay Road. Parcels 921183008, 921183002 Description of Proposal Retreat Center. Lodge with Gathering Hall and Dining Area, 26 rooms, maximum capacity 30 guests. The retreat center includes a gathering space that will be suitable for a corporate or not-for-profit team offsite, yoga retreat, family gathering, etc. Dining area for maximum 30 people, 1 large meeting area approx. 630 sq. ft., 2 bathrooms in the meeting area, 2 breakout rooms, Commercial kitchen to prepare food for guests only. See full description in application document. Site Summary The site consists of two adjacent parcels: a 1.3-acre, RR-5 parcel bordering the west side of Oak Bay Road (Parcel 921183002) and a 20.2-acre RR-20 parcel (921183008) abutting to the west of the small parcel. The site slopes upward from the road to about 21% slope to the western third of the 20-acre parcel where is levels to approximately 12% slope. The site appears to be wooded. The site is bordered on north and west by Commercial Forest, establishing a 250-foot development setback from the north and west property lines. The site is not within a water service area. Critical Areas: •Shoreline Slope Stability—Intermediate; Landslide Hazard—Slight •Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone--Coastal 1)PROPONENT’S PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Ann and Paul Burkhart 2)ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT –Susan Porto, Mina Kwansa 3)DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION, DCD – Joel Peterson, John Fleming, Tom Aumock Zoning--Allowed Uses The proposed use is categorized as Small-Scale Recreation & Tourism, and is allowed with a Type III Conditional Use Permit. See timeline. *Exhibit K* 2 Performance and Use-Specific Standards https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/?JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty18 20.html#18.20.350 18.20.350(3) (a) Small-scale recreation or tourist uses may include limited and commensurately scaled commercial facilities intended to serve those small-scale recreational or tourist uses (e.g., a gift shop, delicatessen, convenience store, or associated retail sales and services); provided, that the applicant can demonstrate the following to the satisfaction of the approving authority that: (i) The principal demand for the commercial facilities is derived from the principal recreational or tourist use and not the existing and projected rural population; (ii) The associated commercial activities shall be clearly accessory to and dependent upon the primary recreational or tourist uses; (iii) The associated commercial activities, in addition to the principal recreational or tourist use, will not have a measurable detrimental traffic, noise, visual or public safety impact on adjacent properties; (iv) The use and associated structure is clearly appropriate and compatible in scale, size, design and function with surrounding uses and environment; (v) The use will not constitute new urban development in a rural area; (vi) The public facilities and services provided are limited to those necessary to serve the associated commercial activities and the principal small-scale recreational or tourist use in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; and (vii) All other applicable requirements and standards in this UDC are met. 3 Conditional Use Permit Criteria The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to provide flexibility in the application of the use regulations contained in this code in order to accommodate uses that may be appropriate in an established district under certain circumstances, but inappropriate in the same district under others. At the time of application, a review of the location, design, configuration, and potential impact of the proposed use shall be conducted by comparing the use to the goals and policies established in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and to adopted development standards. This review shall determine whether the proposed use should be permitted by weighing the public need or the benefit to be derived from the use against the impact that it may cause. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] 18.40.530 Approval criteria for all conditional uses. (1) The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as “C(a),” “C(d)” or “C”) if all of the following criteria are satisfied: (a) The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; (b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and stormwater control; (c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel; (d) The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel; (e) The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the conditional use will not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties; (f) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use will not be hazardous to existing and anticipated traffic in the vicinity of the subject parcel; (g) The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this title and any other applicable provisions of the Jefferson County Code or state law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC; (h) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield; 4 (i) The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval; (j) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole; (k) The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and (l) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar actions in the area. Additional Performance Standards JCC 18.20.080 Assembly Facilities: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1820.ht ml#18.20.080 JCC 18.20.140 Commercial Uses—Standards for Site Development: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1820.ht ml#18.20.140 JCC 18.20.290 Recreational Developments: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1820.ht ml#18.20.290 JCC 18.20.350 Small-Scale Recreation & Tourism: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1820.ht ml#18.20.350 SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) 18.40.750 SEPA - Exemption threshold for commercial structure (WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(iv)) 12,000 square feet and with associated parking for 40 automobiles. - Exemption for land disturbing activities up to 500 cu. Yds. of cut/fill Development Standards Chapter 18.30 JCC – Development Standards: 1. Maximum area Impervious Surface in RR1:5 = 25% 2. Setbacks: Road—50 feet; Minimum rear & side yard setback = 5 feet 3. Forest Resource Land Setback = 250 feet (adjacent to commercial forest and rural forest). 5 4. Maximum building height = 35ft. 5. Type A screening requirements JCC 18.30.130—Full screen that functions as a visual barrier. 6. Parking Standards - Determined with site and use planning (18.30.100 Table 6-2) - One for each FTE employee who resides off the property (18.20.170) - Businesses requiring customers—shall provide adequate on-site parking - Two parking spaces for owners of the property 7. 18.30.150 Sign Code. - Shall not exceed 32 square feet total sign area - Administrative review for increased size or bonus signs is included in sign code - Standards exist for off-site signs 8. 18.30.060 Grading and Excavation Standards—Drainage controls may be required to regulate volume, peak flow and velocities of runoff water and to control pollutants, erosion, and sedimentation. 9. 18.30.070 Stormwater Management Standards – > 2,000 s.f. impervious surface or > 7,000 s.f. land disturbing activity = Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Site Plan. If 5,000 s.f. impervious surface, comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #9 of Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Dept. of Ecology, 2019. (JCC 18.30.070(4)(b)). 10. Emergency Services Access—see handout Permits and Process Conditional Use Permit No building permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application for approval for a conditional use permit until the conditional use permit is approved and becomes effective (JCC 18.40.550). • Permit Application • Conditional Use Permit Application- Base fee: 2,693.25 • Site Plan • Parking Plan • Landscaping Plan • Stormwater Plan Stormwater Management Permit (see Stormwater Guidance) • Stormwater Calculation Worksheet • Stormwater Site Plan • Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Permanent Stormwater Control Plan Building Permit (see Submittal Checklist) 6 • Permit Application - fees based, in part, on valuation • Supplemental Application for Residential or Commercial Building Permit • Proof of Potable Water • Septic Permit number and current Septic O&M Inspection paperwork • Site Plan • Floor Plan • Building Plans Sign Permit • Permit Application – Base fee $330.75 • Sign Permit Supplemental Application • Site Plan, Sign Design & Dimensions OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES • Department of Ecology – Waste Management Guidelines • Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) • Governor’s Office of Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA)—Permit Guidance Documents Assurances are unavailable. Discussions at the Pre-Application Conference are not binding, and no statement made by county representatives shall in any way relieve applicant of the duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant regulations and requirements. 7 ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR TYPE III PERMIT PROCESS Hearing Examiner Decision Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15 Week 16 Week 17 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105 112 119 Pre-Application Conference (Estimate 3 weeks for Pre- App scheduling and completion.) Date of Application Intake 28-Day Determination of Complete Application Case review for completeness & issues 14 days from Det. Of Completeness to Publication Notice due to Leader (Friday) Publication Date (Wednesday) Applicant posts Notice Board 14 Day Comment Period Staff Analysis & Report Schedule Hearing Examiner (2x/month) Publish Hearing Notice (at least 15 days in advance) Hearing 10-day Hearing Examiner Decision Period Permit Conditions and Preparation Issue Permit Application No. CERTIFICATE OF WATER SUPPLY UTILITY SERVICE JEFFERSON COUNTY OFFICIAL USE ONLY DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE |Application Number Project Name Approved Water Plan Water Utility Assigned By Date Water Utility PUD/SMA Date APPLICANT TO COMPLETE Applicant Name Ann Burkhart Proposed Project Pomona Woods Development Project Location 3O Oak Bay Poad Portadoc WA Project Preliminary Plan: Indicate the number of units of each category Multi-Family reomS Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Other I, the undersigned, certfy that !, or my appointed representative have discussed this proposed project and its impacts with the Water Utility shovwn above. l acknowledge that this proposed project may require improvements to the water system shown above which would incur my financial obligation. Prior to Final Plat approval. or approval of the Water System Plan or the Engineer's Report, it is understood that a legal contract betweenmyself and the Water Utlity must be submitted to Jefferson County which speciies the tems of the water senvice, operational responsibility. and fnancial obligation. Furthemore, I acknowledge that I have read and understand the following mateial. By signing the application fom, the applicant/owmer attests that the informmation provided herein is true and correct to the best of their knowiedge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may resut in this permit being null and void. further agreeto save, indemnity and hold harmiess Jefferson County against all iabilities, judgments, court costs, reasonatble attomey's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and it's employees, representatives or agents for the purpose of application review,and any required later inspections. Access and right of entry to the applicant's property or structyre shall berequested aid shall occur during regular business hours. Signatüreot Applicant Date Page 1 of 5 *Exhibit L* Application No._________ Page 2 of 5 UTILITY SERVICE REVIEW PROCEDURE (USRP) If an individual well is proposed, then the Procedure (USRP) is not required at this time. Individual well proposal is forwarded to the County Health Department for review and approval. Priority 1: Within Service Area Jefferson County will determine whose service area water supply the request is located in, and will then direct the applicant to that purveyor or water utility with a Certificate of Water Supply Utility Service in hand. If the utility declines service, a letter stating 'Justification of Denial' will be required. If the purveyor declines service, then go to Priority 2. Priority 2: Satellite System Management Agency (SSMA) The designated SSMA for the County will be allowed to respond to the service request and provide conditions of service to the applicant. If the SSMA declines service, a letter stating 'Justification of Denial' will be required. If the SSMA declines service, then go to Priority 3. Priority 3: Adjacent utility The applicant must approach adjacent utilities to determine if service can be provided. If the adjacent utility declines service, a letter stating 'Justification of Denial' will be required. If adjacent utility declines service, then go to Priority 4. Priority 4: Create new Public Water System (PWS) After the first 3 priorities are ruled out, a new PWS may be considered through the required State review process. The applicant will be directed to have an engineer contact the DOH Regional Engineer for specific requirements (Water System Plan, project report, construction documents, etc.). Note: Once service is determined, Jefferson County will sign off on the Certificate for Water Supply Utility Service and adjust service area maps as necessary. Sign off will occur only after consultation with the DOH to determine whether the proposed system is adequate to serve. Application No._________ Page 3 of 5 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE WATER UTILITY A. Please circle the appropriate action(s) and/or fill in the appropriate blanks. 1. The proposal is/is not within our approved water service area. 2. The ____________________________________ water utility does/does not desire to serve this development at this time/ever. 3. The water utility is/is not willing to assume interim satellite operational management responsibility for the proposed water system until a connection to our system is possible. If you (the utility) are not going to manage the supply of water for this development, please proceed to number 16 and attach a letter explaining the 'Justification of Denial'. The County will be unable to proceed without this 'Justification of Denial'. In all other cases, continue with the questionnaire. 4. The proposed development is/is not consistent with our approved water system plan. 5. Water service can be made available to this development immediately/by _____/_____/_____. 6. Indicate estimated peak hour, peak day, and annual average water supply needed in gallons per minute (GPM). Peak Hour Peak Day Annual Avg. Required fire flow N/A N/A__ Estimated domestic __________________________________________ Total requirements __________________________________________ 7. Number of fire hydrants required __________________________________________ 8. The ____________________________________________ water system has been approved for _______ service connections and currently has _______ active connections and _______ service commitments. 9. Will the project require extension of water mains or adjustments to service area boundaries? Yes/No If yes, please describe: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ PUD's Quimper Water System Quimper Prior to water service being provided, the Applicant will be required to design and construct improvements. Please refer below for the improvement requirements. Per the 1997 JC Coordinate Water System Plan (CWSP) hydrant spacing: 750-ft for residential and 300-ft for multi-family and commercial and the placement approved by the PUD, JC building dept. and fire marshal. Currently Quimper is unspecified, on the number of connections. The improvements where modeled for a fire flow of 1,000gpm at the end of our Quimper Water System. An 10-inch PVC water main will be required to be extended from the termination of the PUD's existing water main, approximately at the intersection of Eagle Ridge Drive and Oak Bay Road. The extension will be approximately 1,500-ft, south along Oak Bay Road. The design shall follow the PUD's extension policy (2021 WSP Appendix 3-1; technical standards 2021 WSP Chapter 11 and standard water details, 2021 WSP Appendix 11-1. The PUD will pay for the up charge from an 8-inch water main to a 10-inch water main. As this improvement is over-sizing for future capacity. Per 2021 Water System Plan Appendix 3-1 Extension Policy, "For pipes greater than 4 inches larger in diameter than the District's design standard required to serve the applicant's development/lot - reimbursable costs will include increased material and construction costs (eg. cost differentials for larger components, increased excavation, special bedding, testing, cleaning, etc.)" Application No._________ Page 4 of 5 10. Significant facilities improvements other than waterline extension would/would not be required. List improvements: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 11. The entire water system capable of serving the ultimate development density will/will not be installed initially prior to final plat approval. If staged development is proposed, specify what form and the method of surety which will be provided to guarantee ultimate installation of water system facilities. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 12. List the flows that could be provided to the development with a minimum pressure of 30 psi and 20 psi. _______________________________________________________ GPM at 30 psi _______________________________________________________ GPM at 20 psi 13. Indicate size of main required for hookup: ___________________________ inches. 14. Indicate distance from existing main to project: _______________________ feet. 15. Design and installation of the proposed water system will/will not be reviewed and inspected by our agency. 16. A satisfactory contract has/has not been made with the applicant to serve this proposal. Comments: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ I, the undersigned, certify that I, or another authorized representative of the utility, have discussed this proposed project and its imparts with the applicant. I acknowledge that the ____________________________________ water system has the capacity in installed facilities and water rights to serve the proposed development with the improvements identified above and that the service to the proposed project is consistent with this utility's water system plan. ___________________________________________ _________________ WATER UTILITY REPRESENTATIVE DATE The proposed improvements within the Oak Bay Rd. right-of-way were modeled with a fire flow of 1,000 gpm. According to the modeling the pressure at the proposed water main in Oak Bay Rd. right-of-way would be between 45-55 psi. The applicant will need to install a private (individual) booster pump on the customer side of the meter, due to the topography of their proposed site. The applicant will also need a DOH approved testable double check valve assembly on the customer side of the meter. Please refer to the PUD's Cross Connection Control page for more information at https://www.jeffpud.org/cross-connection-control/ Approx. 1,500 10 The applicant will submit the design to the PUD for review and approval then the PUD would submit to Jefferson County Public Works for a Utility Permit application for the water main work in Oak Bay Rd. right-of-way. Quimper The PUD comments within this document is meant to give the county and applicant the general PUD requirements. This is not meant to be all inclusive of the PUD requirements and fees/charges. The applicant will work directly with the PUD on the PUD requirements and fees/charges. Please refer to the individual, customer side of the meter, requirements in item 12. 1/31/2022 Application No._________ Page 5 of 5 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPROPRIATE REVIEW AGENCY B. Please circle the appropriate action(s) and/or fill in blanks. 1. Jefferson County Health Department (Individual Wells) The Jefferson County Health Department has reviewed the proposed method of water supply and hereby offers conceptual approval/ disapproval for the proposal. Final approval will be reserved until a suitable well site is approved and until it is demonstrated that applicable separation distances and health regulations are attainable. Comments:________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________ County Health Department Official Date 2. Jefferson County Development Review Division (Reviews for consistency with County land use policies.) The Development Review Division has reviewed the proposed method of water supply and hereby offers conceptual approval/disapproval for the proposed supply. Comments:________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________ Development Review Division Signature Date 3. Washington State Department of Health Reviews applications where there is a disagreement of terms of water service or formation of a new water supply utility. Due either to a disagreement on terms of water service or to the formation of a new water supply utility, the DOH has made a decision on water service. This decision is presented in the attached letter dated _____/_____/_____ and signed by: _________________________________________________________________________. The Water Utility Coordinating Committee did/did not make recommendations applicable to this case which are/are not attached. Comments:________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________ ___________________ Washington State Department of Health Date Serving the Communities of Port Townsend Port Hadlock Chimacum Irondale Kala Point Cape George Marrowstone Island Bret Black Fire Chief (360)385-2626 bblack@ejfr.org Chi 24 Seton Rd., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Date: February 3, 2022 To: Trent McKnight – G. Little Construction From: Brian Tracer – Assistant Fire Chief, East Jefferson Fire Reuse Subject: Pomona Woods Projects Good day, G.Little Construction has contacted me with regard to emergency access related to their proposed Pomona Woods Project. In reviewing the proposed plans, I looked at the 2018 IFC Chapter 5 Section 503 Fire ApparatusAccess Roads. Appendix D Fire Apparatus Access Roads and the County local access road standards. Theattached plans conform to the intent of the IFC and the road access standards with regard to emergencyservice access. Please note that the Department of Community Development (DCD) is the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). Please contact me with further questions or need for assistance. 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" *Exhibit M* Serving the Communities of Port Townsend Port Hadlock Chimacum Irondale Kala Point Cape George Marrowstone Island Serving the Communities of Port Townsend Port Hadlock Chimacum Irondale Kala Point Cape George Marrowstone Island Serving the Communities of Port Townsend Port Hadlock Chimacum Irondale Kala Point Cape George Marrowstone Island *Exhibit N* 1 Amanda Hunt From:DCD Front Staff Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:44 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:FW: Proposed "Retreat" on 20 acres off of Oak Bay Road at milepost three Public Comment ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: John Ammeter <jammeter@cablespeed.com> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 12:20 PM To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Proposed "Retreat" on 20 acres off of Oak Bay Road at milepost three CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I live on Skywater Drive less than 1/2 mile south of the proposed retreat. My understanding is the property is in two parcels. One zoned one house per 20 acres and the other parcel zoned for one house per 5 acres. My own community is zoned one house per 5 acres. This is zoning that provides us with comfortable size lots and privacy. To allow a large commercial retreat this close to my own community is not desired by me or several of my immediate neighbors. Increased traffic on Oak Bay Road would be detrimental to safety. I often find bicyclists riding on the side of the road. There is only about 6 inches from the fogline available for bikes to travel. This, of course, means they are in the roadway and the increased traffic can only cause more accidents or near accidents. I am opposed to any commercial use of that property. John Ammeter 423 Skywater Drive Port Hadlock, WA 98339 206‐914‐4602 *Exhibit O* 1 Amanda Hunt From:Peter P <pkpobr@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 2:48 PM To:Amanda Hunt Cc:Peter Petrakos Subject:MLA21-00066 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Hunt, I am writing this to express my concerns over MLA‐00066. I am just amazed at how fast this was posted and the short lack of time to allow everyone to express their concerns and there seem to be quite many of them. My name is Peter Petrakos. I live two parcels over from the proposed project. I don’t understand how something like that retreat can even be considered. Most of us here on the hill are retired and bought our properties and have developed them according to the zoning. How can a person come in and build such a place and request zoning changes? It just baffles me. One of my biggest concerns is the tranquility of the area. But the biggest concern is water and runoff concerns. With the climate change and the drier summers where will the extra water come for the 30 some people? I’m sure most of us on the hill all pull our water from the same aquifer. A development like that seems to me would put a big dent on water up here. And what about all the run off from the rain? I know that there is concerns about that on both sides of Oak Bay Rd. In my opinion there has to be more studies on just water and runoff issues. I also think the deadline at the end of the month needs to be extended to allow more information on the impact to our little area here. Thank you for your time. Regards, Peter Petrakos 1 Amanda Hunt From:defossma@aol.com Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 5:48 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Proposed retreat on 20 acres near mile 3 marker on Oak Bay Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello: My husband and I have lived on Skywater Drive for 15 years. I would like to express our major reservations about the proposed "yoga retreat" off Oak Bay Road between Skywater Drive and Eagle Ridge Drive. Traffic is the most obvious impact, and this will start with the necessary logging, followed by a fairly large construction project, before the actual proposed usage of the property even begins. Another serious concern is water; where will the water needed for this facility come from? Water is already an issue in Washington, and it will only get worse, especially here in the rain shadow of the Olympics. Another serious concern is the viability of this business proposal. As described, it is a pretty narrow offering, and it will be competing with other venues in the area that can offer additional amenities. If this business fails, what will happen to the developed property? It will obviously not revert to forest. History suggests that it will then pass to some other business that we neighbors did not assent to. Finally, this is a business proposal for a rural residential area. It will not have a waterside presence that might make it more attractive and appropriate for its proposed use. Neither will it be on a "mountaintop" that might also make sense for this kind of development. At the very least, we feel that the comment period needs to be extended so that all interested parties have a chance to understand the proposal and make their concerns known. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely Edward and Mary Anne Desfosses 1 Amanda Hunt From:susan bishop <suzzymbishop@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 8:03 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Opposition to proposed Pomona Woods LLC Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Ms Hunt. I am very concerned about the proposed Pomona Woods LLC development for a retreat off of Oak Bay. My concerns are: ‐ The proposal includes 43+k new impervious surface area on only a 25 acre site. The additional impervious surface will cause associated run‐off with potential slope destabilization depending on the logging, ‐ The development includes 24 rooms which will increase traffic not only in the immediate area but cumulatively, particularly if the retreat hosts events that is open to attendees beyond those staying there. We cannot get out of our driveway some weekends because of traffic getting off the Peninsula. Attendees are likely to explore the area adding more traffic beyond just going to the retreat initially. Cycling is popular in the area and the roads are becoming dangerous given the lack of shoulders. This will add to that. ‐ It is inconsistent and potentially disruptive with the primary residential zoning use in the area (see conditional use permit criteria). ‐ The impact on water use and availability. We received a notice this summer regarding potential rationing given the low water available with the lack of rain. The climate change that will be increasingly the case and I am concerned about additional impact on water availability particularly from something that is designed to serve primarily those outside the community. There are two similar locations already available for similar use off Oak Bay Rd.: the Port Ludlow Resort, and the Old Alcohol Plant, which has waterfront gardens, a vegetable garden, restaurant, and meeting. These are locations with amenities nearby. I support businesses like that proposed when they are sited appropriately and fit with the community. The proposed development does not meet those criteria. I would like to attend the Zoom hearing on the proposal I understand is scheduled for October 1. Would you send the logistics on how to join? Regards, Susan Bishop 1 Amanda Hunt From:Terri Ross <terri40love@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:41 AM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Pomona Woods Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Amanda, I would like to register a concern regarding the Pomona Woods LLC project. I live across the street from this. The following are my concerns. 1. This is not a residential project. We are not zoned for commercial 2. The water run off from Oak Bay Road already comes down my property if they cut more trees it will be worse. 3. Water usage and septic for 24 rooms/showers & a kitchen will impact our wells/ground water. We have no public water. 4. No benefit to the community, except devalue our properties if you rezone to commercial 5. More traffic coming on to Oak Bay Road There are plenty places to have events in Port Townsend ‐ Fort Flagler, Fort Warden etc. What happens if this venture fails and someone else comes in and changes the rules? Why is the SEPA determination only Non ‐Significance? There are wet‐lands on that property.. Please reconsider this project. I would like to be notified of the zoom meeting. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Any questions please call. Terri Ross 2971 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, WA 98339 (360) 301‐3737 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:52 AM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:FW: MLA21-00066 1 Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Robert Kaufmann <rgk2@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:46 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: MLA21‐00066 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Hunt, I am attaching an email message I sent yesterday to Commissioner Eisenhour regarding MLA21‐00066. I would appreciate your comments. Sincerely, Robert Kaufman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - September 20, 2021 TO: Heidi Eisenhour - County Commissioner Jefferson County - District 2 RE: Jefferson County Public Notice of Type III Land Use Application and Pending SEPA Determination MLA21-00066 Applicant - Pomona Woods LLC Dear Commissioner, 2 I am writing to you to express my strong objections to the proposed land use by Pomona Woods LLC as outlined under application MLA-00066. There may have been a time when any purchase of “deep forest” land in Jefferson County might have served varied purposes but, that time has passed for this specific area. I am sure I speak for many of my neighbors who feel as I do. This is a settled, residential area now and not for commercial purposes. We have all come here to retire or simply live peacefully and without any commercial distractions. Here, in no specific order, are a few of my objections and concerns: - Negative impact to the existing aquifer that currently sustains residences - Increased traffic on Oak Bay Road which is already a problem - Constant flow of strangers with no vested interest in our area - There are already existing venues suited for the purposes outlined by Pomona Woods - Commercial signage - Potential business failure with an unacceptable repurpose of assets Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate your comments. Sincerely, Robert Kaufmann 3162 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, WA 98339 360 437-4125 rgk2@sbcglobal.net 1 Amanda Hunt From:Chris Malan <cjmalan@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:36 PM To:Amanda Hunt Cc:Terri Subject:Comments and Request for Notice Regarding Public Notice of Type III Land Use Application and Pending SEPA Determination MLA21-00066 Attachments:Comment and Request for Notice.odt CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Amanda: Attached please find the referenced Comments and Request for Notice. Please include these comments in the record of proceedings for this application. Thank you. Chris Chris and Laurie Malan 3135 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, WA 98339 cjmalan@gmail.com 801-541-0303 Amanda Hunt, Project Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Comments and Request for Notice Regarding Public Notice of Type III Land Use Application and Pending SEPA Determination MLA21-00066 Dear Ms. Hunt: Please consider this letter to be our comments and request for notice in the referenced matter. We have a number of concerns with the proposed development and request that the Department and Division carefully consider these matters and include them in the formal record of proceedings. First, we object to the use of the optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process of SEPA for the proposed development. Among other impacts, the proposal would create 43,607 square feet of new impervious surface. Applicant’s SEPA Environmental Checklist, Custom Soil Resource Report and Geotechnical Report do not reference or include an analysis of the known instability and land subsidence issues in the vicinity of the proposed development along Oak Bay Road and Old Oak Bay Road. The failure to conduct a full SEPA review in an area of known geologic issues is improper. Additionally, adjacent and downgradient property owners are concerned with the impact of more than an acre of impervious surface within the proposed development and the unknown impacts on their properties. These issues and associated environmental impacts should be thoroughly analyzed pursuant to a full SEPA review. Amanda Hunt Page 2 Next, we oppose the application for a conditional use permit to allow a prohibited use of the subject property within our residentially zoned neighborhood. Neighbors of the proposed conference center have a significant interest in preserving the residential quality of our neighborhood. Commercial developments of the nature proposed by Applicant will irreparably and irreversibly change the residential quality of our neighborhood. We respectfully request that the application for a conditional use permit be denied. Given the known and unknown long term impacts of the proposed development, we urge the SEPA Official to reconsider the decision to use the DNS process and to conduct a plenary environmental review of the proposed development under SEPA. We further request that the Development Review Division deny the land use application and conditional use permit for this development. Sincerely, Chris J. Malan Laurie J. Malan 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ron Standley <ron.standley12@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 24, 2021 11:10 AM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Pending Pomona Woods Proposal MLA21-00066 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Amanda. Thank you for soliciting public comments on the proposed Pomona Woods Community improvements, MLA21‐00066. My wife and I reside at 2388 Oak Bay Road. We're concerned about traffic impacts that would surely result if this project is permitted. As you know, the current speed limit on Oak Bay Road is 50 MPH. Our primary concern is the increased traffic that would occur as the seven staff members commute twice‐daily to and from this proposed site. In addition, the proposed 'commercial' kitchen would require several fresh grocery deliveries each week, likely by truck. This increased traffic risk is above and beyond the level of traffic generated by the many anticipated guests arriving, touring the area, then leaving for their respective homes. Our driveway entrance connects to Oak Bay Road near the top of a hill. In the year we've lived here, we've had several close calls where other drivers have come close to hitting us. In one instance, a 'triggered' individual went so far as to pass us in a designated no‐passing zone. We proceeded northbound and observed that individual then pass another vehicle on a blind curve. We watched as a southbound Jefferson County Sheriff executed a u‐turn to pursue and stop that pickup truck in front of the animal hospital. 2 One way to mitigate these traffic safety risks would be to widen Oak Bay Road for an adequate distance in advance of their driveway entrance. The additional space would permit a center turning lane for slowing northbound resort traffic, providing safe space to wait for an opportunity to turn left into their driveway, while allowing other northbound vehicles to continue safely. Further, additional width would be needed to allow for a right‐turn‐only lane for south‐bound resort traffic to enter their driveway safely while allowing other southbound traffic to continue unimpeded. The developer must willingly pay for these, and any additional expenses. As a taxpayer, I would resent being asked to contribute to the cost of ‐ any ‐ mitigating solutions. Additional concerns we have discussed involve increased water usage. Guests and staff would require water. The proposed 'commercial' kitchen will greatly increase water consumption as taps in this environment are nearly always running wide open while food is prepped. Some commercial kitchens use power‐washing techniques to maintain health standards. Subsequent fresh water flow would impact the proposed septic system, requiring increased capacity. We've recently had a visit from a representative from Jefferson County Health Department who was investigating the increased bacterial load being released into Oak Bay and the resulting toxic algae bloom. That impact involved only a few homes whose septic fields might empty into a nearby creek. Now, imagine the resulting impact of the guests and staff of this proposed resort. Also of concern is future zoning changes once a commercial enterprise is permitted in an existing Rural Residential community? We purchased an existing home in this residential area which we found very pleasant. If the proposed resort negatively changes the community, we may decide to move again, denying Jefferson County our tax dollars. 3 Lastly, the large amount of forested area that would be removed to allow for structural foundation, impervious‐surfaced roads and parking is going to have a much larger impact than that which 4‐5 private residences would have. The resulting paved square footage would have a negative impact on rain runoff/drainage, potentially increasing downslope soil saturation which creates risk of soil liquefaction in an earthquake scenario, increasing landslide exposure. Another consideration is denying existing tree roots the water needed for continuing forest health. I trust each of our concerns will be considered as your staff contemplates this decision. Ron and Pam Standley 2388 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock‐Irondale, WA 98339 720‐939‐4790 1 Amanda Hunt From:Bradley Offutt <boffutt01@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, September 27, 2021 10:27 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:The proposed Retreat Center on Oak Bay Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms. Hunt, I know you’re receiving lots of input on this proposed development, so I’ll keep it short. As near as I can tell from the information available, this proposed development will be a positive change as our county grows and seeks expanded business possibilities. I have read what the owner is proposing and have read many, many objections from folks who oppose this change. I believe it would be a good thing for Jefferson County and that many of the objections are ill conceived. Thank you, Bradley Offutt 1 Amanda Hunt From:Jan Quick <janquick@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 28, 2021 2:05 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Re: The Conditional Use Permit for Retreat Center on Oak Bay RD. Attachments:2021-9-27 Pomona Woods letter .pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. We are sending this to you as we were informed that you are involved in the permit process on this property. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the future of our community. Attached are our comments on the proposed development and the main reasons that we believe this development should not be approved. Jan & Dave Quick 3186 Oak Bay Rd Port Hadlock, WA 360‐774‐1464 To the Jefferson County Dept of Community Development, Development Review Division: Re: Parcels #921183008 & 921183002 Conditional Use Permit for a Small-Scale Tourist Recreation Use Retreat Center on Oak Bay Road We are submitting our comments on the proposed development of this property By Pomona woods LLC. We have been property owners at 3186 Oak Bay since 2004 and have lived on our property for the last 12 years. We are six parcels to the south of the proposed development. Our experience building and living here over the last decade gives us some concerns about the proposed Pomona Woods Retreat Center and its potential impact to the area. Our primary concern is the continued availability of adequate potable water for the existing wells on properties near this proposed development. Our house, like many on the west side of Oak Bay, is sited high on the ridge closer to the western end of the property which borders commercial forests. The proposed Pomona Woods structures would be similarly sited on its parcel. We share a 204 ft. deep well with the neighbors south of us. The well head is located on their parcel, the pumphouse/storage tanks on ours. The well serves four people in total over ten acres. During the wet season, the well pump draws enough water to fill our reserve tanks and keep up with normal usage. In the drier summer months, the volume typically slows down but has been adequate until recent years. Over the last several years, we’ve experienced repeated water shortages in the summer months when the pump cannot pull enough water to keep our tanks filled. We must constantly monitor our water usage and sometimes cut back on garden watering, laundry or showers and other normal use to allow our system to recharge. We have water saving appliances, low flow toilets and always let lawn our areas go dormant. We use water conservation methods for our vegetable gardens and landscape plants. The drought of this summer was especially challenging, and we have heard from others in the area that their wells are also stressed in the summer months. The proposed retreat center will likely be most active precisely at the time of year when our local wells are already most stressed. Surely the proposed commercial kitchen, large vegetable garden, and up to 30 guests needing showers, bathrooms, and clean bed linens has the potential to over burden the local aquifer even more. What happens if this project is built, and our wells begin to fail? Is there any recourse for established properties if they become unlivable for lack of water? A second issue is the petition to change the zoning of these parcels to allow for commercial use in a residential area. Currently the east parcel is zoned RR1:5 and steep heavily wooded west parcel is zoned RR1:20. As we understand it, that would be allow for one residence on each property, consistent with what exists in the surrounding area. Changing the zoning to allow for commercial use in a residential area seems an arbitrary choice that benefits only the landowner wishing to turn this property into a commercial venture. It would serve groups of people mainly from outside the community who can afford to rent the whole facility, but not the general community it resides in. What real benefit does this project bring to our community? Does it loosen the zoning codes to allow a cascade of non-residential uses outside the Urban Growth Areas? A third problem is the potential for increased disruption and traffic on Oak Bay Road and noise coming from the construction and operation of the facility. During the construction, there will likely be periodic obstruction to traffic along Oak Bay Road. Until the road is built, trailers hauling large equipment will need to off-loaded at the edge of Oak Bay Rd. To clear the way for the driveway, logging and brush cutting will add more noise and traffic. Installing a septic system to accommodate a 30- guest building will mean more digging, trenching and re-grading than would a typical home sized system. Trucks delivering building materials, construction workers’ vehicles, and the noise of construction will bring months of early morning noise to the close-in neighbors, possibly much longer due to the scale and complexity of this building project. To operate the retreat facility, there will be inevitable traffic of retreat attendees, employees and delivery trucks coming and going from the property. Once established, there may be light pollution coming from guests' windows, the parking areas and outdoor lights. The driveway may need more outdoor lighting for visitors who don’t know the terrain, than for a homeowner who drives it regularly. If the retreat center operates year-round, the driveway will need regular maintenance to keep it clear of leaves, fallen trees, branches and snow. A gravel road will need regrading periodically to deal with erosion, runoff and subsidence as the roadbed ages or is scaped too thin by a snowplow. (We know this from 7 years of living on a long, steep gravel road in a previous home.) During retreat events, it is likely that outdoor noise will reach the nearby neighbors. Even if the proposal states that no outdoor amplification will be allowed, do we have any assurance that this promise will always be enforced? People away from home tend to be noisy outdoors and people in groups even more so. And sounds carry surprisingly well along this slope. Sometimes from our house, we hear the High School band practicing outdoors several miles over the ridge in Chimacum. Like many of our neighbors, we chose our rural properties for the potential of privacy and quiet. Other than lawn mowers, chainsaws after a storm, or occasional outdoor gatherings, we enjoy a fair amount of quiet. We pay for that in the labor of upkeep on our properties and in the taxes we contribute to support our communities. We want to have a strong community, but also to enjoy the rural lives we’ve built here. What happens if the current business model of Pomona Woods fails and the owner decides on a more raucous recreational business? What happens if the property is sold? Is a new owner free to run any kind of commercial venue on the property? Is this the best use of our rural land? Thank you for listening. We hope that you will take these concerns into consideration to make the best decision for our community, one that preserves the residential rural nature for all of us who already call it home. Please call us if you have questions about these comments. 360-774-1464 Jan and Dave Quick 3186 Oak Bay Rd. Port Hadlock, WA 1 Amanda Hunt From:D. Beaton <DFBeaton-AGTA@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 3:29 PM To:Amanda Hunt; David W. Johnson Cc:#Long-Range Planning Subject:Request to extend comment period, Case # ZON2021-00040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Re: Conditional Use Permit for Parcel 921183008 & 921183002, Oak Bay Rd, Port Hadlock Dear Ms. Hunt, Mr. Johnson, and the Jefferson County Dept of Community Development, Upon investigation I see that inquiries and meetings about an exceptional use to this land have occurred with the DCD since October 2020, from the previous owner and the present owner. An 8" x 11" notice (only facing south) was posted on September 15, 2021, on the side of Oak Bay Road in a 50 mph zone, with no area to pull over. There were also notices in the Legal Column in the subsequent Port Townsend Leader. Given the scope and extent of exception to current land use of this project, that is not a good faith effort to communicate with the public and the affected property owners. Fifteen days is also an inadequate time frame for notification and comments. I request that the comment period, set to end on September 30, 2021, be extended, so that affected property owners will have the opportunity to investigate the proposal and its history, as well as the applicable land use code and zoning. I also understand that the nature of the application requires a mandatory Public Hearing as indicated in 18.15.040, Table 3‐1, Category of Use C (Jefferson County Title 18 of the Unified Development Code, Article I). Please keep me informed of all developments, announcements, meetings, hearings, etc. concerning this proposal. Thank you for your consideration, Donna Beaton PO Box 1335 Port Hadlock WA 98339 1 Amanda Hunt From:Deisy Bach <deisyishiking@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 3:32 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:MLA21-00066 Comments and Request for Notice Regarding Public Notice of Type III Land Use Application and Pending SEPA Determination CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Hunt: This letter is in response to the Notice Regarding Public Notice of Type III Land Use Application and Pending SEPA Determination MLA21‐00066. My husband and I have a several concerns about the proposal and request that my comments and concerns be made part of the formal recorded proceedings. First, we oppose the use of a conditional use permit. Our neighborhood, including the property in question is zoned for residential use. When we bought our property in 1999, we chose this location because it was quiet, with no immediate businesses nearby. According to our research at the time, the zoning laws limited the growth in the area. We considered Port Ludlow, and Port Townsend, but they were too busy for our plans. To allow a business or retreat would change the dynamics of the area and could negatively influence the property values. Commercial developments of the nature proposed by Applicant will irreparably and irreversibly change the residential quality of our neighborhood. We would therefore like to request a public opinion period specifically on the CUP. We also ask that you deny the conditional use permit. We respectfully request that a full Determination of Non‐Significance under SEPA be required. Oak Bay Rd has many issues which were not addressed by the various reports submitted. We have unstable soil which causes runoffs weakening the headlands. Several properties along Oak Bay have had losses of land due to these run off. In addition, there are many homes on wells, and they are already experiencing a shortage of water in the well. The addition of a well, feeding 35+ guests would have a huge impact on the residents. We also have no idea what wildlife may be present in a 120‐year‐old forest. We may be disturbing or destroying endangered species habitat. In summary, we request that a full Determination of Non‐Significance under SEPA be required and that the conditional use permit be denied, or at minimum include a public opinion period. ‐‐ Sincerely, Deisy Bach 925.785.3137 deisyishiking@gmail.com 1 Amanda Hunt From:ray ammeter <ray.ammeter@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 3:51 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Oak Bay Retreat CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Amanda, The main concern I have is the amount of water this retreat will consume. The property owner downslope has already experienced water shortages. My water comes from a well as all others along Oak Bay Rd South of Yarr rd. We should all be worried about the water table and salt water intrusion. This very dry summer is an indication of our future weather to come. In past summers we used to have rain for a few days and then sunny for a day or two. Now we are experiencing weeks of sunny warm days, then a day or two of rain. Being a resident on Oak Bay Rd since 1979 I agree with others, this is not a good location for a commercial development. Please do not make an exception to our zoning for this development. Sincerely, Ray Ammeter Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android 1 Amanda Hunt From:Brent Butler Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 10:52 AM To:bertl@cablespeed.com Cc:Amanda Hunt Subject:RE: Opposition to the proposed MLA21-000066 Pomona Woods LLC project on Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock Attachments:2021-9-27 Pomona Woods letter .pdf; CONCERNED CITIZENS-Pomona Woods LLC-09-29-2021.pdf Dear Bert Loomis: Please be aware that public comment should be sent to the assigned planner, AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us who is cc’d this message or sent regular mail postage prepaid to the Community Development Department, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 9836 prior to the close of the public comment period. I’ve also attached a direct link to the application materials https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/doc/2690354/Page1.aspx and include links to guidance below. How to Effectively Comment https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/permits/comment‐on‐a‐project https://wasco2040.com/2020/06/24/how‐to‐provide‐comment‐on‐land‐use‐matters/ The general public has two times to provide comment on this project. First, the public can submit comment during the open public comment period before the staff report is written. Second, the public can provide comment at the public hearing. In advance of the public hearing, staff analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained in the staff report and accompanying attachments are available. Warm regards, Brent *********** Brent Butler, Director Jefferson County Community Development Department 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/586/Public‐Notices Permit Number MLA21-000066 Applicant Pomona Woods LLC Postal District Port Hadlock 2 Parcel Number 921183008 & 921183002 Project Description CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,355 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on-site caretakers), septic system, parking lot, lawn area, two access roads, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 43,607 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Notice Date September 15th, 2021 From: bertl@cablespeed.com <bertl@cablespeed.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 7:01 PM To: Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Heidi Eisenhour <HEisenhour@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: James Kennedy <JKennedy@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Lorna Smith <smithlornapt@gmail.com>; deisyishiking@gmail.com; Brent Butler <BButler@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Terri Ross <terri40love@yahoo.com>; Diana Smeland <diana.smeland@gmail.com>; Randall Verrue <rverrue@hcvpartners.com>; deisyishiking@gmail.com; terri40love@yahoo.com; Frances Rawski <docsunlimited@gmail.com>; cjmalan@gmail.com; Jim Scarantino <jrscarantino@gmail.com> Subject: Opposition to the proposed MLA21‐000066 Pomona Woods LLC project on Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. All, I am vehemently opposed to the Pomona Woods LLC Development, for the reasons outlined in the attached documents. This kind of development should be located within a Master Planned Resort [MPR] like Port Ludlow. It has the zoning and infrastructure in place [water & sewer] to accommodate a project of this size. To consider a Conditional Use Permit for a project of this size, in rural Port Hadlock, defies zoning logic. 3 I will be following this application very closely. Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Dr. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cablespeed.com 360-437-0901 To the Jefferson County Dept of Community Development, Development Review Division: Re: Parcels #921183008 & 921183002 Conditional Use Permit for a Small-Scale Tourist Recreation Use Retreat Center on Oak Bay Road We are submitting our comments on the proposed development of this property By Pomona woods LLC. We have been property owners at 3186 Oak Bay since 2004 and have lived on our property for the last 12 years. We are six parcels to the south of the proposed development. Our experience building and living here over the last decade gives us some concerns about the proposed Pomona Woods Retreat Center and its potential impact to the area. Our primary concern is the continued availability of adequate potable water for the existing wells on properties near this proposed development. Our house, like many on the west side of Oak Bay, is sited high on the ridge closer to the western end of the property which borders commercial forests. The proposed Pomona Woods structures would be similarly sited on its parcel. We share a 204 ft. deep well with the neighbors south of us. The well head is located on their parcel, the pumphouse/storage tanks on ours. The well serves four people in total over ten acres. During the wet season, the well pump draws enough water to fill our reserve tanks and keep up with normal usage. In the drier summer months, the volume typically slows down but has been adequate until recent years. Over the last several years, we’ve experienced repeated water shortages in the summer months when the pump cannot pull enough water to keep our tanks filled. We must constantly monitor our water usage and sometimes cut back on garden watering, laundry or showers and other normal use to allow our system to recharge. We have water saving appliances, low flow toilets and always let lawn our areas go dormant. We use water conservation methods for our vegetable gardens and landscape plants. The drought of this summer was especially challenging, and we have heard from others in the area that their wells are also stressed in the summer months. The proposed retreat center will likely be most active precisely at the time of year when our local wells are already most stressed. Surely the proposed commercial kitchen, large vegetable garden, and up to 30 guests needing showers, bathrooms, and clean bed linens has the potential to over burden the local aquifer even more. What happens if this project is built, and our wells begin to fail? Is there any recourse for established properties if they become unlivable for lack of water? A second issue is the petition to change the zoning of these parcels to allow for commercial use in a residential area. Currently the east parcel is zoned RR1:5 and steep heavily wooded west parcel is zoned RR1:20. As we understand it, that would be allow for one residence on each property, consistent with what exists in the surrounding area. Changing the zoning to allow for commercial use in a residential area seems an arbitrary choice that benefits only the landowner wishing to turn this property into a commercial venture. It would serve groups of people mainly from outside the community who can afford to rent the whole facility, but not the general community it resides in. What real benefit does this project bring to our community? Does it loosen the zoning codes to allow a cascade of non-residential uses outside the Urban Growth Areas? A third problem is the potential for increased disruption and traffic on Oak Bay Road and noise coming from the construction and operation of the facility. During the construction, there will likely be periodic obstruction to traffic along Oak Bay Road. Until the road is built, trailers hauling large equipment will need to off-loaded at the edge of Oak Bay Rd. To clear the way for the driveway, logging and brush cutting will add more noise and traffic. Installing a septic system to accommodate a 30- guest building will mean more digging, trenching and re-grading than would a typical home sized system. Trucks delivering building materials, construction workers’ vehicles, and the noise of construction will bring months of early morning noise to the close-in neighbors, possibly much longer due to the scale and complexity of this building project. To operate the retreat facility, there will be inevitable traffic of retreat attendees, employees and delivery trucks coming and going from the property. Once established, there may be light pollution coming from guests' windows, the parking areas and outdoor lights. The driveway may need more outdoor lighting for visitors who don’t know the terrain, than for a homeowner who drives it regularly. If the retreat center operates year-round, the driveway will need regular maintenance to keep it clear of leaves, fallen trees, branches and snow. A gravel road will need regrading periodically to deal with erosion, runoff and subsidence as the roadbed ages or is scaped too thin by a snowplow. (We know this from 7 years of living on a long, steep gravel road in a previous home.) During retreat events, it is likely that outdoor noise will reach the nearby neighbors. Even if the proposal states that no outdoor amplification will be allowed, do we have any assurance that this promise will always be enforced? People away from home tend to be noisy outdoors and people in groups even more so. And sounds carry surprisingly well along this slope. Sometimes from our house, we hear the High School band practicing outdoors several miles over the ridge in Chimacum. Like many of our neighbors, we chose our rural properties for the potential of privacy and quiet. Other than lawn mowers, chainsaws after a storm, or occasional outdoor gatherings, we enjoy a fair amount of quiet. We pay for that in the labor of upkeep on our properties and in the taxes we contribute to support our communities. We want to have a strong community, but also to enjoy the rural lives we’ve built here. What happens if the current business model of Pomona Woods fails and the owner decides on a more raucous recreational business? What happens if the property is sold? Is a new owner free to run any kind of commercial venue on the property? Is this the best use of our rural land? Thank you for listening. We hope that you will take these concerns into consideration to make the best decision for our community, one that preserves the residential rural nature for all of us who already call it home. Please call us if you have questions about these comments. 360-774-1464 Jan and Dave Quick 3186 Oak Bay Rd. Port Hadlock, WA 1 CONCERNED CITIZENS PERMIT NUMBER: MLA21-000066 APPLICANT: POMONA WOODS LLC POSTAL DISTRICT: PORT HADLOCK PARCEL NUMBERS: 921183008 AND 921183002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION and PERMIT APPLICATION TYPE: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Type III permit application for a small-scale tourist recreation use retreat center. SEPA Environmental Review: The optional Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) process of SEPA, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-355 is being used. CITIZENS CONCERNS AND OBJECTIONS • The DNS process of SEPA is not sufficient for a development of this size and the impact on the neighboring areas along Oak Bay Road and Old Oak Bay Road • The DNS process is not adequate, the review of geologic and custom soil resource reports does not address or reference or analysis the known instability and land subsidence issues • How does a development of this size and impact become a consideration for approval in an Urban Growth Area? • How does the size of this project qualify in a designated Urban Growth Area? • Objection of rezoning to commercial zoning in a residential zoned neighborhood • An additional Conference Center is not needed or necessary in our community, there are 5 existing Conference Centers in an approximately 15-mile radius • The additional water usage depleting the water aquafer will add to the already existing drought concerns. Several residents in this close proximity are experiencing shortage of water in their wells and dry wells. 2 • The existing significant logging of trees in the area of this project presents for landslides, the additional removal of trees for this project supports the strong possibility of landslides and impacts the safety of our residential neighborhood • Water runoff and drainage • Adequate supply of potable water, this neighborhood have been experiencing water shortages. This property is not on public water or sewer, with projected draught danger increasing year to year, where will the water come from? • Pumping of water in a coastal freshwater well can substantially increase the risk of salt water intrusion. • Wetlands, blueline streams • Old growth trees • Logging on Rainier Land directly behind this development and to the north of this development, this increases the destruction to the currently healthy ecosystem • The proposed location of the parking lot is in an environmentally sensitive area • Ingress and egress • Increased traffic, burglary, and accidents, sound and light in residential neighborhoods on Oak Bay Road • Impact on wildlife due to loss of habitat includes, but is not limited to, spotted owls, eagles, bears, deer, Canadian Geese, California Wolverine, Olympic Torrent, Salamander, Van Dykes salamander, big eared bats, frogs, and the western toad • Pollution from the increase of traffic in a residential neighborhood, air quality, noise pollution, as well as facility light pollution and run off • Health concerns regarding Covid and the new virus from bring people in our retirement community from other states and cities • Decline in property values • What happens to the neighborhood area if the Conference Center/Retreat fails? The above mentioned are valid concerns and impacts to our residential neighborhood, we all purchased our homes with the promise of a beautifully wooded forest residential zoned area, this project has an extreme impact on our resident investments 3 In light of the existing economy, there are a lot of empty buildings, where businesses have failed during this difficult time. There are numerous existing studios and facilities trying to recover business and need rentals like this new facility is planning to provide. One more same or like facility to compete for business will only put the existing businesses in a financial jeopardy. W need to support our existing neighboring studios, fort communities, and arts facilities and businesses to keep them solvent. If this organization proposing this commercial development in our quiet, wooded residential neighborhood feels strongly about helping humanity with a retreat, they should sponsor or provide financial support to those struggling with the existing facilities in our community. The listed concerns and objections and the DNS not providing a sufficient report to cover all of our concerns, We request an Environmental Impact Report be prepared as a resolution to our concerns We also request that no exception be made to the rezoning of Oak Bay Road to a commercial zone and that the Planning Commission reject the Conditional Use Permit SEE ATTACHED SIGNATURES OF CONCERNED CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ZONED TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER 1 Amanda Hunt From:Kathleen Heinz <kmheinz1@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 11:29 AM To:Kate Dean; Heidi Eisenhour; Greg Brotherton; Amanda Hunt Subject:07- BUILDING PLANS.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I request that you open these plans and take a hard look. Ann Burkhart is planning on constructing a commercial driveway inches from my property, on a heavily eroded piece of land. There will be constant noise, light pollution and a total loss of privacy, not to mention the risk of land loss and polluted runoff.She is clearly acting in a purely self serving way without any regards to existing land use or her neighbors. The sheer size of this development, the impervious surfaces, the glass exterior, the placement of her driveway and parking lot are clear indications that she has no intention of trying to assimilate into the existing environment. Instead, she is willing to destroy the quiet, peaceful RURAL living we all have a right to expect. Would you want this monstrosity in an old growth forest next to you??? It definitely is NOT in nature with intended land use for this rural NEIGHBORHOOD! 1 Amanda Hunt From:D. Beaton <dfbeaton-agta@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 1:48 PM To:Amanda Hunt Cc:#Long-Range Planning; David W. Johnson Subject:Conditional Use Permit for Parcel 921183008 & 921183002, Oak Bay Rd, Port Hadlock; Case # ZON2021-00040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To Ms. Hunt and the Jefferson County Dept. Of Community Development: After doing some research of the case and reading the property owners’ argument for approval, the area is not Zoned for that type of improvement – the area considered for this purported retreat is Zoned RR‐20, which means to allow ONLY development of rural residential dwellings of One Unit per 20 Acres of land. See excerpt from the Jefferson CDO Zoning Code ‐ (c) Rural Residential 1 Unit/20 Acres (RR 1:20). The purpose of this district is to provide a buffer in areas adjacent to UGAs (Urban Growth Areas) and designated forest and agricultural lands of long‐term commercial significance, as well as protecting areas identified as possessing area‐wide environmental features which constrain development such as shoreline areas or areas of steep and unstable slopes. The district also protects land from premature conversion to higher residential densities prior to an established need. It is clear that the new property owners are enchanted by character of the area that has been protected and preserved by current zoning, but in the self‐interest of the proposed development and change of land use, will begin the process of destroying that character. The physical ramifications of having a 30 residential room building, along with a larger capacity for day use and dining are well beyond the RR20 and RR5 designations for the neighborhood. The septic system, while physically possible with technology, will go well beyond what is expected for a Rural Residential area. The water retrieval & use will far exceed what is expected in RR20 which is also in a sensitive Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone. Increased traffic and noise, the loss of contiguous pathways allowed for native flora and fauna, are just a few of the other outsized impacts of this proposal. In addition, the nature of having a transient population negatively impacts the character and value of the area. Transients (tourists, short term renters, students, etc) who are not invested in a community do not have a positive impact on the community or character of an area. Many urban planning studies support this. Though the proposal describes a business geared to gentle spiritual yogis, carpooling, noise restrictions, and users staying on property, none of that can be guaranteed. If a developed property exists that is able to house, feed, and accommodate the waste needs of 30+ residents, there is a high probability that it will end up being something else if the current intended use fails. This does not imply that the current property owner is being deceptive in the request for a conditional use permit. This development proposal is suited for areas zoned as Rural Commercial, NOT Rural Residential. As a resident within a half‐mile of this property, I oppose the Conditional Use Permit, and I oppose any change in the zoning of the referenced properties. 2 Please keep me informed of the public hearing. Thank you for your consideration, Donna Beaton 1 Amanda Hunt From:GOODWIN, ROSS (DNR) <ROSS.GOODWIN@dnr.wa.gov> Sent:Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:55 PM To:Amanda Hunt Cc:ALLISON, TED (DNR) Subject:DNR Comment MLA21-00066 Pomona Woods LLC CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good afternoon Amanda, I would like to comment on the proposed Pomona Woods LLC development off Oak Bay Road in Jefferson County (parcels 921183008 and 002). I have read the SEPA Checklist and other associated documents and it appears the project will be constructing approximately 1800 feet of road and clearing areas for buildings and parking on an existing forested vacant parcel. It appears given the length of road and the amount of clearing, that an approved Class IV‐General Forest Practice Application/Notification (FPA/N) will most likely be needed for this activity. The applicant should contact Olympic Region Forest Practice staff to see what will be required. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Ross Goodwin Forest Practice Forester Olympic Region Washington State Department of Natural Resources 360‐460‐0900 ross.goodwin@dnr.wa.gov STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 (360) 407-6300 711 for Washington Relay Service Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 September 30, 2021 Amanda Hunt, Project Planner Jefferson County Community Development Department 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Amanda Hunt: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the optional determination of nonsignificance/notice of application for the Ponoma Woods Retreat Center Project (MLA21-00066) as proposed by Pomona Woods LLC. 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: Jessica Eakens (360) 407-0246 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 Amanda Hunt September 30, 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:202105004) cc: Derek Rockett, SWM Jessica Eakens, WQ 1 Amanda Hunt From:GOODWIN, ROSS (DNR) <ROSS.GOODWIN@dnr.wa.gov> Sent:Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:55 PM To:Amanda Hunt Cc:ALLISON, TED (DNR) Subject:DNR Comment MLA21-00066 Pomona Woods LLC CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good afternoon Amanda, I would like to comment on the proposed Pomona Woods LLC development off Oak Bay Road in Jefferson County (parcels 921183008 and 002). I have read the SEPA Checklist and other associated documents and it appears the project will be constructing approximately 1800 feet of road and clearing areas for buildings and parking on an existing forested vacant parcel. It appears given the length of road and the amount of clearing, that an approved Class IV‐General Forest Practice Application/Notification (FPA/N) will most likely be needed for this activity. The applicant should contact Olympic Region Forest Practice staff to see what will be required. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Ross Goodwin Forest Practice Forester Olympic Region Washington State Department of Natural Resources 360‐460‐0900 ross.goodwin@dnr.wa.gov *Exhibit P* STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 (360) 407-6300 711 for Washington Relay Service Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 September 30, 2021 Amanda Hunt, Project Planner Jefferson County Community Development Department 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Amanda Hunt: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the optional determination of nonsignificance/notice of application for the Ponoma Woods Retreat Center Project (MLA21-00066) as proposed by Pomona Woods LLC. 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: Jessica Eakens (360) 407-0246 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 Amanda Hunt September 30, 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:202105004) cc: Derek Rockett, SWM Jessica Eakens, WQ Thomas L. Aumock Consulting International Fire Code Inspector & Plans Examiner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 2303 Hendricks Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Office : (360) 385-3938 Office Email: taumock@cablespeed.com Cell : (360) 643-0272 PRE APPLICATION PLAN REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Amanda Hunt, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development, Jefferson County Fr: Thomas L. Aumock, I.F.C. Consulting Plans Examiner and Fire Code Inspector Dt: 10 January 2022 Re: MLA21-00066: Burkhart Pomona Woods Retreat, 3030 Oak Bay Road, APN 921183008, 921083002 Cc: Phil Cecere, Plans Examiner At your request, the above-referenced preliminary plan submittal documents were reviewed by for compliance with the 2018 Edition of the International Fire Code [I.F.C.], and Washington State Amendments thereto from W.A.C. 51-54A. The proposal is found to be Group R-1 occupancy as a “retreat” with accessory uses of a meeting rooms, kitchen, lobby, and 24 rooms with restrooms. There is a separate manager’s residence and is classified as a Group R-3 occupancy. Cited are excerpts from International Fire Code, 2018 Edition, as amended by Washington Administrative Code 51-41, the International Mechanical Code, N.F.P.A 96 et al, and the guideline “Jefferson County Non-public Road/Driveway Design and Construction Standards”. The Jefferson County "ArcGIS" Public Safety Map was used for existing P.U.D fire hydrant and distance data. The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan provides the recommended fire flows, hydrant distances, etc. An automatic fire suppression system (sprinklers) is required under I.F.C. Section 903 for the Group R-1 retreat facility. The automatic fire sprinkler system shall be designed, installed, and certified by a licensed technician (W.A.C. 212-80) using the design provisions of NFPA 13 and related sections. An automatic fire detection alarm system is for the Group R-1 occupancy under I.F.C. Section 907. The fire alarm system shall be designed, installed, and certified by a licensed alarm technician under the provisions of National Fire Code 72 and related standards. This proposal may contain a provision for commercial kitchen appliances in the proposed “Kitchen”. NFPA 96 and I.F.C. Section 610 requires that an approved fire suppression system (i.e. sprinklers) shall be provided for the protection of commercial-type food heat-processing equipment. Said system shall be designed and installed to Underwriter’s Lab Specification 300 including NFPA 96 and related specifications for wall, ceiling and duct protection, Sprinkler protection shall also be provided for the enclosed plenum space within the hood above the filters and exhaust ducts serving Type I hoods. Plans (plan view, front elevation, section, with full dimensioning and labeling) shall be submitted for the installation of commercial kitchen hoods and appliances, including wall/ceiling protection, spacing, exhaust shaft construction, grease removal devices, ducting, and vent termination above the roof, and calculated make-up air provisions. The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan provides the recommended fire flows, hydrant distances, etc. where applicable. The Coordinated Water System Plan classifies this proposal as “rural” as the retreat does not meet the strict definition of “multi-family”. The fire protection capability of the Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue will need to be contacted to provide input. The application notes that the subject property fronts a Jefferson County P.U.D. water line, and the line size and flow data will be necessary to determine what a fire hydrant requirement may be. The private road serving these facilities should be designed to the recommended Jefferson County Private Road Standards. The automatic fire suppression system permit, the automatic fire detection and alarm system, and the advent of a commercial kitchen are allowed to be deferred permit application submittals. 1.5 hours was logged in the review and report for this proposal. SEPA Review, ZON2021-00040, MLA21-00066, 9-30-2021 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Amanda Hunt, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development FROM: John Fleming PE, Development Review Engineer, Jefferson County Public Works DATE: September 30, 2021 PROJECT: Pamona Woods, Oak Bay Rd Project (MLA21-00066, ZON2021-00040, Assessor Parcel # 921183002 & 8, JCPW Project # 94021040) SUBJECT: SEPA Review and Comments STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW After review of the SEPA environmental checklist submitted by the applicant, dated 8/19/2021, prepared by Ann Burkhart, a Geologic Hazard Assessment by Dan McShane LEG of Stratum Group, Bellingham, WA dated 7/14/2021, and a stormwater management plan dated 8/6/2021, the Public Works Department has the following comments: Environmental Checklist Section B. 1. Earth Public Works Department Findings: The Jefferson County Unified Development Code, section 18.30.070, Stormwater Management Standards adopts the standards and minimum requirements of the Washington Department of Ecology current edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2019 SWMMWW). This proposal states in the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet that there will be 95,516 square feet of land disturbing activity, and 43,607 square feet of new impervious surfaces. The Stormwater Manual requires proponents of proposals that create more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface develop a Stormwater Site Plan that complies with Minimum Requirements #1 - #9 of the 2019 SWMMWW. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan. The Department has reviewed the submittal. The stormwater management plan proposes to meet requirements of the 2019 SWMMWW by implementing dispersion stormwater systems, never exceeding steepness ratios of 2-horizontal to 1- vertical cut slopes and 3-horizontal to 1-vertical fill slopes, and other best management practices (BMPs) including: T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth, T5.30 Full Dispersion with 100 feet of flow path through native vegetation for roads and buildings, C101 Preserving Natural Vegetation, C102 Buffer Zones, C105 Stabilize Construction Entrance, C107 Construction Road / Parking Area Stabilization, C123 Plastic Covering, C151 Concrete Handling, C152 Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention, C153 Material Delivery, Storage and Containment, C154 Concrete Washout Area, and C233 Silt Fence. Public Works Department Recommendation: Based on the requirement to implement an approved Stormwater Site Plan, the Department of Public Works recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to erosion. SEPA Review, ZON2021-00040, MLA21-00066, 9-30-2021 Page 2 of 3 Environmental Checklist Section B. 3. Water Public Works Department Findings: The Jefferson County Unified Development Code, section 18.30.070, Stormwater Management Standards adopts the standards and minimum requirements of the Washington Department of Ecology current edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2019 SWMMWW). This proposal states in the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet that there will be 95,516 square feet of land disturbing activity, and 43,607 square feet of new impervious surfaces. The Stormwater Manual requires proponents of proposals that create more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface develop a Stormwater Site Plan that complies with Minimum Requirements #1 - #9 of the 2019 SWMMWW. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan. The Department has reviewed the submittal. The stormwater management plan proposes to meet requirements of the 2019 SWMMWW by implementing dispersion stormwater systems, never exceeding steepness ratios of 2-horizontal to 1- vertical cut slopes and 3-horizontal to 1-vertical fill slopes, and other best management practices (BMPs) including: T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth, T5.30 Full Dispersion with 100 feet of flow path through native vegetation for roads and buildings, C101 Preserving Natural Vegetation, C102 Buffer Zones, C105 Stabilize Construction Entrance, C107 Construction Road / Parking Area Stabilization, C123 Plastic Covering, C151 Concrete Handling, C152 Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention, C153 Material Delivery, Storage and Containment, C154 Concrete Washout Area, and C233 Silt Fence. Public Works Department Recommendation: Based on the requirement to implement an approved Stormwater Site Plan, the Department recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to stormwater runoff. Environmental Checklist Section B. 14. Transportation Public Works Department Findings: The Jefferson County Unified Development Code, section 18.30.020(5), requires all developments to be served by appropriate transportation facilities that are adequate to meet the level of service standards in the County Comprehensive Plan and the design standards adopted in code section 18.30.080(1)(a). The project is served off of Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of mile post 3.00 . Oak Bay road is a county road, assigned number 56990 in the road log, with a 50 miles per hour posted speed limit. Oak Bay Road is a rural minor collector within the federal functional classification system. The road is maintained by the County from its intersection at the north with Flagler Road, also known as State Route 116 (mile post 0.860) through mile post 10.8 at its south end with its intersection with Beaver Valley Road, also known as State Route 19. According to CRAB Mobility, the road surface is chip sealed, with two 11 feet wide lanes, and 3 feet wide shoulders for a total paved operational width of 28 feet. The traffic volume on Oak Bay Road closest to the site was counted on 12/24/1997 with an average daily traffic (ADT) of 2,312 at mile post 2.950. The most recent traffic count to the north was 3,911 ADT, performed on 6/5/2019 at mile post 0.90 . The most recent traffic count to the south was 2,965 ADT, performed on 6/5/2019 at mile post 7.03 . According to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, dated 12/2018, Oak Bay Road at mile post 3.95 at the Sentinel Firs Road intersection, was operating at level of service A in 2016, and has a roadway capacity of 17,000 ADT. The applicant states within 10 years after opening the business, they expect an average of 16 guests per day. Port Ludlow traffic monitoring studies indicate dwellings there generate 6 ADT. Assuming 2 SEPA Review, ZON2021-00040, MLA21-00066, 9-30-2021 Page 3 of 3 residents per dwelling, then it might be reasonable to assume these 16 guests may generate approximately 48 ADT (16 guests x 6 ADT / 2 residents = 48 ADT). Regarding accident rates, according to CRAB Mobility, north of the project site, at mile post 0.90, there were 0.577 accidents per million vehicle miles (APMVM) over the past 3 years. South of the project site at mile post 7.03, there were 0.406 accidents per million vehicle miles (APMVM) over the past 3 years. These are low accident rates relative to the 2015 rate for all roads in Jefferson County of 1.20 APMVM, Lincoln County at 0.61 APMVM (lowest county in WA), King County at 2.48 APMVM (highest county in WA), and all roads in WA state of 1.96 APMVM. Public Works Department Recommendation: Based on the minor increase in traffic, and low accident rate history along Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of the proposed project, the Department recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. Stormwater Review, ZON2021-00040, MLA21-00066, 9-30-2021 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Amanda Hunt, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development FROM: John Fleming PE, Development Review Engineer, Jefferson County Public Works DATE: September 30, 2021 PROJECT: Pamona Woods, Oak Bay Rd Project (MLA21-00066, ZON2021-00040, Assessor Parcel # 921183002 & 8, JCPW Project # 94021040) SUBJECT: Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments APPLICATION REVIEW A. Stormwater Management Unified Development Code Requirement(s): The Jefferson County Unified Development Code, Sections 18.30.060, Grading and excavation standards and 18.30.070, Stormwater Management Standards both set standards for erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management. The code adopts the requirements set forth by the most current version of the Washington State Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The most current version is the 2019 SWMMWW. JCPW Findings: On 9/15/2021, Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) requested that the Public Works Department review a Stormwater Site Plan dated 8/6/2021 as a part of a conditional use permit prepared for the Pomona Woods project off of Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock by Ann Burkhart. The additionally, a Geologic Hazard Assessment by Dan McShane LEG of Stratum Group, Bellingham, WA dated 7/14/2021, was provided with its stormwater management recommendations. The stormwater management plan addresses stormwater generated on the 21.54-acre site by a new driveway, parking, and buildings of up to 43,607 square feet of impervious surface, and approximately 95,516 square feet of land disturbing activity. With this much land disturbance and new hard surface, the proposed project is subject to meeting all 9 minimum requirements of the 2019 SWMMWW. The stormwater management plan proposes to meet requirements of the 2019 SWMMWW by implementing dispersion stormwater systems, never exceeding steepness ratios of 2-horizontal to 1- vertical cut slopes and 3-horizontal to 1-vertical fill slopes, and other best management practices (BMPs) including: T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth, T5.30 Full Dispersion with 100 feet of flow path through native vegetation for roads and buildings, C101 Preserving Natural Vegetation, C102 Buffer Zones, C105 Stabilize Construction Entrance, C107 Construction Road / Parking Area Stabilization, C123 Plastic Covering, C151 Concrete Handling, C152 Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention, C153 Material Delivery, Storage and Containment, C154 Concrete Washout Area, and C233 Silt Fence. Stormwater Review, ZON2021-00040, MLA21-00066, 9-30-2021 Page 2 of 3 JCPW Recommendations: 1. The proponent shall install the stormwater management facilities and implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) per the Stormwater Site Plan dated 8/6/2021, prepared for the Pomona Woods project off of Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock by Ann Burkhart. Additionally, a Geologic Hazard Assessment by Dan McShane LEG of Stratum Group, Bellingham, WA dated 7/14/2021, was provided with its stormwater management recommendations. The stormwater management plan proposes to meet requirements of the 2019 SWMMWW by implementing dispersion stormwater systems, never exceeding steepness ratios of 2-horizontal to 1-vertical cut slopes and 3-horizontal to 1-vertical fill slopes, and other best management practices (BMPs) including: T5.13 Post- Construction Soil Quality and Depth, T5.30 Full Dispersion with 100 feet of flow path through native vegetation for roads and buildings, C101 Preserving Natural Vegetation, C102 Buffer Zones, C105 Stabilize Construction Entrance, C107 Construction Road / Parking Area Stabilization, C123 Plastic Covering, C151 Concrete Handling, C152 Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention, C153 Material Delivery, Storage and Containment, C154 Concrete Washout Area, and C233 Silt Fence. 2. Sites with greater than 1 acre of disturbance trigger the requirement to have a developer provided Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) inspector and site log book, as per Element #12 Manage the Project, of Minimum Requirement #2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. The CESCL inspector must be identified by the time of start of construction, and must be present on-site or on call at all times. 3. Prior to commencing land disturbing activity, the proponent shall notify Jefferson County Public Works (JCPW) and arrange a Preconstruction Meeting. 4. Before any construction begins on-site, erosion control facilities shall first be installed. 5. In accordance with the Jefferson County Unified Development Code, Section 18.30.080 (1) (f): Clearing, grading, and construction of roads, and stormwater management facilities shall be inspected by JCPW. In order to enable the department to conduct inspections in a timely manner, the applicant shall notify the department regarding the project construction schedule. Typical Inspections: • Installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures • Clearing (and Grading) and road subgrade preparation; • Placing roadway gravel base; • Placing roadway crushed surfacing top course; • Placing improved roadway surface (chip seal or asphalt concrete); • Construction of stormwater management facilities; • (Additional inspections may be deemed necessary as project progresses.) 6. After construction is complete and prior to final DCD project approval, the proponent shall submit a letter to the Public Works Department, from the Designer of Record (DOR), certifying that the stormwater management facilities have been constructed per the approved plans & specifications. If changes from the approved plans were made, the DOR shall submit an as-built drawing detailing those changes. It is the responsibility of the proponent to schedule inspections with the DOR, his designee &/or qualified inspection firm(s), approved by the DOR, to provide for said final certification. 7. To meet MR#9 Operation & Maintenance, and ensure that the approved stormwater management facilities are appropriately maintained for the life of the project, prior to final project approval, the proponent shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement with Jefferson County. The Public Works Department will send a copy of the Agreement to the proponent which Stormwater Review, ZON2021-00040, MLA21-00066, 9-30-2021 Page 3 of 3 has been signed by the Public Works Director. The proponent shall sign the Agreement before a notary, file it with the Jefferson County Auditor, and provide Public Works with a copy of the recorded document. County Auditor 2021 recording fees are $103.50 for the first page and $1 for each additional page. B. Public Works Department Fees Requirement: Unified Development Code Requirement(s): The Jefferson County Unified Development Code Chapter 18.30.080(1)(u) authorizes the Public Works Department to assess fees in accordance with the Jefferson County Fee Schedule Ordinance for development review activities including application and plan review, inspections, meetings, hearings, and final review. • Prior to DCD project approval, the proponent shall pay all costs related to the Department’s application review, plan review, inspections, and preparation of the Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement. In accordance with the Jefferson County Public Works Department Fee Schedule, the Department’s hourly development review fee is $90 for 2021. In the event that approval for the proposal is denied by Jefferson County or the proposal is not completed, the proponent shall still be responsible for paying the Department’s fee. *Exhibit Q* MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 1 of 31 Pomona Woods JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARINGS EXAMINER Re: Type III Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS, AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS File No.: MLA21-00066 – ZON21-00040 ) ) Applicant: Pomona Woods, LLC ) Applicant; Ann Burkhart ) SUMMARY APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION Date of Application: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (“DCD”) received the application on June 23, 2021, and deemed it substantially complete on September 1, 2021. Proposal: TYPE III CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC (“the applicant”) proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist and recreational retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,155 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on-site caretakers), septic system, main parking lot (29 stalls), caretaker parking area (2 stalls), lawn area, one access road, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 53,497 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, Class IV General Forest Practice Application, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Background Summary: Pomona Woods is a new commercial and recreational business in a residential area of Port Hadlock. The applicant participated in the required Pre-Application Conference (JCC 18.40.090) for Type III permits on May 4, 2021. The Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrator determined this application shall be processed as a Type III Conditional Use Permit under JCC *Exhibit R* MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 2 of 31 Pomona Woods 18.40.530(2) with a public hearing and decision by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. Legal Description and Project Location: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 - Township 29N - Range S18 T29 R1E S 1/2 SE SW; S18 T29 R1E GOV LOT 4(S1/2 W OF CO RD); Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Recommendation: Approval with conditions Project Planner: Amanda S. Hunt, Assistant Planner BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicants/Owner: Ann Burkhart PO Box 145 Port Hadlock WA 98339 Site Conditions: The subject property is zoned Rural Residential 1:5 and 1:20 and consists of 21.54 acres. The subject property is currently vacant. The project envelope- to which the proposed retreat center and amenities are associated- is approximately 20.21 acres. The entrance parcel is approximately 1.33 acres. Pomona Woods will be accessed by a commercial road approach off of Oak Bay Road. The Oak Bay Road right of way is constricted on the subject property’s side. A Road Approach Permit (“RAP2021-00068”) has been approved by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development and Jefferson County Department of Public Works (“Public Works”) on December 20, 2021 to provide a safe parking area for the applicant. A characterization from mapping resources is that the land is heavily forested with dry valley-like features that slope downwards to the east. 94% of the property will remain naturally vegetated (see “Figure 1”) as a result of the project. The proposed building locations will be located on the flat, western portion of the property (see “Exhibit G”). Oak Bay Road is located approximately 900 feet from Puget Sound. There are no proposed water-based activities related to this proposal. Figure 1: Pomona Woods Property MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 3 of 31 Pomona Woods Surrounding Properties: Surrounding parcels are zoned Rural Residential 1:5 and 1:20, Commercial Forest 1:80, and Rural Forest 1:40 (see “Figure 2”). Properties to the north, east, and south of the site are occupied by single-family, rural residential properties on multi-acre parcels. Adjacent residential setbacks start at 90 ft from the subject property lines. Adjoining land to the west and north is designated commercial forest land and currently observes an active 6-year moratorium under Forest Practice Application no. 2615156. A 250-ft commercial forest setback will be maintained between the proposed buildings and commercial forest land. All interior lot lines will employ a 50 ft landscaping buffer, which is 35 feet larger than the required landscaping standard for small-scale recreational and tourist use development (JCC 18.30.130(5)). Figure 2: Pomona Woods Zoning Districts Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (adopted December 10, 2018) designates the subject parcels Rural Residential 1:5 and 1:20. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review: A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on March 2, 2022. Jefferson County has determined that the above described proposal, conducted in conformance with the applicable Jefferson County Codes and Ordinances, would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required. This determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Development Review Division and an inspection of the site. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 4 of 31 Pomona Woods Procedural Information: Notice of Application • Notice of Application mailed to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property: September 14, 2021 Posting of Notice in official posting places by Staff: September 14, 2021 Posting of Notice On-Site by applicant: September 14, 2021 Notice of Application emailed to public agencies: September 15, 2021 (see “Exhibit J”) Publication of Legal Notices: September 15, 2021 (Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader) Written comment period was open for 15 calendar days from September 15, 2021 until September 30, 2021 at 4:30pm. Agency Comments Received: Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - DNR submitted an email dated September 16, 2021 to address constructing approximately 1,800 feet of road and clearing areas for buildings and parking on the existing forested, vacant parcel. Specifically, the email states that, “It appears given the length of road and the amount of clearing, that an approved Class IV‐General Forest Practice Application/Notification (“FPA/N”) will most likely be needed for this activity. The applicant should contact Olympic Region Forest Practice staff to see what will be required” (see “Exhibit P”). Staff Comment: The applicant has contacted the DNR (Ross Goodwin) to meet DNR requirements for land clearing of approximately 95,516 square feet (approximately 2 acres). The applicant is in the progress of completing the FPA/N application. SEPA Determination is required in order for the applicant to complete the FPA/N. The requirement to complete the FPA/N application after the SEPA Determination is issued will be addressed as a condition of permit approval. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) - Ecology submitted a letter dated September 30th, 2021 to address solid waste management and water quality/watershed resources unit. Ecology described state requirements regarding clean fill, erosion control measures, and discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state (see “Exhibit P”). Staff Comment: Ecology recommended several conditions of approval, which are outlined in the recommended conditions of approval section below. DCD concurs with Ecology’s comment and recommended conditions of approval. Public Comment Received: DCD received twenty-nine (“29”) written public comments from adjacent property owners and the public (see “Exhibit O”). Below is a summary of the comments and a brief response: Area of Concern Nature of Concern Response Zoning The proposal will cause a “re-zone” from residential to commercial. Neighbors do not want commercial distractions. Allowing this use only benefits the landowner. Is this development setting precedent for commercial uses in residential neighborhoods? Rural Character is not exclusively defined as residential use and development. As discussed in section (1), the 2018 Jefferson Comprehensive Plan encourages commercial and recreational development in Rural Residential Zoning Districts, as long as they are compatible with sustaining a clean environment and will not conflict with other allowed or adjacent uses. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 5 of 31 Pomona Woods Approval of the use does not set precedent for commercial uses in rural residential areas. All retreat center proposals must meet the performance standards in JCC 18.20 that require specific site, use, and operation conditions in order for approval to be granted. Out of character with the neighborhood and rural area The project is a commercial development and does not fit in with the rural character of the neighborhood. The project is inconsistent and potentially disruptive with the primary residential zoning use in the area - impacting a retirement community. The proposal will be detrimental to privacy, and tranquility. Small-scale recreational use retreat centers are a rural use under Jefferson County regulations and the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. This facility is commercial, recreational and tourist based in use. The proposal includes a 6,000 square foot retreat center and 710 square foot caretaker residence. This scale of development is consistent with parcels in the vicinity (see section (3)(a) for additional information). The scale of the buildings is consistent with rural and residential structures (i.e. storage buildings, garages, recreational buildings, etc.). The site will be screened from the road and adjacent properties. Inappropriate Venue Lack of a mountainous or waterfront location is not suitable for the proposed use. There is similar uses and existing locations already available off Oak Bay Rd with amenities nearby (e.g. The Port Ludlow Resort and Old Alcohol Plant). This land would be better used as four 5-acre home sites. This kind of development should be located within a Master Planned Resort like Port Ludlow. It has the zoning and infrastructure in place [water & sewer] to accommodate a project of this size. The applicant is utilizing the heavily forested property for recreational, educational, and tourism uses. The Old Alcohol Plant holds 18 rooms and the Port Ludlow Resort holds 37 rooms are considered a large-scale hospitality use rather than small scale recreational use. While some Master Planned Resort zoning districts allow retreat centers, the applicant is not restricted to these areas. Recreational retreat centers require a minimum of 10 acres (JCC 18.20.350(9)(a)). Rural Residential 1:20 zoning contains the required acreage to support the proposal. Increased Traffic The proposal will be detrimental to safety, increase accidents, increase risk to non-motorized transportation (e.g. cyclists), and diminish line of site from neighbor’s driveways. The proposal will generate trips exceeding the road capacity of Oak Bay Road. A Road Approach Permit has been approved by Public Works on December 20, 2021 to develop a safe parking/ turn around area for the applicant and for associated vehicles to park off of Oak Bay Road without obstructing the line of sight. Based on CRAB Mobility data, Public Works recommends finding that the proposal MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 6 of 31 Pomona Woods is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found below in sections (3)(b) and (3)(f). Water Capacity/ Saltwater Intrusion A history of poor water availability has been identified by various public members. There is concern that the proposal will draw down the aquifer and impact wells in the area (especially in the summer months). The proposed well will substantially increase the risk of saltwater intrusion through pumping coastal freshwater near the Puget Sound. During the 2021 Notice of Application period, the applicant had originally proposed to drill a well for potable water access. The applicant has received “preliminary approval” from the Jefferson County Public Utility District for a public water connection to the Quimper Water System. A well is no longer proposed for this project. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found below in sections (2) and (3)(b). Stormwater Runoff/ Land Instability/Erosion The proposed impervious surface will cause detrimental stormwater run‐off, erosion, increased landslide exposure, potential slope destabilization and saturation, and increased earthquake damage. The proposal’s Custom Soil Resource Report and Geotechnical Report do not reference or include an analysis of the known instability and land subsidence issues in the vicinity of the proposed development along Oak Bay Road and Old Oak Bay Road. A Geologic Hazard Assessment, prepared by Stratum Group (dated July 14, 2021) was revised on November 22, 2021 to assess the risk of landslide and erosion on the subject property (see “Exhibit H”). Stratum Group concluded the subject properties are not at risk from landslides or erosion. Public Works has reviewed and approved the submitted stormwater management plan. Public Works recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to erosion or stormwater runoff. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found below in sections (2) and (3)(b). The applicant is not liable for geological hazardous areas located on other properties, unless the professional geologist finds that the proposed development would impact the erosion or instability of adjacent geological features of the landscape. Logging There will be increased traffic from logging, destruction of the ecosystem in combination with commercial logging to the north and west, and increased risk of landslides from See “Stormwater Runoff” section above for geotechnical findings and “Traffic” section above for traffic analysis findings. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 7 of 31 Pomona Woods proposed logging activities. 94% of the subject property will remain heavily forested as result of the proposal. The applicant has applied for a DNR Class IV-General Forest Practice Application and shall follow Jefferson County and DNR land clearing requirements. DCD did not receive any comments from the state agencies or tribes indicating that critical areas have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposal. See section (2) and (3)(i) for additional information. Business Failure and Impacts The proposal will be competing with other venues in the area that can offer additional amenities. History suggests that a failed business will convert to a new business that neighbors would not approve of. There are numerous existing studios and facilities trying to recover business and need rentals like this new facility . Existing facilities will therefore have to compete for business. All proposed new uses and applications must receive an approved permit(s) from Jefferson County pursuant to 18.40.530 (4) (g) and other applicable agencies prior to development. The change of use within the existing buildings must also be an approved county use and permitted under the required permit process. Comments relating to existing business impacts are general and unsupported by any specific data or findings and therefore this could not be considered in the analysis of the application. De-value Property The property value of adjacent properties will go down because people will not want to buy a property next to a recreational retreat center. In a neighborhood where people's primary reason for purchasing property is solitude and serenity, there will be a great impact on the home appreciation and value of surrounding homes. The proposal would impact resident investments. Purely economic interests are not within the zone of interests protected by SEPA and therefore the County’s conditional use approval criteria does consider impacts to property values unrelated to the environment. Comments relating to the decreased property value are excluded from the list of the elements of the environment that inform SEPA as outlined in the Washington Administrative Code 197-11-444. SEPA Determination of Non-Significance The Determination of Non-Significance under SEPA is not sufficient for a development of this size and the impact on the neighboring areas along Oak Bay Road. An Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared as a resolution to concerns. The SEPA Environmental Checklist requires department review of project background and environmental elements (see “Exhibit C”). Review of the checklist and application submittals confirmed that the proposal is likely to have no significant adverse environmental impacts. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance was therefore issued by the County. A further discussion of compliance with MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 8 of 31 Pomona Woods environmental and human protection may be found below in section (1), (2), and (3). Loss of Privacy/Security The project will attract “strangers” to the site and cause property crime, trespassing of private property, safety concerns to children, and loss of privacy from proximity of development to property lines. The proposal includes a caretaker, whose primary responsibility is to ensure the security of the guests and, by extension, the wider community. No research on these issues has been submitted to Jefferson County that indicates a definitive correlation between retreat centers and an increase in property crime. Comments relating to the increased crime are generalized and unsupported by any specific data or findings and therefore this should not be considered in the analysis of the application unless articulable concerns are probably raised. Septic Capacity “Subsequent fresh water flow would impact the proposed septic system, requiring increased capacity. We've recently had a visit from a representative from Jefferson County Health Department who was investigating the increased bacterial load being released into Oak Bay and the resulting toxic algae bloom. That impact involved only a few homes whose septic fields might empty into a nearby creek. Now, imagine the resulting impact of the guests and staff of this proposed resort”. The applicant has applied for a new septic system permit application from Environmental Health under SEP2022-00017. The proposed on-site septic system is sized for commercial sewage of the caretaker residence and the 24-room retreat center with single room occupancy. No other types of waste will be generated on site. The septic system will be reviewed again upon building permit application to insure compliance with County conditions. Noise and Light Pollution The proposal will create light and noise pollution from construction activities, construction vehicles, guest vehicles, delivery vehicles, parking areas, retreat center windows, outdoor gatherings/activities, and an increase in traffic along Oak Bay Road. The County’s conditional use approval criteria require that the project will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impacts existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found below in section (3)(d). Wetlands, Streams and Wildlife There are reported streams, wetlands, old growth trees, wildlife habitat, and environmentally sensitive areas on the subject property or within the vicinity of the subject property. Wetlands and stream were not observed during review of the property through the Jefferson County Geographic Information Systems mapping or August 12, 2021 DCD Staff Site Visit. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 9 of 31 Pomona Woods State Department of Fish and Wildlife have not designated Endangered or Threatened Species habitat (“Critical Habitat”) on the subject property, nor have they submitted comments on this proposal. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found below in section (3)(i). Wildfire The proposal will create 43,607 square feet of impervious surface that will be a disruption to the existing absorption of water and will increase the risk of forest fires. There will also be an increased wildfire risk from cigarette butts. According to the Geology Hazard Assessment, the property size, forested condition, and soil types will allow successful full dispersion from proposed impervious areas. The geologist therefore did not find potential issues related to the infiltration of water into the soil as a result of the proposal. According to the SEPA Environmental Checklist (see “Exhibit C”, pg. 13), the applicant proposes to “actively monitor forest health through daily walks”. Risks of wildfire will therefore be routinely assessed by the property owner. Employees, Caretakers, Guests “Why does the applicant state that residents and staff be limited to a total of 42 persons when 24 rooms plus caretaker housing could potentially accommodate 48+ persons”. The applicant is limiting maximum retreat occupancy to 35 guests. The rooms are proposed to be for single occupancy. The applicant is also proposing to limit employees to seven people. One caretaker is also expected to be on-site. Therefore, a total of 43 people is the proposed maximum number of people on-site at any given time (excluding deliveries and maintenance activities). See “Exhibit C” for additional information. Expanded Business Opportunities This proposal will be a positive change as Jefferson County grows and seeks expanded business possibilities. Jefferson County finds that the proposal aligns with Framework Goal III of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing to create jobs that would grow and support a rural economy. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found below in section (1). Covid-19 Health concerns regarding Covid and the new virus from bring people in our retirement community from other states and cities. Jefferson County does not regulate state Covid-19 policies. It is the applicant’s responsibilities to abide by the Covid-19 policies made effective by the Washington State Department of Health. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 10 of 31 Pomona Woods REVIEW CRITERIA State and Local Approvals and Permits Required: Jefferson County Department of Community Development Type III Conditional Use Permit Jefferson County Department of Community Development Building Permit Jefferson County Department of Environmental Health Septic Permit Jefferson County Department of Public Works Utility Permit Application Washington State Department of Natural Resources Class IV General Forest Practice Permit Applicable Ordinances and Plans: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 10, 2018, as amended, and Jefferson County Code (JCC), JCC Title 15 Buildings and Construction and Title 18 Unified Development Code (UDC), adopted December 18, 2000 and effective January 16, 2001 as amended. STAFF FINDINGS The following presents staff findings regarding consistency of the application with the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Code (“JCC”). Based on the findings presented below, recommended staff conditions are included at the end of this staff report. Section 1. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Land use, rural, environmental, and economic development goals and frameworks identified in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan indicate that the project is aligned with the community’s expectations for a small-scale recreational use retreat center conditional use project. Specifically, Goals LU-G-7 and LU-G-26, and Framework I and III, address outcomes that are included in the applicant’s proposal. Framework Goal I - Preserving Rural Character: Conserve Jefferson County’s functioning rural way of life, agricultural and forest working lands, shoreline and mountain vistas, and natural ecosystems, not just to be preserved to provide scenery, but to be preserved as a living, working, and sustaining rural landscape with which the community has a living/working relationship. Rural Character is not exclusively defined as residential use and development. Rural character also incorporates preserving a way of life where people have a right to “work” and “use” the land to provide a living for themselves and their families. The applicant is proposing to provide employment opportunities through an allowed use in the Rural Residential zoning district. The proposal is consistent with the above Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Framework Goal. Framework Goal III - Enhancement of the Rural Economy: Grow a robust economy with living wage jobs based on resource lands, manufacturing, tourist and recreation-oriented services, and evolving technologies that allows our communities to thrive; through a concept of a sustainable rural economy –benefiting the county’s clean environment, and benefiting from the county’s clean environment. To align with Framework Goal III of the Comprehensive Plan, property owners are encouraged and are allowed to create jobs to grow and support a rural economy as long as they are compatible with sustaining a clean environment and will not conflict with other allowed or adjacent uses. The applicant has demonstrated in the permit application submittals and SEPA Environmental Checklist that the proposal will not cause an adverse effect to the environment or be detrimental to uses adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposal. See sections (2) and (3) for additional information. The proposal is consistent with the above Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Framework Goal. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 11 of 31 Pomona Woods Land Use- Environment: Goal LU-G-7 Preserve the functions and values of critical environmental areas and protect development from the risks of environmental hazards. Policy LU-P-7.9 Continue to protect aquifer recharge areas from depletion of aquifer quantity or degradation of aquifer quality under the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO). Continue to periodically review and update CAO regulations relating to aquifer recharge, including best available science. During the Notice of Application period, the applicant originally proposed to drill a well for potable water. In response to complexities involving the well drilling process and testing for potable water, and public comments received concerning the local aquifer, the applicant decided to pursue a public water connection with the Jefferson County Public Utility District (“JPUD”). The applicant therefore has integrated public and environmental concerns into their proposal, and facilitated project design changes accordingly. See section (2) and (3)(b) for additional information. The proposal is consistent with the above Land Use goal and policy. Policy LU-P-7.11 Continue to ensure that landslide, erosion, and seismic hazard areas are appropriately designated and that measures protecting public health and safety are implemented for hazardous areas under the Critical Areas Ordinance. According to the Jefferson County Geographic Information Systems mapping, there are geological hazardous areas (slight landslide hazard area and shoreline slope stability area- intermediate slope) located on the subject property. The applicant ensured that measures protecting public health and safety are implemented by consulting a professional geologist to assess property risk and determine the best management practices required. A 2021 Geologic Hazard Assessment determined the subject properties are not at risk from landslides or erosion (see “Exhibit H”). See section (2) for additional information. The proposal is consistent with the above Land Use goal and policy. Land Use – Rural: Goal LU-G-26 Foster economic development that relies on a rural location and setting, and that is small scaled recreational or tourist-related. Policy LU-P-26.1 Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall be defined as those uses reliant upon the rural setting, incorporating the scenic and natural features of the land. Under no circumstances should this policy be interpreted to permit new residential development, except that allowed by underlying zoning, and that necessary for on-site management. The applicant has selected the subject property to utilize the rural setting of Port Hadlock and incorporate the natural forested features of the site to host small groups (e.g. corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning off site, yoga workshop, family or friends gathering, etc). “Recreational uses”, as defined in JCC 18.10.180, means those activities of a voluntary and leisure time nature that aid in promoting entertainment, pleasure, play, relaxation, or instruction. The proposed 6,000 square foot retreat center aligns with Jefferson County definition of “recreational uses” by proposing solely educational, enrichment, and connection activities. Examples of proposed recreational activities include trail walking, small fire pit gathering, outdoor lounging, farm visits, and dinner lectures from craftspeople, environmentalists, storytellers, artists, and local tribal members (see “Exhibit C”, p. 18 of 23). A small 710 square foot caretaker residence is proposed for on-site management. At least one person will live on-site in the caretaker residence. No other residential development is proposed. The proposal is consistent with the above Land Use goal and policy. Policy LU-P-26.2 Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall be provided for through a permitting process appropriate to the type of proposed use and the land use district in which it is proposed. As identified in Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses under JCC 18.15.040, recreational, cultural or religious conference center/retreat facilities located in the Rural Residential 1:5 or 1:20 zoning districts require a Type III Conditional Use Permit. The applicant applied for a Type III Conditional Use Permit with Jefferson County DCD on June 23, 2021 and is scheduled to bring forth the project to the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner on March 17, 2022. The proposal is consistent with the above Land Use goal and policy. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 12 of 31 Pomona Woods Policy LU-P-26.3 The primary use of the site shall be for the small-scale recreational or tourist use. Commercial facilities, as provided for within an approved conditional use permit for small-scale recreational or tourist uses, shall serve only those recreational and tourist uses. As described in the staff comment above for Policy LU-P-26.1, the primary use of Pomona Woods shall be for small-scale recreational and tourist uses. Commercial use, as defined in JCC 18.10.030, means a business use or activity at a scale greater than a home business or cottage industry involving retail or wholesale marketing of goods and services. Pomona Woods proposes to subsequently provide retail of goods and services by marketing lodging and venue settings for small group reservations. The proposal is consistent with the above Land Use goal and policy. Section 2. Jefferson County Code – Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22). The proposed development is subject to the critical area regulations under Chapter 18.22 JCC. DCD staff reviewed the application for the potential presence of critical areas. Jefferson County Geographic Information Systems mapping review identified the following critical areas on the subject property: geological hazardous areas (slight landslide hazard area and shoreline slope stability area- intermediate slope) and coastal saltwater intrusion protection zone. Staff Comment: No bodies of water were shown through the Geographic Information Systems mapping. A Site Visit was conducted by the assigned Assistant Planner and Staff Biologist on August 12, 2021. No wetlands or streams were observed by the road side culverts or within the inland dry valleys running toward Oak Bay Road. Vegetation near the culverts indicate soil may be moist during the dry season, but the water was not found to form a seasonal or active stream or wetland. A Geologic Hazard Assessment, prepared by Stratum Group (dated July 14, 2021) was revised on November 22, 2021 to assess the risk of landslide and erosion at the subject property (see “Exhibit H”). Stratum Group concluded the subject properties are not at risk from landslides or erosion. As shown in Figure 2 of the Geologic Hazard Assessment, the proposed building areas are located outside of the steepest valley areas and the potential erosion area subject to periodic flow. The property is underlain by well drained dense silty to sandy hard glacial till. No evidence of previous, ongoing, or incipient land sliding is present on the property. The relict valleys on the property have stable slopes and the road cut above Oak Bay Road appears to be stable with no indications of potential sliding on the cut slopes. Furthermore, building a driveway to access the upper west portion of the property and development of the upper western part of the property can be accomplished without increasing the risk of landslides or erosion on or off the site as long as the recommendations in the assessment are followed and grading and stormwater for the development area are managed in a manner consistent with best management practices and with the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (“2019 SWMMWW”). The project is consistent with the assessment’s geotechnical, stormwater, and construction recommendations. The requirement to follow these recommendations are included as recommended conditions of approval. The applicant has submitted a public water connection application to the Jefferson County Public Utility District (“JPUD”) for installation of a public waterline extension to the Quimper Water System. A Certificate of Water Supply Utility Service was submitted to Jefferson County DCD on January 31, 2022. JPUD has acknowledged that the Quimper Water System has the capacity in installed facilities and water rights to serve the proposed development with improvements and that the service to the proposed project is consistent with the utility's water system plan (see “Exhibit L”, p. 4). No well drilling or installation of a private water source is proposed for this project. An aquifer recharge report is not required for proposal, but the applicant must comply with applicable protection standards. The proposal was determined to compliant with Article III. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas of Chapter 18.22 JCC. As conditioned, the MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 13 of 31 Pomona Woods proposal is not expected to negatively affect critical aquifer recharge areas or seawater intrusion protection zones. The applicant has indicated in the revised SEPA Environmental Checklist (see “Exhibit C”) submitted on November 22, 2021, that no archeological evidence has been found at the subject property. Review of the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historical Preservation (“DAHP”) GIS Maps found no potential archeological sites within 500 feet of the project area. The project application was sent to DAHP and to tribes. No comments were received. The requirement to follow an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (see “Exhibit Q”) is included in the recommended conditions of approval. The conditional use permit application was noticed to state agencies and tribes. DCD did not receive any comments from the state agencies or tribes indicating that critical areas have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposal. Based on this, the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the protection policies and regulations of JCC 18.22 and 18.30.160. Section 3. Jefferson County Code 18.40.530(1) Type III Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria. The County may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as “C(a),” “C(d)” or “C”) only if all of the following criteria are satisfied: (a) The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; Staff Comment: Small-scale recreation or tourist use regulations were designed and adopted to comply with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan in terms of rural character. The proposed small-scale tourist recreational retreat center is compatible with rural character because by definition a “small-scale recreation or tourist use” is a use that relies upon a rural setting or location; does not include any new residential development beyond that allowed in the underlying land use district; and otherwise meets the performance standards in JCC 18.20.350 (JCC 18.10.190 S definitions). As discussed in section (1), the proposal is categorized as a “small-scale recreation and tourist use” under JCC 18.20.350(1)(n) and meets the minimum density standards in JCC 18.20.350(9). The proposal is reliant upon the rural setting in Port Hadlock to enjoy the scenic and natural amenities in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with the rural character of the County. Approximately 94% of the property will remain naturally vegetated, which will be utilized by the proposal through recreational and outdoor group activities such as trail walking, farm visits, educational lectures, small fire pit gatherings, and outdoor lounging. As discussed in sections (3)(b), (3)(d), and (3)(e), appropriate best management practices will be implemented throughout the life span of the proposal to protect the intended character of the neighbourhood from proposed outdoor recreational and general operation activities. The conditional use is therefore harmonious and appropriate in character with the existing or intended character and quality of rural development in the vicinity. The applicant has modified their original proposal to extend the setback between the proposed buildings and adjacent property lines. The proposed development site is located on the west side of the 21-acre property, leaving approximately 666,000 square feet of mature forest between the development site and Oak Bay Road. Referring to Figure 3, note that the parcel directly below (parcel 921192003) has an existing single-family residence located approximately 90 feet to the applicant’s property line. According to the submitted site plan dated November 22, 2021 (see “Exhibit G”), the proposed 710 square foot caretaker residence is located approximately 82 feet from parcel 921192003. This places the proposed MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 14 of 31 Pomona Woods residential building approximately 350 feet from the nearest existing single-family residence along Oak Bay Road. Figure 3: Adjacent Single-Family Residence According to the site plan (see “Exhibit G”), the proposed 6,000 square foot retreat center is located approximately 239 feet from parcel 921192003 (see “Figure 3”). This places the nearest existing single- family residence along Oak Bay Road approximately 500 feet from the proposed retreat center. All other existing single-family residential development, on each side of Oak Bay Road, is located at least 600 feet away from the proposed retreat center. This is consistent with development in the vicinity of the project, and in fact, southern development within one quarter mile of the subject property exhibit an average 855- foot setback from Oak Bay Road (see “Figure 4”). MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 15 of 31 Pomona Woods Figure 4: Consistent Development Setbacks Pursuant to JCC18.30.130(3), an existing 50-foot stand of mature trees and vegetation will be employed as Screen A landscaping around the all interior property lines, including the southern property line adjacent to parcel 921192003. The proposed caretaker residence and retreat center will therefore be sufficiently screened from view of the adjacent properties. The proposal also meets the 250-foot minimum commercial forest setback, per JCC 18.15.150(3), from the adjacent commercial forest lands (parcel 921182005). The proposed retreat center will not be the first recreational or commercial use in the project vicinity, along Oak Bay Road, or in rural residential zoning. The bullets below list examples of existing recreational and commercial uses in the area, as well as an existing building of greater square footage than the proposed retreat canter: • Parcel 921183025: Under BLD1999-00614, construction of an all-steel 7200 square foot covered tennis court with attached all-steel 800 sq. ft building. • Parcel 921183012: Under BLD2013-00238, construction of 2,448 square foot pickleball court/pole building on footprint of demoed single-family residence (no heat, no plumbing). • Parcel 921192007: Under BLD2007-00604 and ZON2008-00010, construction of 1,420 square foot recording studio/office for home business with connecting steel bridge to single family residence (heated, 1 bathroom). • Parcel 921073027- Pete’s Electric MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 16 of 31 Pomona Woods • Parcel 921073016: Oak Bay Getaway – Vacation Rental • Parcel 977400018- Shanty Too- Vacation Rental The 6,000 square foot retreat center is on average 1,500 to 4,000 square feet larger than the average residence existing along Oak Bay Road. However, based on the examples provided in the list above, the proposal is not inconsistent with the range of uses or size of buildings existing along Oak Bay Road, in the greater Port Ludlow Area, and adjacent to single family residential development. The proposed caretaker residence (710 square feet) is less than the average 2,000 square feet home size along Oak Bay Road. With the naturally vegetated 50-foot landscaping buffer along all interior property lines, proposed setbacks from existing residential development and Oak Bay Road, the 250-foot building setback from the commercial forest parcel, and the proposed scale of development, the applicant has demonstrated that their proposal complies with the performance standards in JCC 18.20.350, and is consistent and harmonious with the appearance and character of development in the vicinity. The Jefferson County Department of Community Development finds that the proposal meets this criterion. (b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and stormwater control; Staff Comment: Jefferson County has reviewed the application and found that the application meets required substantive standards under this criterion. Roads: A Road Approach Permit (“RAP2021-00068”) has been approved by Public Works on December 20, 2021 to develop a safe parking area (“road approach” or “road apron”) for the applicant to park off of Oak Bay Road. Upon conditional use permit approval, the applicant may begin constructing the private driveway from the approved approach area. Public Works submitted SEPA Review and Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Memorandum(s) (see “Exhibit P”) in conjunction with this application to analyze transportation impacts. Based on the minor increase in traffic, and the low accident rate history along Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of the proposed project, Public Works recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. Improvements to Oak Bay Road to mitigate impacts is therefore not required. See section (3)(f) for additional information. Fire Protection: The Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department (“East Jefferson County Fire District”) provides fire protection to Port Hadlock. The Notice of Application was mailed to the East Jefferson County Fire District on September 15, 2021. DCD received no written comments during the notice period. DCD Staff followed up with the Jefferson County Certified Consulting International Fire Code Inspector & Plans Examiner (Mr. Thomas L. Aumock) who determined that the fire hydrant location and fire sprinkling system design will be arranged with the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department and JPUD at the time of the building application. Otherwise known as a deferred submittal. Other comments from Mr. Aumock include: “The Jefferson County PUD No. 1 fire flow and duration modeling data for a potential fire hydrant on Oak Bay Road, from the existing water service main associated with this proposal, will be presented in due time. Required automatic fire sprinkler system supply capability modeling is not required at this time, but will be required at permit application review for compliance with the International Fire Code. I recommend the extension request as requested”. These comments will be noted during building permit application fire review. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 17 of 31 Pomona Woods The applicant is required to determine if the site meets the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department capability criteria (i.e. accessibility for grades over 12%, road construction, turnouts, etc.) prior to the Public Hearing and conditional use approval. On February 2, 2002, Brian Tracer, Assistant Fire Chief of the East Jefferson Fire Rescue, submitted a determined that the proposal “conforms to the intent of the International Fire Code (“IFC”) and road access standards with regard to emergency service access” (see “Exhibit M”). Based upon Mr. Aumock’ s and the East Jefferson County Fire District’s comments, DCD staff have determined the proposal will have adequate fire and emergency protection. A small outdoor fire pit is proposed to be located outside of the retreat center facility. The applicant proposes to store sand buckets and install a water spigot close by for extinguishing fires. The fire pit shall only be used if winds are below 15mph and if there are no County burn bans effective at that time. The applicant shall manage surrounding vegetation to ensure no overhanging vegetation will be located near the fire pit. The requirement to implement best management practices to safely use the proposed small outdoor fire pit is included as a recommended condition of approval. Water: A public water connection application was submitted to JPUD for installation of a public waterline extension to the Quimper Water System. The Jefferson County Environmental Health Department (“Environmental Health”) has approved the conditional use of this project for available potable water, provided that there is an appropriately approved and installed water main extension from the Quimper Water System #05783 to serve the project. Future building permits will not be approved for available potable water unless the water tap is located on the subject parcel and connection is available. This requirement is included as a recommended condition of approval. As discussed in section (2), the public water connection application was also approved by JPUD on January 31, 2022 (see “Exhibit L”). Potable water will therefore be accessed by the Quimper Water System through a public water connection installed within the right-of-way along Oak Bay Road. The public water connection was approved by JPUD to serve 24 rooms for the proposed retreat center. A 10- inch PVC water main will be required to be extended from the termination of JPUD's existing water main, approximately at the intersection of Eagle Ridge Drive and Oak Bay Road. The extension will be approximately 1,500 foot in length running south along Oak Bay Road. The improvements where modeled for a fire flow of 1,000gpm at the end of the Quimper Water System. Final approval will be determined when a building permit application is submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Environmental Health and DCD. Wastewater: The applicant has applied for a new septic system permit application with Environmental Health under SEP2022-00017. The proposed on-site septic system is sized for commercial sewage of the caretaker residence and the 24-room retreat center with single room occupancy. The proposed septic system is limited to 10 staff and 35 guests, and will serve up to 3,487.5 gallons a day. No other types of waste will be generated on site. The septic system will be reviewed again upon building permit application to insure compliance with County conditions. The requirement to obtain an approved septic system permit prior to approval of the building permit application is included as a recommended condition of approval. Occupancy shall not be permitted before water supplies and sewage disposal facilities are approved and installed. Stormwater Control: The applicant is proposing 53,497 square feet of new impervious surface and 85,064 square feet of land disturbing activities. The 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (“2019 SWMMWW”) requires proponents of proposals that create more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface to develop a Stormwater Site Plan that complies with Minimum Requirements #1 - #9. The submitted Stormwater Management Plan and Stormwater Site Plan (see “Exhibit E”) proposes to meet requirements of the 2019 SWMMWW by implementing dispersion MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 18 of 31 Pomona Woods stormwater systems and other best management practices. Dan McShane LEG of Stratum Group approved dispersion stormwater systems for the proposal and site within the submitted 2021 Geologic Hazard Assessment (see “Exhibit H”). Public Works submitted SEPA Review and Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Memorandum(s) (see “Exhibit P”) on September 30, 2021 addressing the proposed stormwater management plan. Based on the requirement to implement the approved Stormwater Management Plan and Stormwater Site Plan, Public Works recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to erosion or stormwater runoff. The applicant revised their original stormwater management plan submittals on November 10, 2021 and November 17, 2021. Public Works verified that the revised Stormwater Management Plan and Stormwater Site Plan still meet the intent of meeting Minimum Requirements #1 - #9 of the 2019 SWMMWW. An approved Stormwater Site Plan, including a raingarden design, will be required at time of building permit application. The stormwater system will be reviewed and approved by Public Works consistent with the 2019 SWMMWW at the time of building application. The requirement for the applicant to follow recommendations and requirements of the Public Works SEPA Review and Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Memorandum(s) (see “Exhibit P”) is included as a recommended condition of approval. (c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Staff Comment: The primary use of property in the vicinity is residential, with the exception of the designated commercial forest lands zoned to the north and west. There is an expectation that owners of residential property have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property, especially since they use their property for living and sleeping. Therefore, any impact from neighboring property that could affect that use could be considered materially detrimental. The proposed use of the subject property is also residential, as well as recreational, tourism and commercial. Based upon prior permitting of commercial uses adjacent to residential uses in Jefferson County, likely impacts to residential use from commercial activities are primarily noise and traffic, with visual impacts such as light and bulk from structures that are not screened from view. Under the current proposal, most long-term noise will be generated by delivery vehicles and small group gatherings that congregate outside in landscaped areas. The minor increase in traffic along Oak Bay Road will not require transportation mitigation, as discussed in section (3)(b). Short term noise will be generated by construction work related activities and equipment. The applicant has proposed best management practices to alleviate these common long- and short-term noise, light, and visual impacts. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found below in sections (3)(d) and (3)(e). Based upon these measures, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal will not be materially detrimental to commercial forestry or residential uses or property in the vicinity, and therefore, the Jefferson County DCD finds that the proposal meets this criterion. (d) The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel; Staff Comment: DCD has reviewed the application and concludes that the proposal will not introduce unreasonable noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, other conditions or which unreasonably impacts existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 19 of 31 Pomona Woods Noise: No noise study has been submitted in conjunction with this application due to the expected minimum noise impacts typical of residential and small-scale recreational development. The property owner has proposed to live on-site to monitor noise and other impacts. Most of the proposed group meetings are to be held indoors. Amplification of noise will not be allowed on site. The applicant has described best management practices in the SEPA Environmental Checklist (see “Exhibit C) to support their proposal. The checklist identifies best management practices to address noise generated by short term construction, guest arrivals and departures, and long-term business operations. In compliance with noise regulations of JCC 18.30.190 and JCC 8.70.050, guest arrival or departure and outdoor activities will only be allowed to occur between 8 AM to 10 PM. Noise generated from constructions activities will be limited to 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Noise from construction is however expected to only occur from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM and will be minimized between 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM by focusing on staging, team meetings, plan reviews, and material mobilization during that hour timeframe. Deliveries by commercial trucks shall occur during normal business hours (8:00 AM-5:00 PM). The requirement to implement best management practices prior to the start of land disturbing activities and throughout operations are included as a recommended condition of approval. The applicant has also proposed sufficient setbacks between the proposed buildings and adjacent residences to mitigate for noise related impacts. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found above in sections (3)(a). Smoke, Fumes, and Odors: No structure related smoke, fumes, or odors will be generated as a part of long-term operations of the retreat center and caretaker residence. A small fire pit is proposed but is not expected to unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The applicant shall comply with the Olympic Air Quality District and Jefferson County Fire District to reduce or minimize smoke, fumes, and/or odors generated from retreat center operations, passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and construction equipment. The conditional use permit application was noticed to State agencies and Tribes. DCD did not receive any comments indicating that existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel have the potential to be adversely affected by the smoke, fumes, and/or odors generated by the proposal. The proposed use is located adjacent to commercial forest land. All buildings meet the required 250-foot building setback from commercial forest land (JCC 18.15.150(3)). The 250-foot setback is heavily vegetated with mature forest stands. The proposal is not expected to be affected by commercial logging activities and related smoke, fumes, or odors adjacent to the property. Dust: Any dust generated by operations or construction activities will be managed through implementation of best management practices. The applicant has described best management practices in the SEPA Environmental Checklist (see “Exhibit C”) to support their proposal. The contractor shall be required to minimize dust related impacts through covering all ground stockpiles with poly membrane in dry months and straw during the wet months, spraying exposed soil and storage areas with water during dry periods, cleaning construction entrances, and maintaining the construction road as weather and construction activities dictate. The requirement to implement best management practices prior to the start of land disturbing activities and throughout construction operations is included as a recommended condition of approval. A 50-foot landscaping buffer, composed of mature forest stands, shall be maintained throughout the life span of the retreat center and caretaker residence operations. The proposed building and construction areas will be located outside of the 50-landscaping buffer, screening existing uses from potential dust. Existing uses within the vicinity of the subject parcel are therefore not expected to be impacted by potential dust. The requirement to maintain the 50-foot landscaping buffer throughout the life span of the proposal is included as a recommended condition of approval. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 20 of 31 Pomona Woods Vibrations: Retreat center equipment and activities that produces noticeable or unreasonable vibrations will not be allowed. For example, no amplified music will be allowed on-site. In addition, no un-shielded electricity-producing generators will be installed or used for operations of the proposal. Lights: The applicant proposes outdoor safety lights to mark pathways around the proposed buildings and approximately 4,500 square feet of large glass windows around the exterior of the retreat center. Per JCC 18.30.140(1), the proposed outdoor safety lights will be located lower than 20 feet and will be aimed low to encourage star gazing by guests. Outdoor safety lights will be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel. Outdoor safety lights will also be directed downward and away from adjoining properties. Roll shades will be installed on the retreat center windows to control light glare during night time hours. The proposed 50-foot landscaping buffer will provide additional screening between the proposed buildings and adjacent properties. The requirement to install and maintain these best management practices is included as a recommended condition of approval. Jefferson County DCD finds that the proposal meets this criterion. (e) The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the conditional use will not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties; Staff Comment: All proposed development is located on-site, is consistent with County code requirements, and provides setbacks, buffers, and screening consistent with or in excess of County requirements. The proposal will therefore not interfere with allowed development or use of neighboring properties. Buildings: The applicant is proposing two buildings in conjunction with the small-scale recreational and tourist use. The total footprint of the proposed retreat center (including stairs and ramps) will cover a 7,155 square foot area. The footprint of the caretaker residence will cover a 710 square foot area. As discussed in section (3)(a), the overall building site is located on the west side of the 21-acre property, leaving approximately 666,000 square feet of mature forest between the development site and Oak Bay Road. The buildings will be located 1,045 + feet from Oak Bay Road, and 82 + feet from the southern property line. Both buildings will have either hardie board or cedar plank exteriors (dark brown) to avoid visual or aesthetic impacts to the use of neighboring properties. The tallest height of the proposed buildings will be 27 feet (two stories). The 50-foot landscaping buffer is composed of mature trees that range from 50 to 200 feet in height, which exceeds the proposed height of the two buildings. The proposed buildings will therefore be sufficiently screened from the allowable development and use of neighboring properties. Roads and Parking: The applicant is proposing a 46,787 square foot driveway (approximately 1,800 feet in length) and two parking areas. The main retreat center parking area will have 29 parking stalls and will cover 9,222 square feet of land. The caretaker residence parking will have two parking stalls and will cover approximately 882 square feet of land. The proposed driveway will be located approximately 259 feet away from the southern property line, and approximately 80 feet from the northern property line. At the closest point, the proposed parking areas start at 82 feet from the southern property line and 349 feet from the northern property line. The 50-foot landscaping buffer will screen the roads, parking areas, and potential car light pollution from the allowable development and use of neighboring properties. Signs: The applicant is proposing a “directional sign” for the purpose of identifying the location of Pomona Woods. The sign is proposed to be located 10 feet from Oak Bay Road, north of the driveway MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 21 of 31 Pomona Woods entrance. The sign will be standing parallel to the road to avoid obstructing the line of slight. Per JCC 18.30.150 (h), the sign will not exceed 4 feet in height and 8 feet in width (32 square feet). Illumination from sign light fixtures will be shielded and directed in a manner not to adversely affect neighboring properties or create a hazard to on-coming Oak Bay Road traffic. The applicant will be required to obtain a Road Setback Variance Permit for the proposed sign to allow development within the 20-foot setback from Oak Bay Road. The requirement to receive a Road Setback Variance Permit prior to approval of the building permit application is included as a recommended condition of approval. The applicant is proposing dirt walking trails around the property for recreational use. The walking trails will be limited to the exterior areas of the 50-foot landscaping buffer. The applicant will professionally survey the southern property line to define property boundaries and will clearly mark every 50 feet with no trespassing signs to inform guests of adjacent private properties. The requirement to install and maintain these best management practices and obtain County approved signage per JCC 18.30.150 is included as recommended conditions of approval. (f) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use will not be hazardous to existing and anticipated traffic in the vicinity of the subject parcel; Staff Comment: Jefferson County finds that the project is consistent with this criterion because the Public Works SEPA Review and Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Memorandum(s) (see “Exhibit P”) includes a determination that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic: JCC 18.30.020(5), requires all developments to be served by appropriate transportation facilities that are adequate to meet the level of service standards in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and the design standards adopted in JCC 18.30.080(1)(a). The Public Works SEPA Review and Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Memorandum(s) (see “Exhibit P”) includes the review of existing road features, levels of service, current accident rates, current average daily traffic trips, and the proposed average daily traffic trips as a result of the proposal. Public Works reviewed County Road Administrative Board (“CRAB”) Mobility data to analyze potential traffic impacts of the proposal. Based on the minor increase in traffic and low accident rate history along Oak Bay Road in the vicinity of the proposed project, Public Works recommends finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation. The subject property will be accessed by one entrance off of Oak Bay Road. The proposal would generate approximately 48 average daily trips. Due to the remote location of the site, it is unlikely there will be increased pedestrian traffic, unless employees who live nearby will walk or bicycle to the site on a limited basis. No impacts to pedestrian traffic are expected. Services provided by Oak Bay Road will continue after implementation of this proposal. Parking: According to JCC 18.30.100, the minimum number of parking spaces required for small-scale recreational and tourist uses is determined by the administrator. The applicant states within 10 years after opening the business, they expect an average of 16 guests per day and proposes to encourage carpooling amongst guests. The applicant proposes one main parking lot with 29 stalls and one caretaker parking area with two stalls. The retreat center proposes 24 rooms, 7 employees, and a maximum occupancy of 35 guests. The retreat center will require one on-site parking space per employee, with at least one space dedicated to ADA/handicapped compliance. Parking spaces for physically handicapped needs shall comply with the current ADA Design Guide, Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section. The MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 22 of 31 Pomona Woods requirement for providing ADA/handicapped parking is included as a recommended condition of approval. The applicant has also designated a delivery zone and turn around area for delivery trucks. Delivery trucks will have adequate room to park, maneuver, and exit on-site. The applicant is required to encourage car-pooling or transport services to reduce parking demand sufficient to meet on-site parking capacity. Jefferson County DCD finds that the proposal meets this criterion. (g) The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this title and any other applicable provisions of the Jefferson County Code or state law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC; Staff Comment: As presented in the application materials and recommended conditions of permit approval, the proposal meets all applicable requirements under this code section. Jefferson County Code JCC 18.20.290, Recreational developments. As presented in the application materials, and in conditions of permit approval, the proposal meets all applicable requirements under this code section, including: (1) The proposal complies with all recreational development standards: (a) 50-foot landscaping (Screen A Landscaping) shall be implemented (see “Exhibit G”); (b) Sale of parks or campgrounds in fee simple lots is not proposed; (c) Stormwater Management Plan (including parking areas) approved by Public Works on September 30, 2021 (see “Exhibit E”). Safe access from parking areas to recreation areas and buildings shall be provided by means of a boardwalk path (see “Exhibit G”); (d) No playing fields are proposed; (e) See section (3)(d); (2) Commercial Recreational Development. Recreational uses which are also commercial enterprises are subject to the site standards for commercial uses, JCC 18.20.140, in addition to the regulations in subsection (1) of this section. Jefferson County Code 18.20.140 Commercial uses – Standards for site development. As presented in the application materials, and in conditions of permit approval, the proposal meets all applicable requirements under this code section, including: (1) All Commercial Uses. The following standards apply to all commercial uses as listed in Table 3-1, all commercial uses identified in Chapter 18.18 JCC (Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Implementing Regulations), and to any use determined by the administrator to be a commercial use. (a) See section (3)(b). Occupancy shall not be permitted before water supplies and sewage disposal facilities are approved and installed. Included as a recommended condition of approval; (b) Public health, safety, and welfare will be protected, and traffic and maintenance impacts to the private road are minimized by conditions on the permit. RAP2021-00068 has been approved by Public Works on December 20, 2021 for safe access from a County road. Public Works also found that the proposal is not likely to result in significant MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 23 of 31 Pomona Woods adverse impacts related to transportation (see section (3)(b)). East Jefferson Fire Rescue found that the proposal conforms to the intent of the IFC and the road access standards regarding emergency service access (see “Exhibit M”). (c) See section (3)(d); (d) Two or more commercial lots adjacent to one another are not located at the subject property; (e) 50-foot landscaping (Screen A Landscaping) shall be implemented (see “Exhibit G”); (2) Commercial Development in Rural Designations. The following standards apply to all commercial uses located in the rural land use designations listed in Table 3-1, as determined by the administrator. (a) The proposed use will result in minimal additional demands on services and utilities available in rural areas and will not result in more than a minimal and manageable increase in demand on community water supplies, sewage disposal systems, or roads (see section (3)(b)). Jefferson County Code 18.20.350 Small-scale recreation and tourist uses. As presented in the application materials, and in conditions of permit approval, the proposal meets all applicable requirements under this code section, including: (1) Recreational, cultural or religious conference center/retreat facilities on parcels 10 acres or larger in size (see section (3)(a)); (2) Repealed by Ord. 3-20. (3) A small-scale recreation or tourist use shall meet the requirements of this code (except as provided for in SRT overlay districts per JCC 18.15.470 and 18.15.572), including the provisions of JCC 18.20.290, Recreational developments, JCC 18.20.140, Commercial uses – Standards for site development, and the following standards: (a) Small-scale recreation or tourist uses may include limited and commensurately scaled commercial facilities intended to serve those small-scale recreational or tourist uses provided, that the applicant can demonstrate the following to the satisfaction of the approving authority that: (i) The principal demand for the commercial facilities is derived from the principal recreational or tourist use and not the existing and projected rural population (see section (1) and (3)(a)); (ii) The associated commercial activities shall be clearly accessory to and dependent upon the primary recreational or tourist uses (see sections (1) and (3)(a)); (iii) The associated commercial activities, in addition to the principal recreational or tourist use, will not have a measurable detrimental traffic, noise, visual or public safety impact on adjacent properties (see sections (3)(b) and (3)(d)); (iv) The use and associated structure are clearly appropriate and compatible in scale, size, design and function with surrounding uses and environment (see sections (3)(e) and (3)(i)). (v) The use will not constitute new urban development in a rural area (see section (1)); MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 24 of 31 Pomona Woods (vi) The public facilities and services provided are limited to those necessary to serve the associated commercial activities and the principal small-scale recreational or tourist use in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl (see sections (1)); and (vii) All other applicable requirements and standards in this UDC are met. (b) Parcel 921183008 is approximately 20.21 acres (see section (3)(a)); (c) Only one recreational retreat facility is proposed on Parcel 921183008 (see section (3)(a)); (d) Group activities will be held mainly indoors with occasionally outside meetings in the lawn area (see section (3)(a)); (e) Parking is contained on-site and is in conformance with JCC 18.30.100 and 18.30.130 (see section (3)(f)); (f) All activities are screened from the view of adjacent residential uses, subject to the landscaping and screening requirements of JCC 18.30.130, and are set back at a sufficient distance from all rear and side property lines to protect the character of adjacent and surrounding properties and uses (see section (3)(a)); (g) According to the SEPA Review and Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Memorandum(s) (see “Exhibit P”), Public Works identified Oak Bay Road as a rural minor collector within the federal functional classification system; (h) The proposed structures comply with the landscape, lighting, site coverage, and design standards set forth in Chapter 18.30 JCC (see sections (3)(b), (3)(d), and (3)(e)); (i) One caretaker residence is proposed for on-site management (see section (3)(a)); (J) Jefferson County has reviewed location and size restrictions, design standards, landscape buffers, setbacks, as necessary to ensure that the activity or use, due to proximity, location or intensity meets the following approval criteria: (i) The proposal is compatible with the rural character of adjacent lands and shorelines (see section (3)(c)); (ii) The proposal does not disrupt the character of any surrounding permitted uses (see section (3)(a)); (iii) The proposal adequately served by public facilities and services (see section (3)(b)) without the need to extend those services in a manner that promotes low density sprawl; (iv) Adequately protects critical areas including surface and groundwater resources (see section (1) and (2)); (v) The proposal would not cumulatively, in combination with the effects of existing development (or given the probable development of subsequent projects with similar effects) in the vicinity (i.e., within one mile) of the proposed use, create a development pattern that constitutes low density sprawl; require the extension of public facilities or expansion of public services in a manner that promotes low density sprawl; or be otherwise incompatible with or injurious to the rural character of the area. The applicant is not proposing to connect to a public or private sewer system, which is considered promoting growth outside of an urban growth area; MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 25 of 31 Pomona Woods (vi) The subject property is not designated as agricultural lands; (k) Preceding conditions (see section (3)(j)) have been met to the satisfaction of the approving authority. (9) The Recreational Conference Retreat Facility was reviewed under the following standards: (a) Parcel 921183008 is approximately 20.21 acres; (b) 24 rooms per 12,000 square feet of total building area (two stories); excluding a caretaker’s residence; (c) Lodging operators may not allow any person to occupy overnight lodging on the premises for more than three months in any year. Included as recommended condition of approval; (d) Included as a recommended condition of approval. New residential development (in addition to proposed caretaker residence) is not proposed; (e) One on-site caretaker residence is proposed; (f) The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use (Type III) Permit and shall attend a Public Hearing for a final decision; Jefferson County DCD therefore finds that this proposal meets this criterion. (i) The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval. Staff Comment: Jefferson County finds that the project is consistent with this criterion because the applicant has prepared a Stormwater Management Plan (see “Exhibit E”) and other best management practices that satisfy the protection standards of JCC Chapter 18.22 Critical Area Ordinance. As discussed in section (2), no critical areas will be disturbed as a result of this proposal and no consequential mitigation will be required. A review of the Jefferson County Geographic Information System mapping showed no evidence of Riparian Cover (PNPTC, 2009), Channel Migration Zones, or Marbled Murrelet and Spotted Owl Habitat Areas. The applicant has indicted in the SEPA Environmental Checklist (see “Exhibit C”) that the subject property has been reviewed under the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) Information Planning and Consultation online database. The following species were found to occur near the project area; (1) Golden Paintbrush (Threatened Plant), (2) Marbled Murrelet (Threatened Bird), (3) Streaked Horned Lark (Threatened Bird), (4) Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Threatened Bird), (5) Bull Trout (Threatened Fish) and (6) Taylor's Checkerspot (Endangered Insect). The project area (as with the entirety of Western Washington) was also identified as a Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. The project area is located approximately 900 feet from Puget Sound and 94% of the subject property will remain heavily forested upon completion of the project. Retreat center landscaping we will focus on native planting, with the exception of a small grassy lawn and adjacent vegetable garden. USFWS or the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (“WDFW”) have not designated Endangered or Threatened Species habitat (“Critical Habitat”) on the subject property, nor have they submitted comments on this proposal. The applicant proposes to monitor forest health through daily walks throughout the property, scheduling and implementing annual arborist/forester visits, and by keeping all utilities, stormwater controls, and best management practices, such as the proposed rain garden, in operating condition throughout the life time of the proposal. Invasive plants like English Ivy, Himalayan blackberry and Holly are proposed to be MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 26 of 31 Pomona Woods promptly removed upon observance to manage the spread of invasive species known to occur after ground disturbance. The applicant has applied for a DNR Class IV-General Forest Practice Application (“FPA/N”) for approximately 85,064 square feet of land clearing activities. The FPA/N will be submitted to DNR after a SEPA Final Determination is submitted by Jefferson County. Land clearing activities will be reviewed again against Jefferson County stormwater requirements (per JCC 18.30.070 Stormwater management standards) and shall follow Jefferson County and DNR land clearing requirements. There are no environmental health hazards proposed in conjunction with this proposal, such as waste piles, cresols, or petroleum tanks. The applicant is proposing and committed to using only organic or environmentally friendly products that are not hazardous or that would produce dangerous waste that could contaminate the environment. Some of the proposed “environmentally friendly” products include cleaning supplies such as Method, TruEarth, and probiotic cleaning products from Novozymes. Additionally, the applicant proposes to follow US Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED guidelines by using construction products that follow Environmental Product Declarations. Solid waste will be managed through a proposed new septic system that will serve 24 rooms at a capacity of 3,487.5 gallons a day. The applicant is responsible for compliance with County standards for solid waste disposal and obtaining an approved septic system permit from Environmental Health. The recommended conditions of approval relating to the proposed new septic system ensure compliance with this criterion. Based on the proposed Stormwater Management Plan, best management practices, and USFWS data, no significant impacts to the human or natural environments would be expected if the proposal was approved. For this reason, the conditional use permit is conditioned to require compliance with the best management practices listed in section (3)(d). (j) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole; Staff Comment: The proposal is located in Port Hadlock. According to the Jefferson County 2018 Comprehensive Plan, small-scale recreational uses are encouraged in rural commercial areas, Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs), and western Jefferson County. Historic centers such as Chimacum, Quilcene, Brinnon, Gardiner, and others have been identified as LAMIRDs. The subject proposal was not considered for these areas due to property acreage and natural features that would serve the proposed recreational elements associated with recreational retreat centers. According to the Jefferson County 2018 Comprehensive Plan, home businesses, cottage industries, and small-scale tourist recreational uses are allowed in most non-commercial zones with a permit. Economic activities located outside of rural commercial areas are allowed when they align with the goals and policies of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. A further discussion of compliance with this criterion may be found above in section (1). Natural and social qualities drive Jefferson County prosperity and are key elements to develop and strengthen the County’s economic development strategy. For example, Olympic National Park, occupies most of Jefferson County's center and is one of the top ten most-visited national parks in the Unites States with most of those visitors traveling first through Jefferson County to enjoy the park's spectacular scenery and outdoor recreation opportunities. Tourism development strategies that increase Jefferson County’s ability to attract and serve these travelers can be a way to turn limited economic development opportunity challenges into opportunities. Place-making for visitors and residents leverages the strengths of the County to support a strong and diversified economy. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 27 of 31 Pomona Woods In defining rural elements under RCW 36.70A.070(5), a County should foster land use patterns and develop a local vision of rural character that will: “Help preserve rural-based economies and traditional rural lifestyles; encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents; foster opportunities for small-scale, rural-based employment and self-employment; permit the operation of rural-based agricultural, commercial, recreational, and tourist businesses that are consistent with existing and planned land use patterns; be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; foster the private stewardship of the land and preservation of open space; and enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life.” As discussed in section (1), the proposal will provide additional economic and employment opportunities for Jefferson County citizens, while providing tourism services that are in demand in Jefferson County and the State of Washington. The proposal also has merit and value for the community by supporting the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Jefferson County finds that the project is consistent with this criterion. (k) The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and Staff Comment: As discussed in section (1), the proposal is consistent to land use, rural, environmental, and economic goals and frameworks identified in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson County finds that the project is consistent with this criterion. (l) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar actions in the area. Staff Comment: The proposal has been reviewed against all relevant codes and regulations including development and performance standards for small-scale recreation and tourist uses, commercial uses, recreational development, and conditional use criteria. These regulations are designed to ensure there is no substantial detrimental effect from the project on adjacent properties, services, or the public in general. The conditional use criteria are specifically designed to prevent a negative adverse impact to neighboring uses and property, due to size, scale, and environmental impacts such as noise and odor. The criteria also determines if the project will have a positive or beneficial impact to the County as well. The applicant has satisfied or met all relevant codes to the extent possible without building permits, in order to warrant approval of the conditional use permit. With compliance to the codes, and conditions of approval listed below, DCD Staff have determined that the public interest will suffer no detrimental effect and that the proposal will have minimal visual impacts in the long-term operation of the proposal. Public nuisance noises are prohibited as expressly outlined in JCC 8.70.050, which is included in the recommended conditions of approval. Additionally, the proposal would be the only permitted small-scale tourist and recreational retreat center in the area, and therefore, the cumulative effect of recreational and tourist uses along Oak Bay Road is minimal. Similar actions or proposals in the area will be required to undergo the same level of review, and their effect on cumulative impacts determined as a result of that review, at that time. Jefferson County finds that the project is consistent with this criterion. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 28 of 31 Pomona Woods STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Type III Conditional “C” Use permit for a small-scale tourist and recreational retreat center, subject to the following conditions of approval: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall obtain approved building permits to include Fire Code review and a Stormwater Plan reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works for the construction of the proposed retreat center and caretaker residence that is consistent with any CUP conditions of approval, and shall ensure that stormwater best management practices are in place before any construction activities take place. 2. DNR- FPA/N specific condition. The applicant shall complete the FPA/N application in accordance with DNR requirements after the SEPA Determination is complete and prior to Jefferson County approval of a building permit application. 3. Ecology- Solid waste management specific condition. 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. 4. Ecology- Water quality/watershed resources unit specific condition. 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 storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants. 5. Ecology- Water quality/watershed resources unit specific condition. 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. 6. Ecology- Additional permits specific condition. The applicant shall contact the Washington State Department of Ecology to determine if additional permits or studies are required. 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. 7. Environmental Health – Septic system specific condition. The proposed septic system is sized for a peak flow of 3487.5 gallons per day to serve the 24 room retreat center, kitchen, and caretakers unit which accounts for 240 gpd. Maximum guest occupancy is 35 guests in the retreat center, each of the 24 rooms in the retreat center is to be single occupancy only. Use of other rooms for sleeping or additional guests will exceed the design capacity of the septic system and cause premature failure of the septic system. Any additional guests will be considered a violation to this permit approval. 8. Environmental Health- Septic system specific condition. The applicant shall obtain an approved septic system permit from the Jefferson County Department of Environmental Health prior to approval of the building permit application. 9. Environmental Health- Potable water specific condition. The conditional use for this project is approved for available potable water provided that there is an appropriately approved and installed water main extension from the Quimper Water System #05783 to serve the project. Future building permits will not be approved for available potable water unless the water tap is located on the subject parcel and connection is available. 10. Potable water supply and sewage disposal facilities adequate to serve the proposed use shall be provided. Occupancy shall not be permitted before water supplies and sewage disposal facilities are approved and installed. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 29 of 31 Pomona Woods 11. The applicant or successor in ownership shall pay for and authorize annual inspections for fire suppression systems as all other commercial properties in Jefferson County by the Fire District or County approved fire specialist. 12. A revised Geologic Hazard Assessment, prepared by Stratum Group (submitted November 22, 2021) was submitted in conjunction with this application. The professional geologist assessed the risk of landslide and erosion at the subject property. Stratum Group concluded the subject properties are not at risk from landslides or erosion, and development will not increase the risk of landslides or erosion as long as the recommendations of the 2021 Geologic Hazard Assessment are followed. The applicant shall follow geotechnical recommendations provided in the 2021 Geological Hazard Assessment: a. Grading for the road shall be done in a manner consistent with standard grading practices and consistent with the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington for pollution prevention; b. Grading and angling the road up the slope to meet desired grade shall be accomplished particularly from the area on the northeast part of the site; c. Stormwater from the access drive and buildings shall be fully dispersed consistent with the Stormwater Manual and based on the size of the property, forested condition and soil types this can be readily accomplished; and d. For building foundations, soil bearing of 3,000 psf may be used as long as foundation footings are placed on un-weathered glacial till. 13. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING OCCUPANCY, PROPONENT SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN LETTER FROM THE GEOLOGIST (STRATUM GROUP) WHO PREPARED THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DATED JULY, 14 2021 STATING THAT THE STRUCTURE AND/OR FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE "GEOTECHNICAL REPORT." THE LETTER SHALL BE STAMPED BY THE LICENSED GEOLOGIST/ENGINEER. 14. The project shall not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impacts existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel pursuant to JCC 18.20.350. 15. The applicant shall comply with the Olympic Air Quality District and Jefferson County Fire District to reduce or minimize smoke, fumes, and/or odors generated from retreat center operations, passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, and construction equipment. 16. A small outdoor fire pit is proposed to located outside of the retreat center facility. The applicant shall store sand buckets and install a water spigot adjacent to the fire pit to extinguish potential fires. The fire pit shall only be used if winds are below 15mph and if there are no County burn bans effective at that time. The applicant shall management surrounding vegetation to ensure no overhanging vegetation will be located near the fire pit. 17. The applicant shall implement best management practices to limit noise impacts to existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel and to avoid any public nuisance pursuant to JCC 8.70.050. Amplification shall not be allowed on site. Per the submitted SEPA Environmental Checklist (p. 13 -14), the applicant shall implement the following best management practices to manage generated noise: a. Deliveries shall be scheduled and delivered during normal business hours (8:00 AM -5:00 PM); b. No more than 35 guests may gather outside for team activities between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM; c. 15 mph speed limit signs shall be posted along the driveway to minimize noise and protect the driveway; e. Construction related activities shall be limited from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM; f. Construction noise between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM shall be minimized through conducting lower noise construction activities such as staging, team meetings, plan reviews, and material mobilization; g. Property owner shall monitor noise and other related impacts; h. Outdoor activities shall only occur from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 30 of 31 Pomona Woods i. Quiet hours at the retreat center shall be enforced between 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM; and j. Guest contracts, website language, and guest orientations shall be appropriately implemented to emphasize the need to respect neighbors. 18. The applicant shall implement best management practices to limit dust related impacts to existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Per the submitted SEPA Environmental Checklist (p. 5), the applicant shall implement the following best management practices to manage generated dust: a. Ground stockpiles shall be covered with poly membrane in dry months and straw during the wet months; b. Exposed soil and storage areas shall be sprayed with water during dry periods; and c. Construction entrances and roads shall be cleaned and maintained as weather and construction activities dictate. 19. The applicant shall implement best management practices to limit light and glare generated by the proposed structures. Per the submitted SEPA Environmental Checklist (p. 17 – 18), the applicant shall implement the following best management practices to manage light and glare: a. Outdoor safety lights shall be located lower than 20 feet and shall be aimed low; b. Outdoor safety lights shall be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel; c. Outdoor safety lights shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties; and d. Roll shades shall be installed on the retreat center windows to control light glare during night time hours. 20. The applicant is proposing 53,497 square feet of new impervious surface and 85,064 square feet of land disturbing activities. The 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (“2019 SWMMWW”) requires proponents of proposals that create more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface develop a Stormwater Site Plan that complies with Minimum Requirements #1 - #9 of the 2019 SWMMWW. The applicant shall follow the JCPW Recommendations and Public Works Department Fees Requirement sections of the SEPA Review and Stormwater Site Plan Review and Comments Memorandum(s) dated September 30, 2021. 21. The applicant shall maintain a 50-foot landscaping buffer, as shown on the approved site plan revised November 22, 2021, for the life span of the proposal pursuant to JCC 18.30.130(8). The 50-foot landscaping buffer shall remain in natural condition, shall be monitored to ensure the health of landscaping vegetation, and shall consist of a mix of primarily evergreen trees and shrubs generally interspersed to form a continuous year-round screen that grows to at least eight feet in height within two growing seasons pursuant to JCC 18.30.130. The buffers may contain septic drainfield and reserve areas, necessary utilities, and approved road connections. Staff will inspect the buffers to determine adequacy prior to final building permit occupancy. No disturbance to the 50-foot landscaping buffer shall occur without review and approval by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 22. Walking trails shall not disturb the 50-foot landscaping buffer as shown on the approved site plan revised November 22, 2021. 23. All proposed signs shall adhere to sign standards in JCC 18.30.150. 24. Per the submitted SEPA Environmental Checklist (p. 14 - 17), the applicant shall implement the following best management practices to manage on-site property signs: a. The directional sign shall not obstruct the line of sight along Oak Bay Road; b. Per JCC 18.30.150(h), the sign shall not exceed 4 feet in height and 8 feet in width (32 square feet); c. Sign light fixtures illumination shall be shielded and directed in a manner not to adversely affect neighboring properties or create a hazard to on-coming Oak Bay Road traffic; and d. The applicant shall professionally survey the southern property line to define property boundaries and shall clearly mark every 50 feet with no trespassing signs to inform guests of adjacent private properties. 25. An approved Road Setback Variance Permit from the Jefferson County departments shall be required MLA21-00066/ZON21-00040 Page 31 of 31 Pomona Woods prior approval of the building permit application and prior to installation of any commercial sign within the 20-foot setback of the Oak Bay Road right-of-way. 26. The applicant states within 10 years after opening the business, they expect an average of 16 guests per day. The applicant is required to encourage car-pooling or transport services to reduce parking demand sufficient to meet on-site parking capacity. 27. The retreat center shall provide at least one space dedicated to ADA/handicapped compliance pursuant to JCC 18.30.100(1)(b). Parking spaces for physically handicapped needs shall comply with the current ADA Design Guide, Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section. 28. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with assessable design requirements for the construction of lodging facilities that apply to the design of ADA hotel rooms. 29. Lodging operators shall not allow any person to occupy overnight lodging on the premises for more than three months in any year pursuant to JCC 18.20.350(9)(c). 30. New residential development shall not be permitted pursuant to JCC 18.20.350(9)(d). New residential development includes the subdivision or sale of land for year-round or second-home residential housing that is owner-occupied or rented. 31. All contractors and personnel shall be familiar with the inadvertent discovery plan as attached to this permit. If any possible historic, archaeological and/or cultural artifacts are inadvertently discovered, the applicant shall immediately stop all work on the project and shall notify the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Jefferson County Department of Community Development, and affected tribes. 32. For project adjacent or within 500 feet of Forest Land/Agricultural Land: Jefferson County has determined that the use of real property for agriculture and forestry operations is a high priority and favored use in the county. The county will not consider to be a nuisance those inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operations, if such operations are consistent with commonly accepted best management practices in compliance with local, state, and federal laws. If your real property includes or is within five hundred (500) feet of real property designated as Rural Residential 1:10 or 1:20, Rural Industrial, Rural Commercial, Agriculture, or Forestry, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from such farming and forestry operations, including but not limited to noise, tree removal, odors, flies, fumes, dust, smoke, the operation of farm and forestry machinery during any 24-hour period, the storage and disposal of manure, and the application of permitted fertilizers and permitted pesticides. One or more of these inconveniences may occur as a result of agricultural and forestry operations which are in conformance with existing laws and regulations. 33. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the stamped, approved site plan dated March 2nd, 2022 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Proposed changes may require modifications to the conditional use permit. 34. Pursuant to JCC 18.40.560, this conditional use permit automatically expires and becomes void if the applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date (the date of the decision granting the permit) of the permit unless the permit approval provides for a greater period of time. Extensions to the duration of the original permit approval are prohibited. The Department of Community Development shall not be responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending expiration. 35. Pursuant to JCC 18.40.580, a conditional use permit granted under Article VIII of JCC Chapter 18.40 shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site, business, service, use or structure that was the subject of the permit application. No other use is allowed without approval of an additional conditional use permit. Prepared by Assistant Planner, Amanda Hunt, March 2022. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment FINAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS DATE: March 2, 2022 PROPONENT: Pomona Woods, LLC, Ann Burkhart APPLICATION: MLA21-00066 – ZON21-00040 PROPOSAL: TYPE III CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMALL-SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER - Pomona Woods LLC (“the applicant”) proposes to construct a commercial, small-scale tourist and recreational retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not-for-profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,155 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty-four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty-five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on- site caretakers), septic system, main parking lot (29 stalls), caretaker parking area (2 stalls), lawn area, one access road, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 53,497 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, Class IV General Forest Practice Application, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, WA 98339 (Parcel # 921183008 and 921183002; Section 18 - Township 29N - Range 1E). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The subject parcels are legally described as S18 T29 R1E S 1/2 SE SW and S18 T29 R1E GOV LOT 4(S1/2 W OF CO RD). NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined it is lead agency for the above- described proposal. NOTICE OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE: Jefferson County has determined that the above described proposal, conducted in conformance with the applicable Jefferson County Codes and Ordinances, would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required. This determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Development Review Division and an inspection of the site. COMMENT PERIOD: This Determination of Non-Significance (“DNS”) is issued after using the optional DNS process in Washington Administrative Code (“WAC”) 197-11-355. Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary determination of non-significance. There is no further comment period on the DNS. *Exhibit S* APPEAL PERIOD: This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2)(f). Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary determination of non-significance. Any appeal of this determination on the basis of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21c RCW must be submitted in writing (via mail or personal delivery) with the required appeal fee by 4:30 p.m., March 16, 2022 to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (“DCD”), Development Review Division (621 Sheridan Ave, Port Townsend, WA 98368) for consideration by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. The DNS determination may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to JCC 18.40.280(3)(b), Chapter 2.30 JCC, and the Hearing Examiner rules of Procedure. The open record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the hearing examiner, who shall consider the appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single, consolidated hearing. The appeal must be in writing, in conformance with JCC 18.40.330, and be filed within 14 calendar days after the threshold determination is issued as set forth in subsection (4) of this section. Appeals of environmental determinations under SEPA, shall be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. _________________________________________________ ______________ Brent A. Butler, SEPA Responsible Official Date March 1, 2022 1 Amanda Hunt From:DCD Front Staff Sent:Monday, June 28, 2021 11:16 AM To:Ann Burkhart; Joel Peterson Cc:Paul Burkhart; Amanda Hunt Subject:RE: Completed Conditional Use Permit for Pomona Woods / Ann Burkhart Ann, We have received your application, the permit number is MLA21‐00066. Amanda Hunt is your planner. I believe you have a complete application or it would not have been routed back for review. Amanda will contact you if she has additional questions. Jodi Adams Interim Director Phone 360-379-4494 From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 10:20 AM To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joel Peterson <JPeterson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Paul Burkhart <designerprb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Completed Conditional Use Permit for Pomona Woods / Ann Burkhart CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi. It has been almost 3 weeks since I submitted my Conditional Use Permit documents. I haven't heard anything back apart from the auto‐reply email. Can someone please confirm documents are in order and advise on next steps? Thank you, Ann On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:49 AM Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Joel, I believe we have included everything necessary for the Conditional Use Permit. We also prepared and attach a more developed version of the schematic. In addition, I've attached the Permit Application as required. It wasn't clear if submittal via email was correct, or if I have to include a fee. Please advise if I am missing something. Thank you and happy summer! Ann ‐‐ Ann Burkhart, owner *Exhibit T* 2 Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Terry Duff Sent:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:02 AM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:FW: Sent from JC Public Works Attachments:3360_001.pdf Amanda, Attached is a Road Approach Permit Application associated with ZON2021‐00040. There are critical areas on this site so I did not want to issue this permit until those were addressed. I have conditioned this permit to be a commercial approach because of the proposed development. Let me know when you have finished any review necessary for me to issue this RAP, or if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Terry Duff, Eng. Tech III Jefferson County Public Works 623 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, Wa 98368 360‐385‐9159 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Friday, July 23, 2021 7:50 AM To:Ann Burkhart Cc:Paul Burkhart Subject:MLA2021-00066 DCD Incomplete Application Letter Attachments:AIR_MLA2021-00066_07232021.pdf Hi Ann, Good Morning‐ Please see the attached PDF to review the Incomplete Application Notification Letter regarding the Pomona Woods Retreat Center Application (MLA2021‐00066). The assigned planner cannot move forward with the Type III Conditional Use Permit review until all requested information has been submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us TEMPORARYILY UNAVAILABLE FOR IN PERON MEETINGS JULY 16TH – AUGUST 9TH EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Thursday, July 29, 2021 7:54 AM To:'Ann Burkhart' Subject:RE: MLA2021-00066 DCD Incomplete Application Letter Hi Ann, Good Morning‐ Apologizes for the late response, it’s been a busy week. Thank you for providing your responses in a clear, precise letter! We always appreciate detailed responses. I will keep an eye out in my inbox for the Stormwater Plan. I will do my best to continue review of the permit application without the stormwater plan, but we will need to acquire the impervious surface calculations and stormwater BMP’s in order to determine code compliance. As for the potential stream on the property, it would be best for another planner and myself to make a quick site visit to determine stream indicators on the property. Plus, it would be helpful to see in person where the proposed retreat center, parking lot, and road will be placed. The soonest DCD staff availability for an on‐site visit would be the August 12th or sometime during the week of August 16th‐20th. Do you have a preference for when we make the site visit? Your attendance is not mandatory but you are more than welcome to meet us and further discuss your project. Please let me know what you think! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 8:34 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Paul Burkhart <designerprb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: MLA2021‐00066 DCD Incomplete Application Letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good morning Amanda. Attached please find my letter responding to the Incomplete Items. As noted, we will need more time for to properly complete the Stormwater Plan but I wanted to get the other information to the planner so everything else could keep moving through review. Thank you for helping shepherd my dream through the process! Best regards, Ann 2 On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 7:49 AM Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi Ann, Good Morning‐ Please see the attached PDF to review the Incomplete Application Notification Letter regarding the Pomona Woods Retreat Center Application (MLA2021‐00066). The assigned planner cannot move forward with the Type III Conditional Use Permit review until all requested information has been submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us TEMPORARYILY UNAVAILABLE FOR IN PERON MEETINGS JULY 16TH – AUGUST 9TH EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 3 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56*** 1 Amanda Hunt From:John Fleming Sent:Tuesday, August 3, 2021 3:59 PM To:Ann Burkhart Cc:Tom Aumock (taumock@cablespeed.com); Paul Burkhart; Amanda Hunt Subject:RE: Question about road BMPs for storm water Attachments:2019SWMMWW V5 Ch3 PP689-704 Dispersion BMPs.pdf; 1 Rural Access Road - Driveway with Details.pdf; 2 Local Service Road with Details.pdf; 3 Local Access Road with Details.pdf Hi Ann: The Department of Community Development (DCD) is the source for guidance on what is required and when, through the permit / development process. As I believe I said in the pre‐app, Public Works (PW) only has jurisdiction over the road approach access off of Oak Bay Road. I know that you are working with Terry Duff on that, and thank you for that! However, if PW were involved with a road, the normal guidance I would share if asked, is found below, and 3 road example drawings are attached. As far as stormwater is concerned, DCD has a step‐by‐step process available to you on their website that was established for the 2014 edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western WA (SWMMWW), and is still mostly applicable to the current 2019 edition too. See “Stormwater Management” mid‐way down the page at: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/544/Land‐Use‐Application‐Forms The selection process for fitting a stormwater facility to your road is looking at each BMP through and “infeasibility” lens. From the link above, Worksheet C ( https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/7247/05‐Worksheet‐ C‐Infeasibility ) pages 6‐13 cover roads and driveways which are considered “Other Hard Surfaces”. Your stormwater designer might be able to simply apply a “dispersion” best management practice (BMP) to your new driveway. The portion of the 2019 SWMMWW that describes the dispersion BMPs for roads and driveways is attached, pages 689 to 704 of Volume 5, chapter 3. Other BMPs might be applicable, and a stormwater designer can help you navigate to the one(s) that best fit your site conditions. The full 1108 paged 2019 SWMMWW is located here: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/Content/Resources/DocsForDownload/2019S WMMWW.pdf As stated in the pre‐app, I do encourage you to at least meet the minimum standards below, to make the driveway (road) most useful for your eventual clients and for emergency service vehicles. Sincerely, John Road Guidance 2 Jefferson County, WA Code (JCC) is here: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/ Unified Development Code JCC 18.30.080(1)(a) requires that transportation facilities be designed and constructed in conformance with the following manuals and standards: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highway Design Manual, Construction Manual, Highway Runoff Manual, Hydraulics Manual, and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction; Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington; Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual; and Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual. Typical Roadway Sections Using its adopted standards, Public Works has developed typical roadway sections for Local Access Roads, Local Service Roads, and Rural Access Roads. (See attached typical sections). Local Access Roads are public or private roads with less than 400 ADT and a maximum speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The standard for a local access road is 22’ total width, 9’ lanes and 2’ shoulders. For private roads the minimum structural section is 6” compacted gravel base over compacted subgrade and 2” compacted crushed surfacing top course. For roads proposed to be County Roads the structural section is a minimum 9” compacted gravel base, 3” compacted crushed surfacing top course, and 2” hot mix asphalt. The proponent may submit an analysis prepared by a licensed engineer that proposes an alternative structural section for review by Public Works. Local Service Roads are private roads with less than 100 ADT and a maximum speed limit of 25 miles per hour that do not have the potential for through traffic or extension. They provide two‐way traffic and have adequate width for fire and emergency vehicles. The standard for a Local Service Road is a 20’ drivable width constructed with a minimum 6” compacted gravel base and a 12’ wide traveled way with 2” compacted crushed surfacing top course. Rural Access Roads provide an alternative to the Local Service Road standard. Rural Access Roads have a 12’ wide traveled way constructed with a minimum 6” compacted gravel base over compacted subgrade and 2” compacted crushed surfacing top course. Rural Access Roads are one lane roads that provide two‐way traffic by means of intervisible turnouts. They are based on the design of recreational roads in State and Federal parks and forest management roads. The turnouts have a total width of 20’ for a length of 50’ with 25’ tapers at each end. Alternative designs that are acceptable to the local Fire District will be considered. If the Rural Access Road standard is used, the intersection with a State Highway, County Road, or private access road should have a 20’ width for the initial 30’with a 25’ long taper to the 12’ wide traveled way to enable entering and exiting vehicles to pass. Unified Development Code JCC 18.30.080(1)(m) requires dedication of 60 feet wide private road easements, but allows a reduced width on recommendation from the Public Works Department. Unified Development Code JCC 18.30.080(1)(p) requires that subdivisions establish an agreement for the continuing maintenance of private roads. Road Approaches, Jefferson County Code Requirements The Jefferson County Code JCC 12.05 requires a permit from the Public Works Department to construct an approach to a County Road. Road Construction Typical Plan Requirements: Local Service Roads and Rural Access Roads are designed for very low traffic volumes (less than 100 ADT) and very low speeds. They do not provide through traffic and are unlikely to be extended. Detailed construction plans are not typically be required. Unless necessitated by topographic or drainage 3 conditions, only a typical section, culvert locations and specifications, and beginning and ending points need to be provided. At Public Works discretion additional information or engineered road and drainage plans may be required: Plan View shall depict: Horizontal alignment of the proposed centerline at 50’ stations; Horizontal curve data; Cut and/or fill slopes; Intersection design; Drainage facilities including culvert diameter, length, material, centerline station and elevation; slope, and skew angle; Stormwater management facilities; Utilities: Existing and proposed, both above and below ground; and Any existing or proposed features that would be affected by the proposed road construction, whether in or outside of the right‐of‐way. 4 Profile View shall depict: Existing elevations and proposed finished grades at 50’ stations; Vertical curve data; and Drainage facilities. Plan Format Scale: 1 inch = 50’ or less; Plans for private roads shall not smaller than 11” x 17”. Structural Section and Surfacing Private roads: The structural section for the traveled way and shoulders shall be a minimum 6” compacted gravel base and 2” compacted crushed surfacing top course. An improved roadway surface is not required. A thicker structural section may be required based on roadway function or site soils. An alternative structural section may be proposed based on analysis by a licensed civil engineer. All materials used in the construction of the structural section shall meet the requirements of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Centerline Roadways shall be constructed on the centerline of the right‐of‐way or easement. Private roads: Prior to construction, the centerline shall be staked by a licensed engineer or professional land surveyor or located based on existing intersection monuments or property corners set by a licensed land surveyor. Roadway width Private Local Access Roads: <400 ADT:18’ with 2’ shoulders; 400 – 1,500 ADT: 20’ with 5’ shoulders Local Service Roads: 20’ drivable width with 12’ traveled way Rural Access Road: 12’ traveled way with 20’ wide intervisible turnouts Cross Slope Private Local Access Roads shall be crowned at the centerline with ‐2% cross slope. An inverted crown and ‐2% cross slope may be allowed on private roads with the appropriate drainage structures. Local Service Roads and Rural Access Roads shall either be crowned at the centerline with ‐2% cross slope or have a continuous ‐2% cross slope from shoulder to shoulder. 5 Ditches Private Local Access Roads: Ditch foreslopes shall have a slope of 4’ horizontal to 1’ vertical. Backslopes and fill slopes shall have a maximum slope of 2’ horizontal to 1’ vertical. Local Service Roads and Rural Access Roads: Ditch foreslopes shall have a slope of 2’ horizontal to 1’ vertical. Backslopes and fill slopes shall have a maximum slope of 2’ horizontal to 1’ vertical. For all roads the bottom of the ditch shall be a minimum 6” below the top of the subgrade. Road Grade Private roads: Road grades shall not exceed 12% without prior written approval by the Fire District. Roads grades exceeding 12% may require an improved roadway surface, either hot mix asphalt or bituminous surface treatment. Road grades shall not exceed 15%. Superelevation Superelevation shall conform to the requirements of the WSDOT Design Manual. Intersection Design All intersections shall be designed so that the centerlines intersect as close to 90 degrees as practicable and in all cases between 75 and 105 degrees. Road plans shall show the radii of the edge of the surfacing at intersections. The road plans shall show any features that are pertinent to the design of the intersection. Intersection design shall provide for adequate drainage. Turnarounds Provision shall be made for vehicles to turn around at the terminus of dead‐end roads that extend more than 300’ from the closest intersection. Hammerhead turnarounds shall conform to either the Public Works’ adopted design standards or be acceptable to the Fire District. Cul‐de‐sacs shall have a minimum 45’ radius. Sight Distance Stopping sight distance as determined by the WSDOT Design Manual shall be provided on all road segments. Clear Zone A clear zone shall be maintained between the edge of the traveled way and any obstructions. For roads with a posted speed limit of 35 MPH or less there shall be a 10 feet wide clear zone between the edge of traveled way and any obstructions. 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: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:39 PM To: John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; taumock@cablespeed.com; Paul Burkhart <designerprb@gmail.com> Subject: Question about road BMPs for storm water CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi John, 6 We turned in our CUP application (CASE #: MLA21‐00066) but hadn't realized we needed the Stormwater Management Plan included. We are working on that but haven't found good guidance for roads. We have reviewed the applicable sections of the UDC. I also found the Non‐Public Road/Driveway Design and Construction Standards but didn't see anything specific to stormwater. Can you help point me in the right direction? Thank you. Ann ‐‐ Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Thursday, August 5, 2021 10:00 AM To:'sepahelp@ecy.wa.gov' Cc:Shannen Cartmel Subject:SEPA Exemption Interpretation Assistance Good Morning, My name is Amanda Hunt and I am an Assistant Planner for the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. I have a quick question regarding the following Jefferson County SEPA Exemption for commercial buildings: “(d) Pursuant to WAC 197‐11‐800(1)(c)(iii), the maximum exempt level for the construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 12,000 square feet of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for up to 40 automobiles (JCC 18.40.750(1)(d))”. Please see the following link for the Jefferson County Code: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1840.html#18.40.750 In this categorically exempt action statement, does the 12,000 square feet of gross floor area apply to one building or does the maximum gross floor area apply to the entire project proposal? For example, if an applicant is proposing two commercial buildings under one conditional use permit, can both commercial buildings be 12,000 square feet, or does the total square footage of both buildings have to be 12,000 square feet or less? Secondly, if one or more buildings are approved under this SEPA Exemption (JCC 18.40.750(1)(d)), can the applicant apply for additional commercial or non‐commercial buildings on the property in the future (if the future proposals meet the same SEPA exemption)? Or is the property limited to the 12,000 square feet of commercial gross floor area after the conditional use permit is approved? Your assistance is greatly appreciated! Please let me know if a quick phone call is easier. My phone number is 206‐612‐ 8297. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us TEMPORARYILY UNAVAILABLE FOR IN PERON MEETINGS JULY 16TH – AUGUST 9TH EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. 2 Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Friday, August 13, 2021 4:24 PM To:John Fleming Subject:RE: Burkhart ZON2021-00040 STORMWATER PLANS & PACKET Hi John, Good Afternoon‐ If you are almost finished with the stormwater review, please continue with the Conditional Use Permit Hourly Rate ($90.00 per hour of review time) for commercial stormwater review. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: John Fleming Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 9:42 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Burkhart ZON2021‐00040 STORMWATER PLANS & PACKET Hi Amanda: Yes, DCD usually routes commercial projects to PW for review. DCD also collects PW review fee for stormwater, $722 for 2021. I have initiated review, and will continue once fees have been collected and entered into Tidemark. 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: Amanda Hunt Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 8:41 AM To: John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: STORMWATER PLANS & PACKET Hi John, Good Morning‐ Please see the attached Stormwater Plan (Stormwater Site Plan(s) and Large Stormwater Packet) for the proposed Pomona Woods Retreat Center application (MLA2021‐00066). The applicant is planning to use Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30) for roof runoff (Retreat Center & Caretaker Residence) and for driveway runoff. The property is over 5 acres. 2 Since this project is considered “commercial”, I believe this stormwater plan/proposal requires your review. Applicant: Ann Burkhart Proposed Use: The proposed use is categorized as Small‐Scale Recreation & Tourism Building Type: Commercial Permit Application: Type III Conditional Use Permit Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you and have a great weekend! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Paul Burkhart <designerprb@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 7, 2021 7:20 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Subject: STORMWATER PLANS & PACKET CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Amanda, Thanks for talking with us last Wednesday. I have now put together a Stormwater Site Plan and SWPPP, as well as filling out the Large Stormwater Packet. It all seems pretty clear now that I've gotten through it. Thanks for reviewing and I'll be ready for any comments you may have. Paul Burkhart 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:51 PM To:'Ann Burkhart'; Paul Burkhart Subject:RE: Follow up from your 8/12 site visit to Pomona Woods Attachments:SEPA CHECKLIST.pdf Hi Ann, Good Afternoon‐ Thank you for checking in! I have spoken to an Environmental Planner from the SEPA Unit of the WA Department of Ecology and to the Jefferson County DCD UDC Administrator regarding your questions below. Please see the answers in “blue”: 1. Pomona Woods driveway: I can't find anything to indicate that I have to be finished with the CUP before I build my road/driveway but I defer to the JeffCo team. It would be helpful to know the decision soon so I can inform the Shold team. I had scheduled them for a late August start since I had earlier been told they weren't dependent. After speaking with the DCD UDC Administrator and reviewing the Jefferson County Code, we concluded that the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit (the highest numbered type procedure) must be approved prior to the approval of Road Approach (Type I) Permit (the subsequent lower numbered procedure). The Jefferson County Code (JCC) outlines this regulation in JCC 18.40.030(2) “Determination of proper type of procedure”. The work associated with the road approach and access road must therefore wait until the Conditional Use Permit has been approved. Jefferson County Code link: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1840.html#18.40.03 0 2. SEPA Checklist: I have completed a first draft and just need to review again looking at the guidelines, as well as have Paul give it a once over. Of course I would prefer not to have to pay the $1,200 and experience any additional delays, but look to the team's decision. Some proposed development (Caretaker Residence, Retreat Center, Parking Lot) in the Pomona Woods Retreat Center application meets the SEPA exemption under JCC 18.40.750(d): “Pursuant to WAC 197‐11‐800(1)(c)(iii), the maximum exempt level for the construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 12,000 square feet of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for up to 40 automobiles”. However, the proposed access road (24,540 sq. ft) does not fall under the exemption listed above or under other SEPA exemptions listed in JCC 18.40.750 or WAC 197‐11‐800. SEPA review shall therefore be required in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit Application. In order to move forward with the permit application, please fill out and submit a SEPA Checklist to Jefferson County DCD. Please see the attached PDF for the SEPA Checklist. If you have any questions while filling out the document, please let me know! I will send you the SEPA review fee invoice by tomorrow afternoon. 3. Related to what I am allowed to build on‐site (not SEPA exemptions): In the pre‐App conference they said that outdoor decks, etc. did not count toward the 12,000 sq. feet building limit (plus caretaker cabin), but 2 they were not sure about unheated spaces like the pump house for the well or another unheated mechanical area outside the building. If we could get a confirmation on that it would help us as we move to the next phase of building design. If the structure (impervious surface area) is a functional part of the commercial building, then the structure will count towards the maximum 12,000 sq. ft commercial building area. This includes unheated spaces like pump houses and outdoor decks that generate impervious surface area. 4. Finally, thank you for sending me Ross Goodwin's contact info. I'm embarrassed that I can't remember what question I had for him related to the adjacent commercial forest property. I think you were going to ask him how commercial harvested (cleared) areas replanted and managed in the short‐term and long‐term. Please let me know if you still have any questions. Thank you! Best, Amanda H> Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 12:16 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Paul Burkhart <designerprb@gmail.com> Subject: Follow up from your 8/12 site visit to Pomona Woods CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Amanda, I'm checking in to see if there is any progress on our outstanding items. Below is what I'm tracking. Let me know if I'm forgetting anything. 1. Pomona Woods driveway: I can't find anything to indicate that I have to be finished with the CUP before I build my road/driveway but I defer to the JeffCo team. It would be helpful to know the decision soon so I can inform the Shold team. I had scheduled them for a late August start since I had earlier been told they weren't dependent. 2. SEPA Checklist: I have completed a first draft and just need to review again looking at the guidelines, as well as have Paul give it a once over. Of course I would prefer not to have to pay the $1,200 and experience any additional delays, but look to the team's decision. 3. Related to what I am allowed to build on‐site (not SEPA exemptions): In the pre‐App conference they said that outdoor decks, etc. did not count toward the 12,000 sq. feet building limit (plus caretaker cabin), but they were not sure about unheated spaces like the pump house for the well or another unheated mechanical area outside the building. If we could get a confirmation on that it would help us as we move to the next phase of building design. 3 Finally, thank you for sending me Ross Goodwin's contact info. I'm embarrassed that I can't remember what question I had for him related to the adjacent commercial forest property. Thank you! Let me know if any of these questions aren't clear. Ann ‐‐ Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Thursday, August 19, 2021 3:44 PM To:'Ann Burkhart' Subject:DCD SEPA Review Invoice - Pomona Woods (MLA2021-00066) Attachments:SEPA_INVOICE_08192021.pdf Hi Ann, Good Afternoon‐ Jefferson County DCD has determined that your proposed project requires SEPA review. To move forward with your permit application, we will need to receive your payment for SEPA review. Please see the attached PDF of the invoice to view the total payment due and payment instructions. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me or a front desk staff member at 360‐379‐4450. Thank you! Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 20, 2021 11:51 AM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Re: SEPA Checklist and attachments CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Amanda. Thank you! The NRCS doc wasn't requested but I had it from the free forester visit offered through the WA state DNR. It supported the questions about soils so I included it in the packet. Hope you are enjoying a little respite from the heat! Cheers, Ann On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 11:27 AM Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi Ann, Good Morning‐ Thank you for sending Jefferson County DCD the requested additional information! At a glance, everything looks good‐ thank you for your organization! I will verify the completeness of the documents sometime next week and will let you know if any other additional information is required before the Notice of Application period begins. Did someone from another department request the NRCS docs? Or were you submitting them in conjunction with the SEPA checklist? Thank you and have a great weekend 😊 Best, Amanda H. 2 Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 11:13 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Paul Burkhart <designerprb@gmail.com> Subject: SEPA Checklist and attachments CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Amanda, Thank you for your email yesterday. I've put off the road construction until after the CUP is complete and we'll take the response on what counts toward the 12,000 sq. ft. into our design. Attached is the completed CUP (I used the Word Doc I'd been sent earlier ‐ hope that works). I am also attaching a number of documents to support the answers given. I believe we have previously submitted all of them with the exception of the NRCS doc, but I wanted you to have a neat package. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I missed anything. I will make the payment for the SEPA Checklist as soon as I get the invoice. Thank you so much for all your help! When you have any updates on timing that would be helpful and if there is anything I can do to aid the timeline let me know. Have a great weekend. Ann ‐‐ Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 3 ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56*** 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Wednesday, September 1, 2021 9:18 AM To:Ann Burkhart Subject:RE: Next steps and letter of determination Attachments:ASC_MLA21-00066_09012021.pdf Hi Ann, Good Morning‐ Please see the attached PDF for the Pomona Woods Substantially Complete Application Letter (MLA2021‐00066). Jefferson County DCD is proposing to start the Notice of Application and Comment period on Wednesday, September 15th (two weeks from today). Please confirm if you are available to pick up notice boards on Tuesday, September 14th. If you are not available, we can look at the following week to start the Notice and Comment period. In the meantime, I will be preparing all written materials required for the Notice of Application and Comment period. We can also schedule a phone call to clarify any questions or concerns. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 10:05 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Next steps and letter of determination CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Amanda, We were up at the property yesterday with our contractor G. Little and are getting excited about everything to come. (We met first at their office which I didn't realize was right across from the DCD office.) I thought I would check in today because I believe the next step was the letter of determination, which you thought you would have ready by end of last week or beginning of this week. Is there anything you need from me? Thanks! Ann ‐‐ Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 2 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:NoReply@ecy.wa.gov Sent:Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:49 AM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Your SEPA Record Has Been Submitted! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. The Department of Ecology has received a new SEPA record from Amanda Hunt at Jefferson County with a File Number of: . Your record is being reviewed by an administrator. From: Amanda Hunt Email: ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone number: (360) 379‐4458 1 Amanda Hunt From:Morgan Higdon Sent:Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:40 AM To:Amanda Hunt Cc:Jodi Adams Subject:RE: MLA21-00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application- Post to DCD Public Notice Page Hi Amanda, Here is the link : https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/586/Public‐Notices Morgan Higdon Office Coordinator Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mon-Thurs 9am - 4:30pm, closed from 12-1 Ph: 360-379-4483 Fax: 360-379-4451 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:06 AM To: Morgan Higdon <MHigdon@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Jodi Adams <jadams@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA21‐00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application‐ Post to DCD Public Notice Page Hi Morgan, Can you send me a link to the page? Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Morgan Higdon Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:38 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA21‐00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application‐ Post to DCD Public Notice Page Perfect, thank you. I have it all set up on the Public Notice page. 2 Morgan Higdon Office Coordinator Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mon-Thurs 9am - 4:30pm, closed from 12-1 Ph: 360-379-4483 Fax: 360-379-4451 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:33 PM To: Morgan Higdon <MHigdon@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA21‐00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application‐ Post to DCD Public Notice Page Done! 😊 Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Morgan Higdon Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:05 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA21‐00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application‐ Post to DCD Public Notice Page Yes. 😊 Morgan Higdon Office Coordinator Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mon-Thurs 9am - 4:30pm, closed from 12-1 Ph: 360-379-4483 Fax: 360-379-4451 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:01 PM To: Morgan Higdon <MHigdon@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA21‐00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application‐ Post to DCD Public Notice Page 3 Is the planner supposed to create a project folder here?: Jefferson\Community Development\DCD PUBLIC CASE FILES\2021\2021 MLA (Master Land Use Applications) Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Morgan Higdon Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 2:34 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Jodi Adams <jadams@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA21‐00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application‐ Post to DCD Public Notice Page Hi Amanda, These documents need to be in LaserFiche for me to upload a link to the website. Please let me know once you have these uploaded. Thank you, Morgan Higdon Office Coordinator Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mon-Thurs 9am - 4:30pm, closed from 12-1 Ph: 360-379-4483 Fax: 360-379-4451 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 11:22 AM To: Morgan Higdon <MHigdon@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Jodi Adams <jadams@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: MLA21‐00066 Pomona Woods LLC Notice of Application‐ Post to DCD Public Notice Page Hi Morgan, Good Afternoon‐ Can you please post the following to the DCD Homepage by September 15th? Here is the application that needs to be noticed: Application Number: MLA21‐00066 Applicant: Pomona Woods LLC Postal District: Port Hadlock Location: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 ‐ Township 29N ‐ Range 1E; Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Notice Date: September 15th, 2021 Project Description: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN SMALL‐SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER ‐ Pomona Woods LLC proposes to construct a commercial, small‐scale tourist retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak 4 Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not‐for‐profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,355 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty‐four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty‐five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on‐site caretakers), septic system, parking lot, lawn area, two access roads, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 43,607 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). File Location: G:\PermitCenter\2‐Permits\MLA\MLA21‐00066 (11 files) Once you have the DCD Notice Page file location, can you please send me a link (which I will forward on to the parties of record). Also, do you need the APO and APO Publish in the G Drive as well? Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us DCD will be closed Sept 13-17 for staff training. Please submit any permit applications to the dropbox outside the office or here: Application Submittal EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Friday, October 15, 2021 11:46 AM To:Susan Porto; Emma Erickson Cc:Shirley Reynolds Subject:MLA21-49 & MLA21-66 EH REVIEW REQUEST Attachments:MLA21-00049 EH Review Request Letter 10152021.pdf; MLA21-66 EH Review Request Letter 10152021.pdf Hi Susan, Good Morning‐ Please see the attached PDF’s for the EH Reviewer Request Letters (for MLA2021‐00049 & MLA2021‐ 00066). The application materials and reviewer letters are also uploaded in Laserfiche. Please also review the Department of Ecology Comment Letters for BOTH permits. I believe there is information applicable to EH review in both DOE letters. Here are the LS addresses: Jefferson\Community Development\DCD PUBLIC CASE FILES\2021\2021 MLA (Master Land Use Applications)\MLA21‐00066 Jefferson\Community Development\DCD PUBLIC CASE FILES\2021\2021 MLA (Master Land Use Applications)\MLA21‐00049 Also, is it typical for EH to send the applicant their review invoice, or is that something DCD does on EH’s behalf? Can you please confirm the appropriate fee amount and invoice title in Tidemark? Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, October 29, 2021 4:42 PM To:bgraham@jeffpud.org Cc:Amanda Hunt Subject:Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water system ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Bill, I spoke with Susan Porto of JeffCo Public Health today. She let me know she had spoken with you about my project on Oak Bay Road (no address yet but it would be 3030 Oak Bay Road and parcel #s are 921183008 and 921183002. Susan let me know that there is public water approximately 700’ from my parcels and I should check with you about details. Should we schedule a phone call or do you prefer email? My main questions: What would be involved for me to hook up to the existing public water (cost and timeline)? Do I hire a contractor for connecting to the water main or pay the PUD or do I have a choice? Or if the PUD is coming my way anyway does PUD cover the cost? Is the hook up down at the road level or would I be getting an easement through the Pope commercial forestry property. If I am connecting at the road, I will be bringing it up a long private drive. Am I responsible for getting a contractor for that or paying PUD for the work or, again, do I have the option to choose? Do you have a benchmark for water usage per room for a facility with all water wise fixtures and appliances (and practices) so I can use PUD's current rates to project costs for Pomona Woods yearly water usage? It would obviously be good for the community if I could hook up to a public water source so I look forward to exploring this with you. Thank you. Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 4, 2021 3:20 PM To:Amanda Hunt; Susan Porto Subject:Fwd: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water system ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Amanda and Susan, I think this string has all my communications with Bill. My contractor, Trent McKnight, is connecting me with someone who can design the hook up/extension so I can then get Shold and/or others to bid on the work. Once I have that, and additional information from Bill, I should have a good sense for the costs and can make a decision about well vs. connection to PUD water. In the meantime, I've asked NW Water Systems to halt work on the well design so if I go with PUD I can get some money back on my deposit. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Ann ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:17 AM Subject: RE: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water system To: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Hi Ann, I spoke with my manager and I am a little embarrassed to say we don't have a water line extension "application", but I think we can use a water service application. We do water line extensions all the time mostly as quotes for service (we give you a cost to install a meter, service development charge), but it doesn’t include the cost to get the water line to you. You will need to find a contractor on your own to get that cost estimate and design. The design will need to be according to our specifications and once you have that design we will need to review it prior to installation. The design should be such that it sets us up to extend the line passed your property in the future. I will discuss this with my manager in the next couple days and will follow up with you Monday. Let me know if you have any questions. Bill Bill Graham Resource Manager Jefferson PUD (360)385‐8375 2 Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is subject to the Washington Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Therefore, this email and its attachments, if any, may be disclosed as a public record. Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 5:57 PM To: Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> Subject: Re: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water system Thank you for all the information Bill! I'm reviewing the policy which you provided via link but I didn't see the application attached to either of your emails. I searched online but couldn't find it either. Can you send it to me? I'll turn it around as soon as possible. Best regards, Ann On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:08 AM Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> wrote: > Hi Ann, > > Below is the long and short answers to your questions about a water > line extension to your properties. I gave you a description of our > water line extension policy in general and your specific questions in > CAPS in your email below. See the narrative below all of it. Now I > need to find the water line extension application... > > > > Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is subject to the > Washington Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Therefore, this email and > its attachments, if any, may be disclosed as a public record. > > > Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is an Equal > Opportunity Provider and Employer. > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 4:42 PM > To: Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> > Cc: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> > Subject: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water > system > > Hi Bill, > > I spoke with Susan Porto of JeffCo Public Health today. She let me 3 > know she had spoken with you about my project on Oak Bay Road (no > address yet but it would be 3030 Oak Bay Road and parcel #s are 921183008 and 921183002. > > Susan let me know that there is public water approximately 700’ from > my parcels and I should check with you about details. Should we > schedule a phone call or do you prefer email? My main questions: > > ‐ What would be involved for me to hook up to the existing public water > (cost and timeline)? > SEE MY NARRATIVE. > ‐ Do I hire a contractor for connecting to the water main or pay > the PUD HIRE AND PAY CONTRACTOR (MOSTLY) AND PAY PUD FOR CHARGES AND FEES. > > or do I have a choice? Or if the PUD is coming my way anyway does > PUD cover > the cost? > THE PUD IS ON NO TIMELINE TO PROVIDE SERVICE IN YOUR AREA. A LINE > EXTENSION IS THE FASTEST WAY TO GET SERVICE TO YOUR PROPERTIES. > > ‐ Is the hook up down at the road level or would I be getting an > easement through the Pope commercial forestry property. > POSSIBLY. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE > COUNTY WITHOUT AN EASEMENT WITH POPE. > > ‐ If I am connecting at the road, I will be bringing it up a long > private drive. Am I responsible for getting a contractor for that or > paying PUD for the work or, again, do I have the option to choose? > WE NEED THE LINE TO BE BUILT THE FULL LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY. THE LINE > FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY/METER BOX LOCATION ONTO YOUR PROPERTY IS YOUR > RESPONSIBILITY. > > ‐ Do you have a benchmark for water usage per room for a facility with > all water wise fixtures and appliances (and practices) so I can use > PUD's > current rates to project costs for Pomona Woods yearly water usage? > WE DO NOT. WE DO HAVE PLANNED USE PER DAY PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL > UNIT > (ERU) THAT IS THE BASIS OF UTILITY PLANNING. IN THAT AREA, AND ERU IS > ABOUT > 150 ‐ 160 GALLONS PER DAY. A CONSERVATION GOAL, WE WOULD PREFER WOULD > BE ABOUT 120 GALLONS PER DAY OR LESS. > > > It would obviously be good for the community if I could hook up to a > public water source so I look forward to exploring this with you. > > Thank you. > Ann > *Ann Burkhart, owner* > *Pomona Woods* > *206‐480‐8467* > Hi Ann, 4 > > Sorry for the delay in response. Yes, the PUD has a water line about > 700 ft to the north of those parcels. They are located within our > future water service area which is an area where we don’t currently > provide service but have state and local permission to provide water > service in a timely (120 > days) and reasonable manner according to PUD specifications, charges > and fees and > > The fastest route to get you hooked up would be a line extension. With > some minor exceptions, the entire cost of the line extension is borne > by the applicant and ownership of it along with responsibility to > operate and maintain it would be transferred to the PUD upon > completion. There may be opportunities to share costs with property > owners between you and the end of the PUD line if they want to hook up > now or through a latecomer agreement. Currently we are at the > intersection of Eagle Ridge Road and Oak Bay Road with two properties > between us and the line could be installed via the public right of way on Oak Bay Road. > > That is the preliminaries. We actually need you to fill out a water > line extension application. On our side, we would need to review your > plans and make determinations regarding what additional facilities or > conditions (booster pump, meter yokes, cross connection control > devices, etc.) would needed concurrently beyond just the water line. > This will give you a more precise estimate of cost of the project for > you and comes with the technical review of your plans and application. > Once we agree to terms and conditions, your contractor would be ready to move ahead. > > In general we require that the length of the water line extension > extend the full length of your property, in this case the line would > go the full length of 921183002. > > There are other fees such as an extension fee ($250.00) and a > maintenance bond requirement (we can discuss this later). Other fees > include service installation charge and a system development charge > standard for all water hook ups of this type. > > Anyhow, I don’t want to go too much further down a rabbit hole here as > there as more things to consider such as over‐sizing which may be an > issue here. The cost for a bigger pipe for instance could potentially be shared. > These are the issues we need to consider when we review your plans for > the line. Oversizing/replacement costs are thing that we can > potentially be negotiated with you as the applicant. > > So this ought to get us started. The description above is > essentially our board‐approved line extension policy. Please consider > this an outline as it does not include all the specifics of the > policy, but its close. I can send that to you upon request. In the > meantime, I am enclosing the Line Extension application to get you started. > > Look forward to working with you on this! > 5 > Bill > > > Bill Graham > Resource Manager > Jefferson PUD > (360)385‐8375 > > > > 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Thursday, November 4, 2021 2:33 PM To:'Ann Burkhart' Subject:RE: quick question Attachments:06- STORMWATER SITE PLAN.pdf Hi Ann, Good Afternoon‐ Thank you for checking in! Please see the following text for the DCD review status update of the Pomona Woods Project: 1. SEPA Checklist/Additional Information Request: I am currently working with the DCD UDC Administrator to annotate the SEPA Checklist and prepare an Additional Information Request. These two documents should be sent to you by the end of next week. 2. Revised Site Plan: I have reviewed your revised site plan and uploaded the plan to your permit file. Next time we schedule a phone call we should discuss your revisions. Since the locations of the buildings, road, and parking area have been moved , the stormwater site plan must also be revised to reflect the new locations of the project components with the corresponding stormwater BMPs (see attached PDF for the current Stormwater Site Plan). 3. Hearing Examiner: The current Jefferson County Hearing Examiner is retiring. The new Jefferson County Hearing Examiner should be selected by January 1st, 2022. It is likely that most Public Hearings will be scheduled in the new year. January 2022 would be the earliest public hearing availability until further notice. 4. PUD/Water Connection: Please forward Bill Graham response to me and Susan P. Are you thinking of continuing with the public water connection process instead of the private well? Thank you! If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 10:37 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: quick question ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Amanda, I left a vm at your x458 number but I wasn't sure if a message was actually being recorded ‐ sorry if this is a duplicate. Anyway, I heard a rumor that the hearing examiner has retired and there are no hearings being scheduled until a new one is found. As you can imagine this is very disturbing news if true. Before I worry too much and write the head of the DCD I thought I would make sure I have the facts. 2 By the way, Bill Graham responded to me without keeping you on copy. It seems like it might be possible to hook up to the PUD line but I need to file for an extension and he hasn't sent that form yet. Do you want me to forward his emails to you? Thanks! Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Wednesday, November 10, 2021 4:20 PM To:John Fleming Subject:RE: Pomona Woods Revised Stormwater Plans Thank you John! Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: John Fleming Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:54 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: Pomona Woods Revised Stormwater Plans Hi Amanda: The current revised site plan received by DCD November 10, 2021 still meets the intent of having stormwater managed by full dispersion with mostly all of the new impervious surfaces having at least 100 feet of flow path through native vegetation before reaching their property lines. John From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:36 PM To: John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Pomona Woods Revised Stormwater Plans Hi John, Good Afternoon‐ Attached are the revised stormwater site plan and large stormwater packet for the Pomona Woods Project (MLA2021‐00066). It looks like Ann has moved the locations of the parking lot, road, and buildings. The septic area and entrance appear to be in the same place. Ann has also included the proposed well location on this revision. The caretaker residence and caretaker residence parking may not have enough room for the 100 ft dispersion flow path area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us 2 EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 7, 2021 8:47 AM To:Bill Graham; Amanda Hunt; Susan Porto Subject:Re: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water system Attachments:Water Service Worksheet Pomona Woods.pdf; Site Plan Oct28.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 Bill, Attached is the filled out Water Service Worksheet. I've also included the site plan so you can see where the road will be located and where the buildings will be. Below is language from our Conditional Use Application regarding the buildings: Pomona Woods, will be a 24 room retreat center with a commercial kitchen on‐site to serve guests 3 meals a day. Guests will be on‐site as a hosted group (corporate or not‐for‐profit strategic planning off site, yoga workshop, family or friends gathering, etc). No individual room reservations will be taken. The maximum square footage of the retreat building will be 12,000 square feet. The building design will incorporate sustainability best practices. In addition, the manager's residence will be a 710 SF structure with 1 bathroom. Roof rainwater collection cisterns will be used on the main building to collect water for minimal on‐site landscape watering. Please let me know if additional information is needed. Best regards, Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:03 PM Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> wrote: Hi Ann, I guess you could fill out the top half. Plus a description of what you are looking for in terms of number and types of connections (one commercial or one meter per residence). This application will help get the ball rolling. Do you have a project description that you submitted to county? That would help. Bill Bill Graham Resource Manager Jefferson PUD (360)385‐8375 2 Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is subject to the Washington Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Therefore, this email and its attachments, if any, may be disclosed as a public record. Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 1:47 PM To: Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> Subject: Re: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water system Hi Bill, Is this the form you need me to fill out? https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffiles.jeffpud.org%2fwp‐ content%2fuploads%2f2019%2f07%2f14133953%2fWater_Service_Worksheet.pdf&c=E,1,KlW0ajodu_MaIjFiTsRIOeob HjfnmLWbm5pMH8XQBP1ARNeIhhWS414l0mcElLZvfVLe3DO4F57iFVhsc‐ rHG0BvHuMjB8nEoxjzde0mkU4Ik8IEu33_&typo=1 What numbers should I put on the application for fees if this is the right form? Thanks again. Sorry for repeat emails. Ann On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:17 AM Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> wrote: > Hi Ann, > > I spoke with my manager and I am a little embarrassed to say we don't > have a water line extension "application", but I think we can use a > water service application. We do water line extensions all the time > mostly as quotes for service (we give you a cost to install a meter, > service development charge), but it doesn’t include the cost to get > the water line to you. You will need to find a contractor on your own > to get that cost estimate and design. The design will need to be > according to our specifications and once you have that design we will > need to review it prior to installation. The design should be such > that it sets us up to extend the line passed your property in the future. > > I will discuss this with my manager in the next couple days and will > follow up with you Monday. > > Let me know if you have any questions. > > Bill > > > Bill Graham > Resource Manager > Jefferson PUD > (360)385‐8375 > > 3 > > > Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is subject to the > Washington Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Therefore, this email and > its attachments, if any, may be disclosed as a public record. > > > Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is an Equal > Opportunity Provider and Employer. > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 5:57 PM > To: Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> > Subject: Re: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water > system > > Thank you for all the information Bill! > > I'm reviewing the policy which you provided via link but I didn't see > the application attached to either of your emails. I searched online > but couldn't find it either. Can you send it to me? I'll turn it > around as soon as possible. > > Best regards, > Ann > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:08 AM Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> wrote: > > > Hi Ann, > > > > Below is the long and short answers to your questions about a water > > line extension to your properties. I gave you a description of our > > water line extension policy in general and your specific questions > > in CAPS in your email below. See the narrative below all of it. Now > > I need to find the water line extension application... > > > > > > > > Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is subject to the > > Washington Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Therefore, this email and > > its attachments, if any, may be disclosed as a public record. > > > > > > Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is an Equal > > Opportunity Provider and Employer. > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > > From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 4:42 PM > > To: Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> > > Cc: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> > > Subject: Pomona Woods project possible connection to Quimper water > > system 4 > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > I spoke with Susan Porto of JeffCo Public Health today. She let me > > know she had spoken with you about my project on Oak Bay Road (no > > address yet but it would be 3030 Oak Bay Road and parcel #s are > 921183008 and 921183002. > > > > Susan let me know that there is public water approximately 700’ from > > my parcels and I should check with you about details. Should we > > schedule a phone call or do you prefer email? My main questions: > > > > ‐ What would be involved for me to hook up to the existing public > water > > (cost and timeline)? > > SEE MY NARRATIVE. > > ‐ Do I hire a contractor for connecting to the water main or pay > > the PUD HIRE AND PAY CONTRACTOR (MOSTLY) AND PAY PUD FOR CHARGES AND > FEES. > > > > or do I have a choice? Or if the PUD is coming my way anyway does > > PUD cover > > the cost? > > THE PUD IS ON NO TIMELINE TO PROVIDE SERVICE IN YOUR AREA. A LINE > > EXTENSION IS THE FASTEST WAY TO GET SERVICE TO YOUR PROPERTIES. > > > > ‐ Is the hook up down at the road level or would I be getting an > > easement through the Pope commercial forestry property. > > POSSIBLY. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE > > COUNTY WITHOUT AN EASEMENT WITH POPE. > > > > ‐ If I am connecting at the road, I will be bringing it up a long > > private drive. Am I responsible for getting a contractor for that or > > paying PUD for the work or, again, do I have the option to choose? > > WE NEED THE LINE TO BE BUILT THE FULL LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY. THE > > LINE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY/METER BOX LOCATION ONTO YOUR PROPERTY IS > > YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. > > > > ‐ Do you have a benchmark for water usage per room for a facility with > > all water wise fixtures and appliances (and practices) so I can > > use PUD's > > current rates to project costs for Pomona Woods yearly water usage? > > WE DO NOT. WE DO HAVE PLANNED USE PER DAY PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL > > UNIT > > (ERU) THAT IS THE BASIS OF UTILITY PLANNING. IN THAT AREA, AND ERU > > IS ABOUT > > 150 ‐ 160 GALLONS PER DAY. A CONSERVATION GOAL, WE WOULD PREFER > > WOULD BE ABOUT 120 GALLONS PER DAY OR LESS. > > > > > > It would obviously be good for the community if I could hook up to a > > public water source so I look forward to exploring this with you. 5 > > > > Thank you. > > Ann > > *Ann Burkhart, owner* > > *Pomona Woods* > > *206‐480‐8467* > > Hi Ann, > > > > Sorry for the delay in response. Yes, the PUD has a water line about > > 700 ft to the north of those parcels. They are located within our > > future water service area which is an area where we don’t currently > > provide service but have state and local permission to provide water > > service in a timely (120 > > days) and reasonable manner according to PUD specifications, charges > > and fees and > > > > The fastest route to get you hooked up would be a line extension. > > With some minor exceptions, the entire cost of the line extension is > > borne by the applicant and ownership of it along with responsibility > > to operate and maintain it would be transferred to the PUD upon > > completion. There may be opportunities to share costs with property > > owners between you and the end of the PUD line if they want to hook > > up now or through a latecomer agreement. Currently we are at the > > intersection of Eagle Ridge Road and Oak Bay Road with two > > properties between us and the line could be installed via the public > > right of way > on Oak Bay Road. > > > > That is the preliminaries. We actually need you to fill out a water > > line extension application. On our side, we would need to review > > your plans and make determinations regarding what additional > > facilities or conditions (booster pump, meter yokes, cross > > connection control devices, etc.) would needed concurrently beyond just the water line. > > This will give you a more precise estimate of cost of the project > > for you and comes with the technical review of your plans and application. > > Once we agree to terms and conditions, your contractor would be > > ready to > move ahead. > > > > In general we require that the length of the water line extension > > extend the full length of your property, in this case the line would > > go the full length of 921183002. > > > > There are other fees such as an extension fee ($250.00) and a > > maintenance bond requirement (we can discuss this later). Other fees > > include service installation charge and a system development charge > > standard for all water hook ups of this type. > > > > Anyhow, I don’t want to go too much further down a rabbit hole here > > as there as more things to consider such as over‐sizing which may be > > an issue here. The cost for a bigger pipe for instance could > > potentially be 6 > shared. > > These are the issues we need to consider when we review your plans > > for the line. Oversizing/replacement costs are thing that we can > > potentially be negotiated with you as the applicant. > > > > So this ought to get us started. The description above is > > essentially our board‐approved line extension policy. Please > > consider this an outline as it does not include all the specifics of > > the policy, but its close. I can send that to you upon request. In > > the meantime, I am enclosing the Line Extension application to get > > you > started. > > > > Look forward to working with you on this! > > > > Bill > > > > > > Bill Graham > > Resource Manager > > Jefferson PUD > > (360)385‐8375 > > > > > > > > > ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56*** 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Friday, November 19, 2021 1:39 PM To:Ann Burkhart; Ann Burkhart Cc:Paul Burkhart Subject:MLA2021-00066 11/18/2021 DCD Phone Conference Follow Up Attachments:DCD Phone Conference Summary 11182021.pdf Hi Ann, Good Afternoon‐ Thank you again for attending the DCD Phone Conference yesterday afternoon! Please see the attached PDF for a summary of the topics we discussed. Please see the link below for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (2018): https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/578/Jefferson‐County‐Comprehensive‐Plan Click “Currently Adopted Comprehensive Plan” then “Jefferson CP 2018_12”. Please let me know if you have any questions as you continue to revise the SEPA Environmental Checklist. Thank you and have a wonderful weekend! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 22, 2021 10:54 AM To:Amanda Hunt Cc:David W. Johnson; Paul Burkhart; Trent McKnight Subject:Revised Documents post 11/18/21 meeting Attachments:SEPA Environmental Checklist_PomonaWoods_Revised11_19_21.docx; Site Plan 11_19_21.pdf; JeffersonOakBayBurkhartErosion5.1.21v2.pdf; Rain Garden Calculations.xlsx ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Amanda and David, Thank you again for a very helpful meeting on Thursday. Attached are the following updated or new documents we discussed. SEPA Checklist Site Plan updated to remove well and show water line extension Dan McShane's updated Geotech Report Rain Garden Calculations We didn't update the Stormwater Worksheet because it was just 400sf, and bringing in the water utility would probably take up some extra square footage. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I hope you have a great holiday weekend! Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Susan Porto Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 10:18 AM To:Amanda Hunt; Emma Erickson Subject:FW: Updates and status for Pomona Woods extension project of Quimper Water System Fyi, see below. I will refund the well inspection fee as soon as we are assured this is a go by a response from the PUD. S From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 7:20 PM To: Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org>; Trent Murphy <trent@tmmengineeringllc.com>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Updates and status for Pomona Woods extension project of Quimper Water System ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Bill, I wanted to let you know that we are committed to the water line extension and have hired Trent Murphy of TMM Engineering to do the design. He will be reaching out to Jefferson PUD on Pomona Woods' behalf. I have sent questions in a few emails but I know you have probably been very busy cleaning up from the storm, so I thought it would be helpful to consolidate them here: Trent said he will need a topographical/utility survey of the proposed waterline corridor. Is that something PUD can send him or point where it can be found? What diameter pipe do we need from the water main at Eagle Ridge to the end of my property? You mentioned cost sharing if it has to be oversized. How does that work? Did they have to use a booster pump to get the water up the hill at Eagle Ridge? Is that what you would recommend for my project? What PUD fees should I include in the calculations? You mentioned a $250 extension fee but then said there would be a maintenance bond, and service installation fee. Can you tell me how much those will be? I've sent you the Water Service Worksheet. What else do you need from me and what are the next steps/timeline? Thank you. I hope you have a great Thanksgiving Holiday. Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 4:35 PM To:Terry Duff Cc:Amanda Hunt Subject:Re: Right-of-Way parking on Oak Bay Road ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Terry and Amanda, Just FYI, I went up to the property today to show it to a friend. We both parked S of the utility pole that is about 150‐ 200' S of Terri Ross' driveway. When we were coming back to the cars I saw a gentleman taking pictures of our license plates. I called out to say hello and it turned out it was Chris Malan, the neighbor at 3135 Oak Bay Road, who Terri had called to investigate our cars. We had a good conversation and I let Chris know that I had reached out to Terry to understand the right‐of‐way and investigate if I can get a pull out into my property created before the CUP is finished. I also reiterated my openness to hearing of any neighbor concerns directly. Thank you for any guidance you can provide on parking and a pull out. Best regards, Ann On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Terry, I am currently in the CUP process for my retreat center Pomona Woods, at 3030 Oak Bay Road. I park on the right‐of‐ way across the street when I'm periodically at the property because I was told I can't put in a road until the CUP is complete. I always park far back from Terri Ross' driveway (2971 Oak Bay Road) to ensure good sight lines, but once or twice my contractors may have parked too close. In the future I will make sure anyone on‐site with me provides ample sight lines. Anyway, Mrs. Ross did not reach out to me directly with her concerns but I saw the rocks she placed and understand from Amanda that Matt Stewart reached out to her and let her know that she can't place rocks there. I'd like to know what the right‐of‐way is there so I can be sure I am both safe and in compliance when I park. Can you please let me know? I'll be on the property Tuesday so it would be great to know by then. That also brings up a related question. Since the neighbor is concerned about my parking, can I have Shold put in a pull out where the road will go in so I can park off the road? Thank you. Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Randy Marx Sent:Thursday, December 9, 2021 2:43 PM To:Ann Burkhart Cc:Amanda Hunt; Susan Porto Subject:Pomona Woods ZON2021-00040 Hi Ann Great timing. Your application surfaced again on my desk so I thought I would let you know where you are at on my end. In the very beginning you had a septic engineer that recommended a LOSS to meet your waste water needs (Large On‐ site Septic System,) these systems are permitted by the state. You later contacted Jess at Shold Excavating who thought you could permit a smaller system and permit it through my office. Local health can permit waste water systems up to 3500gpd peak flow. Anything larger requires state health permitting. Rough calculation had you around the 3500gpd but there a lot of variables that can push you above or below 3500gpd. This will directly affect things like the number of: rooms, guests and seats in a dinning area or restaurant. I have not been contacted by anyone, nor has a decision been made about the waste water flows your facility will generate and what agency you will be permitting through. I hope this helps as you work through your permitting. Randy Marx Environmental Health Specialist Jefferson County Environmental Public Health 617 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA. 98368 360 385 9402 RMARX@CO.JEFFERSON.WA.US http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/650/Septic-Systems Always Working For a Safer & Healthier Jefferson County CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT NOTICE: All e‐mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e‐mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e‐mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e‐mail unless it is exempt from disclosure under state law, including RCW 42.56 From: Susan Porto Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 2:05 PM To: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Cc: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: FW: Invoice 21‐07446 from Northwest Water Systems ‐Pomona Woods USR2021‐00036 No problem and best of luck to you on your project. Please remember that a revised site plan will be necessary to take the well off the site plan and add the proposed water lines along the road and up into the structures with water and any hose bibs planned. 2 S From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:42 PM To: kathe@nwwatersystems.com; Lydia Bower <lydia@nwwatersystems.com> Cc: Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Re: FW: Invoice 21‐07446 from Northwest Water Systems ‐Pomona Woods USR2021‐00036 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Lydia and Susan, Thank you for your help with the refund. I picked up the check from my PO Box today. Best regards, Ann On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 1:37 PM Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi Ann, Doug and Kathe, In follow up to your request below and to reply to Kathe Houg who called about the refund: I understand that Ann has received the refund from NW Water systems however, from the original fee of $469.00 for the inspection, we will need to deduct 2 hours of our time since we did do the site visit, but held off on the report till we knew for sure that Ann was going to be able to connect to PUD water. So we can refund $273.00 to NW Water. What I need to figure out is how, since the original credit card has now been cancelled. I will follow up with Kathe, after I know how to proceed with the refund. If you have other questions, let me know. S Susan Porto, RS Environmental Health Specialist 3 Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 3 360‐385‐9404 email@co.jefferson.wa.us | https://jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/ Always working for a Safer and Healthier Jefferson County CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT NOTICE: All e‐mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e‐mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e‐mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e‐mail unless it is exempt from disclosure under state law, including RCW 42.56. From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 2:33 PM To: Doug Piehl <doug@nwwatersystems.com>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Lydia Bower <lydia@nwwatersystems.com> Subject: Re: FW: Invoice 21‐07446 from Northwest Water Systems ‐Pomona Woods ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Doug and Lydia, I haven't seen a refund come through to my address at PO Box 145, Port Hadlock WA 98339. Also, I believe the $553 was a fee NW Water Systems paid to JeffCo for the well inspection. That may be reimbursed to NW Water Systems so should come back to me. Also, can you confirm with Simon about the site map charge? We provided Simon the site map with the well location on it and gave him detailed instructions on how to find it for Susan Porto. Susan, we have decided to pursue the water line extension. Assuming that all goes well we won't be doing the well on‐ site. You had mentioned that you wouldn't process the inspection paperwork until I made a decision. Am I correct that this is the $553.73? 4 Thank you. Ann On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:42 AM Doug Piehl <doug@nwwatersystems.com> wrote: Ann, Just to let you know, I will be leaving Northwest Water Systems to join Thurston PUD as of December 1st. Your project is on hold right now; given this I am invoicing for hours expended prior to this (as well as the health department inspection fee we paid on your behalf) and am going to have the remainder of your retainer refunded. If you end up needing to move forward with this project in the future please work with Todd Krause (CEO) or Lydia Bower (Acting Department Manager). Likely they can pick up where we left off, though that will depend on the time elapsed and any changes to plans/regulations, etc. Sincerely, Doug Piehl, P.E. Engineering Manager Northwest Water Systems, Inc. (360) 876‐0958 Ext 110 From: Northwest Water Systems, Inc <quickbooks@notification.intuit.com> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 9:30 AM To: Doug Piehl <doug@nwwatersystems.com> Subject: Invoice 21‐07446 from Northwest Water Systems INVOICE 21-07446 DETAILS Northwest Water Systems, Inc 5 DUE 11/26/2021 $0.00 Review and pay Powered by QuickBooks Bill to Ann Burkhart Pomona Woods Retreat - 210803 Pomona Woods, LLC PO Box 145 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Ship to Ann Burkhart Pomona Woods Retreat - 210803 Pomona Woods, LLC PO Box 145 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Ship via 210803 Terms Net 15 08/18/2021 Design:Design $390.00 6 Project Setup, Review Site, Data From Client, Area Impacts/Requirements 2 X $195.00 08/23/2021 Design:Design $292.50 Site Map 1.50 X $195.00 09/03/2021 Reimbursable Income:Reimbursable Income $553.73 Well Site Inspection 1 X $553.73 7 09/03/2021 Design:Design $181.25 Prepare Application, Paying Fee, Correspondence 1.25 X $145.00 09/30/2021 Design:Design $36.25 Email To Client 0.25 X $145.00 Retainer Applied -$1453.73 ($3546.27 To Be Refunded) 8 Subtotal $1,453.73 Tax $0.00 Total $1,453.73 Payment $1,453.73 Balance due $0.00 Thank you for your business Review and pay Northwest Water Systems, Inc PO BOX 123 PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 US +1 3608760958 susan@nwwatersystems.com If you receive an email that seems fraudulent, please check with the business owner before paying. © Intuit, Inc. All rights reserved. 9 Privacy | Security | Terms of Service 1 Amanda Hunt From:Susan Porto Sent:Thursday, December 9, 2021 2:05 PM To:Ann Burkhart Cc:Amanda Hunt; Randy Marx Subject:RE: FW: Invoice 21-07446 from Northwest Water Systems -Pomona Woods USR2021-00036 No problem and best of luck to you on your project. Please remember that a revised site plan will be necessary to take the well off the site plan and add the proposed water lines along the road and up into the structures with water and any hose bibs planned. S From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:42 PM To: kathe@nwwatersystems.com; Lydia Bower <lydia@nwwatersystems.com> Cc: Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Re: FW: Invoice 21‐07446 from Northwest Water Systems ‐Pomona Woods USR2021‐00036 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Lydia and Susan, Thank you for your help with the refund. I picked up the check from my PO Box today. Best regards, Ann On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 1:37 PM Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi Ann, Doug and Kathe, In follow up to your request below and to reply to Kathe Houg who called about the refund: I understand that Ann has received the refund from NW Water systems however, from the original fee of $469.00 for the inspection, we will need to deduct 2 hours of our time since we did do the site visit, but held off on the report till we knew for sure that Ann was going to be able to connect to PUD water. So we can refund $273.00 to NW Water. What I need to figure out is how, since the original credit card has now been cancelled. I will follow up with Kathe, after I know how to proceed with the refund. 2 If you have other questions, let me know. S Susan Porto, RS Environmental Health Specialist 3 Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360‐385‐9404 email@co.jefferson.wa.us | https://jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/ Always working for a Safer and Healthier Jefferson County CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT NOTICE: All e‐mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e‐mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e‐mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e‐mail unless it is exempt from disclosure under state law, including RCW 42.56. From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 2:33 PM To: Doug Piehl <doug@nwwatersystems.com>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Lydia Bower <lydia@nwwatersystems.com> Subject: Re: FW: Invoice 21‐07446 from Northwest Water Systems ‐Pomona Woods 3 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Doug and Lydia, I haven't seen a refund come through to my address at PO Box 145, Port Hadlock WA 98339. Also, I believe the $553 was a fee NW Water Systems paid to JeffCo for the well inspection. That may be reimbursed to NW Water Systems so should come back to me. Also, can you confirm with Simon about the site map charge? We provided Simon the site map with the well location on it and gave him detailed instructions on how to find it for Susan Porto. Susan, we have decided to pursue the water line extension. Assuming that all goes well we won't be doing the well on‐ site. You had mentioned that you wouldn't process the inspection paperwork until I made a decision. Am I correct that this is the $553.73? Thank you. Ann On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:42 AM Doug Piehl <doug@nwwatersystems.com> wrote: Ann, Just to let you know, I will be leaving Northwest Water Systems to join Thurston PUD as of December 1st. Your project is on hold right now; given this I am invoicing for hours expended prior to this (as well as the health department inspection fee we paid on your behalf) and am going to have the remainder of your retainer refunded. If you end up needing to move forward with this project in the future please work with Todd Krause (CEO) or Lydia Bower (Acting Department Manager). Likely they can pick up where we left off, though that will depend on the time elapsed and any changes to plans/regulations, etc. Sincerely, Doug Piehl, P.E. Engineering Manager 4 Northwest Water Systems, Inc. (360) 876‐0958 Ext 110 From: Northwest Water Systems, Inc <quickbooks@notification.intuit.com> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 9:30 AM To: Doug Piehl <doug@nwwatersystems.com> Subject: Invoice 21‐07446 from Northwest Water Systems INVOICE 21-07446 DETAILS Northwest Water Systems, Inc DUE 11/26/2021 $0.00 Review and pay Powered by QuickBooks Bill to Ann Burkhart Pomona Woods Retreat - 210803 Pomona Woods, LLC PO Box 145 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Ship to Ann Burkhart Pomona Woods Retreat - 210803 Pomona Woods, LLC 5 PO Box 145 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Ship via 210803 Terms Net 15 08/18/2021 Design:Design $390.00 Project Setup, Review Site, Data From Client, Area Impacts/Requirements 2 X $195.00 08/23/2021 Design:Design $292.50 Site Map 6 1.50 X $195.00 09/03/2021 Reimbursable Income:Reimbursable Income $553.73 Well Site Inspection 1 X $553.73 09/03/2021 Design:Design $181.25 Prepare Application, Paying Fee, Correspondence 1.25 X $145.00 09/30/2021 7 Design:Design $36.25 Email To Client 0.25 X $145.00 Retainer Applied -$1453.73 ($3546.27 To Be Refunded) Subtotal $1,453.73 Tax $0.00 Total $1,453.73 Payment $1,453.73 Balance due $0.00 8 Thank you for your business Review and pay Northwest Water Systems, Inc PO BOX 123 PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 US +1 3608760958 susan@nwwatersystems.com If you receive an email that seems fraudulent, please check with the business owner before paying. © Intuit, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy | Security | Terms of Service 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:40 AM To:Thomas Aumock Subject:MLA2021-00066 Burkhart Pomona Woods - Fire Department Review Importance:High Hi Thomas, Good Morning‐ Ann Burkhart is proposing a small recreational and tourist retreat center in Port Hadlock (along Oak Bay Road). The facility is proposed to be called Pomona Woods. As of today, no permit has been approved. The proposal includes construction of a 6,000 square foot retreat center and a 710 square feet caretaker residence. Please let me know if the Jefferson County Fire Department and Jefferson County Fire Review Division are already aware of this proposal. If not, please let me know if their review and comment is required for permit approval. Thank you! FYI‐ All application materials are available for public review on‐line. Please let me know if you would like me to send you the application materials and if you would like to talk over the phone. DCD is also aiming to bring this case to the Hearing Examiner in Mid‐March. Quick confirmation of fire review requirements would be greatly appreciated! Best, Amanda H Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Wednesday, November 10, 2021 4:20 PM To:John Fleming Subject:RE: Pomona Woods Revised Stormwater Plans Thank you John! Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: John Fleming Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:54 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: Pomona Woods Revised Stormwater Plans Hi Amanda: The current revised site plan received by DCD November 10, 2021 still meets the intent of having stormwater managed by full dispersion with mostly all of the new impervious surfaces having at least 100 feet of flow path through native vegetation before reaching their property lines. John From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:36 PM To: John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Pomona Woods Revised Stormwater Plans Hi John, Good Afternoon‐ Attached are the revised stormwater site plan and large stormwater packet for the Pomona Woods Project (MLA2021‐00066). It looks like Ann has moved the locations of the parking lot, road, and buildings. The septic area and entrance appear to be in the same place. Ann has also included the proposed well location on this revision. The caretaker residence and caretaker residence parking may not have enough room for the 100 ft dispersion flow path area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us 2 EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Thomas Aumock <taumock@cablespeed.com> Sent:Monday, January 10, 2022 1:06 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Re: MLA2021-00066 Burkhart Pomona Woods - Fire Department Review Attachments:MLA21-0066 Burkhart Pomona Woods Retreat.doc ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Greetings Amanda ! Attached is my report for the above-referenced MLA. Call or write with any questions. Yours in Life Safety & Fire Prevention Thomas L. Aumock Consulting International Fire Code Inspector & Plans Examiner Jefferson County Department of Community Development H.O.: taumock@cablespeed.com & Cell: thomasaumock@gmail.com Home: 360.385.3938 & Cell: 360.643.0272 From: "ahunt" <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> To: "Thomas & Traci's Email" <taumock@cablespeed.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:44:33 AM Subject: RE: MLA2021-00066 Burkhart Pomona Woods - Fire Department Review Hi Thomas, Good Morning- Thank you again for the quick chat over the phone this morning! I have uploaded the most recently revised files for the Pomona Woods Project in Laserfiche: Jefferson\Community Development\DCD PUBLIC CASE FILES\2021\2021 MLA (Master Land Use Applications)\MLA21- 00066. The files can also be found in the G Drive: G:\PermitCenter\2-Permits\MLA\MLA21-00066 2 I will keep an eye on my inbox for your follow up. If you have time to talk over the phone this afternoon, I would like to know what an estimated review timeline would be for this project. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:40 AM To: Thomas Aumock <taumock@cablespeed.com> Subject: MLA2021-00066 Burkhart Pomona Woods - Fire Department Review Importance: High Hi Thomas, Good Morning- Ann Burkhart is proposing a small recreational and tourist retreat center in Port Hadlock (along Oak Bay Road). The facility is proposed to be called Pomona Woods. As of today, no permit has been approved. The proposal includes construction of a 6,000 square foot retreat center and a 710 square feet caretaker residence. Please let me know if the Jefferson County Fire Department and Jefferson County Fire Review Division are already aware of this proposal. If not, please let me know if their review and comment is required for permit approval. Thank you! FYI- All application materials are available for public review on-line. Please let me know if you would like me to send you the application materials and if you would like to talk over the phone. DCD is also aiming to bring this case to the Hearing Examiner in Mid-March. Quick confirmation of fire review requirements would be greatly appreciated! Best, 3 Amanda H Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360-379-4458 Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M-Th 9:00-12:00 1:00-4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360-379-4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:04 AM To:Ann Burkhart; Thomas Aumock Cc:Samantha Harper; Bill Graham; Trent McKnight; Trent Murphy Subject:RE: 1/4 Pomona Woods meeting with Jefferson PUD re Quimper Water System extension - summary Attachments:Plan Review Memo 01102022.pdf Hi Ann, Good Morning‐ Thank you for providing Jefferson County DCD an update regarding the JPUD Public Water Connection Application! A DCD Review Request was sent to Thomas Aumock to inquire if his review is required for your proposal. Please see the attached PDF for Mr. Aumock’s comments and next steps. I highly encourage you to contact Mr. Aumock to discuss what is required for fire protection on the property. Important Update: A Hearing Examiner has been selected for Jefferson County! He is currently scheduling hearings once a month (Tuesdays) in 2022. DCD is proposing the Pomona Woods Public Hearing for March 15th, 2022. The notice of public hearing would therefore be sent out no later than March 2nd, 2022. The hearing request has not been sent to the Hearing Examiner as of today. Written verification from JPUD, EH, and Thomas Aumock (Fire Protection Review) verifying that the proposed utilities, systems, and structures are compliant with Jefferson County standards and are feasible for the proposed project is required prior to scheduling the public hearing. DCD also requires the applicant to confirm their availability for the public hearing date prior to scheduling the hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 7:39 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Samantha Harper <sharper@jeffpud.org>; Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org>; Trent McKnight <trent@g‐ little.com>; Trent Murphy <trent@tmmengineeringllc.com> Subject: 1/4 Pomona Woods meeting with Jefferson PUD re Quimper Water System extension ‐ summary ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Amanda, 2 I want to keep you in the loop on progress regarding the extension of the Quimper Water Systems line for Pomona Woods. On January 4th Samantha Harper of JPUD set up a call to discuss the work. On the call were Samantha and Bill Graham from JPUD, Trent McKnight from G. Little Construction, Trent Murphy from TMM Engineering and I. I've copied all attendees on this email ‐ please correct any of my notes that I might have missed or misunderstood. Summary of next steps: Samantha already sent us the JPUD policy and tech specifications https://www.jeffpud.org/rate‐schedule‐for‐ water‐and‐sewer/ and a section from JPUD water system plan regarding how the ERUs relate to the system development charge Samantha will send the water system modeling that is done by HGR (David Kuhn) Alex from JPUD will send detailed GIS from the county PDF of what is already in the area Ann and Trent McKnight will get the fire suppression design needs for the building to Trent Murphy Ann to confirm with Amanda re timing for any fire hydrant review to Tom Ahmeck (sp?) at JeffCo Trent McKnight will speak with Eric Kusma at Public Works regarding which side of the road is preferable for running the extension line. Trent McKnight and Ann to arrange for a topo survey of the area for Trent Murphy to use in the extension design Process: HDR Modelling: 1‐2 weeks Survey (uncertain, 2‐4 weeks) Trent Murphy design ‐ can start when has GIS, Modeling and topo survey Trent Murphy sends 3 sets of engineered plan to JPUD JPUD reviews and sends to JeffCo (Amanda) for review and hand deliver to Terry Duff JeffCo provides sign‐off to start work Notes: If a water line greater than 8 inches is needed for JPUD future needs JPUD will pay for the difference. Water main is currently on the East (power line) side of the street PUD is the permit applicant for the extension ‐ they will submit to Amanda Thank you all! Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 2:56 PM To:Ann Burkhart; Tom Aumock (taumock@cablespeed.com); Trent McKnight Subject:RE: verification request - Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods Hi Ann, Good Afternoon‐ I spoke on the phone with Mr. Aumock yesterday morning to clarify his email below. Mr. Aumock who determined the fire hydrant location and fire sprinkling system design will be arranged with the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department and JPUD at the time of the building application. Otherwise known as a deferred submittal. Other comments from Mr. Aumock included: “The Jefferson County PUD No. 1 fire flow and duration modeling data for a potential fire hydrant on Oak Bay Road, from the existing water service main associated with this proposal, will be presented in due time. Required automatic fire sprinkler system supply capability modeling is not required at this time, but will be required at permit application review for compliance with the International Fire Code. I recommend the extension request as requested”. These comments will be noted during building permit application fire review. Mr. Aumock also advised me that the applicant is required to determine if the site meets the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department capability criteria (i.e. accessibility for grades over 12%, road construction, turnouts, etc.) prior to the Public Hearing and CUP approval. Jefferson County DCD therefore will require written verification from the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department stating that the proposal has emergency access capability prior to the Public Hearing. Please contact Mr. Aumock for clarification or more information regarding the capability criteria. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 6:55 AM To: Tom Aumock (taumock@cablespeed.com) <taumock@cablespeed.com>; Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Trent McKnight <trent@g‐little.com> Subject: Fwd: verification request ‐ Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods 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 Tom, Your quick response is much appreciated. Have a great weekend. Ann 2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Thomas Aumock <taumock@cablespeed.com> Date: Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 7:21 PM Subject: Re: verification request ‐ Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods To: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Greetings. As the consulting International Fire Code Plans Examiner and Inspector to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, my recommended input to this email is that the Jefferson County PUD No. 1 fire flow and duration modeling data for a potential fire hydrant on Oak Bay Road, from the existing water service main associated with this proposal, will be presented in due time. Required automatic fire sprinkler system supply capability modeling is not required at this time, but will be required at permit application review for compliance with the International Fire Code. I recommend the extension request as requested. Yours in Life Safety & Fire Prevention Thomas L. Aumock Certified Consulting International Fire Code Inspector & Plans Examiner Jefferson County Department of Community Development H.O.: taumock@cablespeed.com & Cell: thomasaumock@gmail.com Home: 360.385.3938 & Cell: 360.643.0272 From: "Ann Burkhart" <pomonawoods@gmail.com> To: "sharper" <sharper@jeffpud.org>, "Thomas & Traci's Email" <taumock@cablespeed.com>, "Emma Erickson" <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us>, "trent" <trent@g-little.com>, "ahunt" <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>, "Susan Porto" <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 3:40:32 PM Subject: verification request - Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods All: Amanda Hunt from DCD clarified that for my Pomona Woods Conditional Use Permit hearing to go forward (not the Quimper extension hearing), I need written verification that the extension is a feasible plan. Please see wording from Amanda's email below. If you need anything from me to do so, please let me know. If you have questions about what is needed from DCD, reach out to Amanda. I would very much appreciate a quick response as this is currently holding me up from a possible February hearing date. DCD was requesting that “written verification” from the JPUD, EH, and Thomas A. were required prior to scheduling the Public Hearing. DCD is not requesting completed permits prior to the Public Hearing. Written verification can be an email, letter, or other application form 3 (from the Department or Licensed Professional) that verifies the proposed utilities or systems are feasible for the proposed project. The Public Hearing would also just be for the Pomona Woods project, not for a collective hearing including the JPUD application. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206-480-8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:19 PM To:Ann Burkhart Cc:Tom Aumock (taumock@cablespeed.com); Trent McKnight; Brent Butler Subject:RE: verification request - Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods Hi Ann, Good Morning‐ Apologizes for the delay in my response. The DCD Director was out of the office last week. However, I did have the chance to speak with him Monday afternoon over the phone. After our discussion we clarified the following Jefferson County Code requirements: 1. The Staff Report must be completed prior to scheduling and noticing the Public Hearing. DCD will therefore require all requested/required information to be submitted in order to complete the Staff Report, and consequently prior to scheduling the Public Hearing date and noticing the Public Hearing date. 2. DCD is still awaiting written confirmation from the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue District, EH Sanitarian, and JPUD for written verification for the following: a. Port Ludlow Fire and Resource District: Emergency Access Capability (see 1/19/2022 email) b. EH Sanitarian: Septic System (see 1/11/2022 & 1/13/2022 emails) c. JPUD: Public Water Connection (see 1/11/2022 & 1/13/2022 emails) 3. Please note: 2(a‐c) is not asking for approved or complete permits. DCD only requires written documentation (i.e. email, letter, form, etc.) verifying each system, utility, and site feasibility for the proposal. 4. To meet noticing criteria, the notice materials for the February 15th Public Hearing date would have to be ready by January 31st (next Monday). The February 15th, 2022 Public Hearing date is therefore not feasible. 5. It is expected that the Public Hearing will receive a significant public attendance. Additional time to make arrangements for the Public Hearing room may be required. All supporting information is required for a recommendation of approval in the Staff Report. DCD appreciates your patience throughout our process. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:11 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Tom Aumock (taumock@cablespeed.com) <taumock@cablespeed.com>; Trent McKnight <trent@g‐little.com> Subject: Re: verification request ‐ Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods 2 ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Amanda, Trent or I will reach out to Tom because it isn't clear from your email what is needed from us in order for Tom to provide written verification from the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department stating that the proposal has emergency access capability prior to the Public Hearing. Is there anything else? Other than what is related to the Quimper water extension I thought we were complete back on 11/22. I will follow up with Samantha from PUD and Emma in Public Health tomorrow regarding the Quimper system verification. Did you discuss with Brett the possibility of another February date? I know Marrowstone Inn is also waiting. I have my presentation ready and will accomodate any date other than some on a plane times from 2/28‐3/8. Thank you. Ann On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 2:55 PM Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi Ann, Good Afternoon‐ I spoke on the phone with Mr. Aumock yesterday morning to clarify his email below. Mr. Aumock who determined the fire hydrant location and fire sprinkling system design will be arranged with the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department and JPUD at the time of the building application. Otherwise known as a deferred submittal. Other comments from Mr. Aumock included: “The Jefferson County PUD No. 1 fire flow and duration modeling data for a potential fire hydrant on Oak Bay Road, from the existing water service main associated with this proposal, will be presented in due time. Required automatic fire sprinkler system supply capability modeling is not required at this time, but will be required at permit application review for compliance with the International Fire Code. I recommend the extension request as requested”. These comments will be noted during building permit application fire review. Mr. Aumock also advised me that the applicant is required to determine if the site meets the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department capability criteria (i.e. accessibility for grades over 12%, road construction, turnouts, etc.) prior to the Public Hearing and CUP approval. Jefferson County DCD therefore will require written verification from the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue Department stating that the proposal has emergency access capability prior to the Public Hearing. Please contact Mr. Aumock for clarification or more information regarding the capability criteria. Thank you! Best, Amanda H. 3 Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 6:55 AM To: Tom Aumock (taumock@cablespeed.com) <taumock@cablespeed.com>; Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Trent McKnight <trent@g‐little.com> Subject: Fwd: verification request ‐ Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods 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 Tom, Your quick response is much appreciated. Have a great weekend. Ann ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Thomas Aumock <taumock@cablespeed.com> Date: Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 7:21 PM Subject: Re: verification request ‐ Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods To: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Greetings. 4 As the consulting International Fire Code Plans Examiner and Inspector to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, my recommended input to this email is that the Jefferson County PUD No. 1 fire flow and duration modeling data for a potential fire hydrant on Oak Bay Road, from the existing water service main associated with this proposal, will be presented in due time. Required automatic fire sprinkler system supply capability modeling is not required at this time, but will be required at permit application review for compliance with the International Fire Code. I recommend the extension request as requested. Yours in Life Safety & Fire Prevention Thomas L. Aumock Certified Consulting International Fire Code Inspector & Plans Examiner Jefferson County Department of Community Development H.O.: taumock@cablespeed.com & Cell: thomasaumock@gmail.com Home: 360.385.3938 & Cell: 360.643.0272 From: "Ann Burkhart" <pomonawoods@gmail.com> To: "sharper" <sharper@jeffpud.org>, "Thomas & Traci's Email" <taumock@cablespeed.com>, "Emma Erickson" <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us>, "trent" <trent@g-little.com>, "ahunt" <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>, "Susan Porto" <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 3:40:32 PM Subject: verification request - Quimper Water System Extension for Pomona Woods All: 5 Amanda Hunt from DCD clarified that for my Pomona Woods Conditional Use Permit hearing to go forward (not the Quimper extension hearing), I need written verification that the extension is a feasible plan. Please see wording from Amanda's email below. If you need anything from me to do so, please let me know. If you have questions about what is needed from DCD, reach out to Amanda. I would very much appreciate a quick response as this is currently holding me up from a possible February hearing date. DCD was requesting that “written verification” from the JPUD, EH, and Thomas A. were required prior to scheduling the Public Hearing. DCD is not requesting completed permits prior to the Public Hearing. Written verification can be an email, letter, or other application form (from the Department or Licensed Professional) that verifies the proposed utilities or systems are feasible for the proposed project. The Public Hearing would also just be for the Pomona Woods project, not for a collective hearing including the JPUD application. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206-480-8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Thursday, January 27, 2022 8:59 AM To:Randy Marx Subject:RE: Pomona Woods (MLA2021-00066) Septic System Review Thank you for the update! Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Randy Marx Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 7:53 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: Pomona Woods (MLA2021‐00066) Septic System Review No change Randy Marx Environmental Health Specialist Jefferson County Environmental Public Health 617 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA. 98368 360 385 9402 RMARX@CO.JEFFERSON.WA.US http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/650/Septic-Systems Always Working For a Safer & Healthier Jefferson County CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT NOTICE: All e‐mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e‐mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e‐mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e‐mail unless it is exempt from disclosure under state law, including RCW 42.56 From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:00 PM To: Randy Marx <RMarx@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Pomona Woods (MLA2021‐00066) Septic System Review Hi Randy, Good Evening‐ I am just checking in on the Pomona Woods (MLA2021‐00066) septic system review. I see the latest notes in Tidemark are the following: “12/9/21 No change, re‐notified planner and sent email to owner. RMarx, 9/1/21 App states a LOSS will be used, Jess G. says he will be proposing a county permittable OSS and is working for the owners. Nothing submitted as of this date. Emailed planner this day RMarx”. The last correspondence I was cc’d in between EH and the applicant was an email sent on 12/10/2021: “In the very beginning you had a septic engineer that recommended a LOSS to meet your waste water needs (Large On‐site Septic System,) these systems are permitted by the state. You later contacted Jess at Shold Excavating who thought you could 2 permit a smaller system and permit it through my office. Local health can permit waste water systems up to 3500gpd peak flow. Anything larger requires state health permitting. Rough calculation had you around the 3500gpd but there a lot of variables that can push you above or below 3500gpd. This will directly affect things like the number of: rooms, guests and seats in a dining area or restaurant. I have not been contacted by anyone, nor has a decision been made about the waste water flows your facility will generate and what agency you will be permitting through”. Has the applicant responded to you since 12/10/2021? Was the determination made if a state health permit is required? What is left for determining if their design if sufficient for their proposal? Thank you! Best, Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Thomas Aumock <taumock@cablespeed.com> Sent:Thursday, February 3, 2022 7:13 PM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Re: Jeff Fire Dept letter ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Amanda ! We are now ready to go to the next step. The letter meets our obligation for consultation with the fire protection agency serving the project, and allows the Department to move forward. Yours in Life Safety & Fire Prevention, Thomas L. Aumock Consulting International Fire Code Inspector & Plans Examiner Jefferson County Department of Community Development H.O.: taumock@cablespeed.com & Cell: thomasaumock@gmail.com Home: 360.385.3938 & Cell: 360.643.0272 From: "ahunt" <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> To: "Thomas & Traci's Email" <taumock@cablespeed.com> Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 2:39:39 PM Subject: FW: Jeff Fire Dept letter Hi Tom, Good Afternoon- Is the attached letter from the Brian Tracer of E Jefferson Co Fire & Rescue sufficient to confirm that the Pomona Woods proposal meets the Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue capability criteria? Thank you! Best, Amanda H. 2 Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:47 AM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Trent McKnight <trent@g-little.com> Subject: Jeff Fire Dept letter ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hi Amanda, Please see attached letter of support from Brian Tracer of E Jefferson Co Fire & Rescue. Can we schedule a quick call to confirm that DCD has everything they need to schedule the hearing? Thank you, Ann Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206-480-8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Susan Porto Sent:Friday, February 4, 2022 11:25 AM To:Samantha Harper; bill graham Cc:Emma Erickson; Amanda Hunt Subject:Water main extension of Quimper WS to serve for Pomona Woods Sam and Bill, I just got off the phone with Scott Pollock just to make sure there is nothing I am missing about the proposed water main extension, since to my recollection, I have never been involved in before. Now that we have received the Certification of Water System Supply form to review, my main questions were: to verify that indeed, since you can provide the minimum 30psi at the meter serving Pomona Woods, based on your engineering assumptions, that the booster pump you are recommending to Ann is not something that needs to be under the PUD's responsibility to maintain and DOH has no need for any updates to either the water system plan (because you are going outside of your current service area to serve this property, see snip of map below) and That your current water system plan is adequate to allow this extension to proceed without an engineering submittal to DOH. Scott agreed with the first one, the other two, he deferred to Fern and to you. Please make sure you check in with Fern on the service area question and ensure your water system plan allows a "submittal exemption" per WAC or contact Scott to comply with DOH requirements. Also, Amanda Hunt will be asking for #16 on the Certification, to be completed between PUD and Pomona. Once that is done, she can proceed toward scheduling the public hearing. If there are any questions or clarifications needed, let me know. Happy Friday :) Susan 2 1 Amanda Hunt From:Ann Burkhart <pomonawoods@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:01 AM To:Amanda Hunt Subject:Follow up from our 2/7 call Attachments:Pomona Woods FAQ.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 Amanda, Attached is a slightly updated Neighbor FAQ (now it matches the plan to use public water and all the calcs in the SEPA checklist). Regarding environmental products in construction. This is taken directly from the US Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED guidelines for MR CREDIT: BUILDING PRODUCT DISCLOSURE AND OPTIMIZATION— ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATIONS . Option 1. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) (1 point) Use at least 20 different permanently installed products sourced from at least five different manufacturers that meet one of the disclosure criteria below. • Product‐specific declaration. o Products with a publicly available, critically reviewed life‐cycle assessment conforming to ISO 14044 that have at least a cradle to gate scope are valued as one quarter (1/4) of a product for the purposes of credit achievement calculation. • Environmental Product Declarations which conform to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 or ISO 21930 and have at least a cradle to gate scope. o Industry‐wide (generic) EPD ‐‐ Products with third‐party certification (Type III), including external verification, in which the manufacturer is explicitly recognized as a participant by the program operator are valued as one half (1/2) of a product for purposes of credit achievement calculation. o Product‐specific Type III EPD ‐‐ Products with third‐party certification (Type III), including external verification in which the manufacturer is explicitly recognized as the participant by the program operator are valued as one whole product for purposes of credit achievement calculation. • USGBC approved program – Products that comply with other USGBC approved environmental product declaration frameworks For cleaning supplies some examples include: peroxide multisurface cleaner and disinfectant from Ecolab Microvia line of probiotic cleaning products from “beneficial bacteria” company Novozymes Laundry detergent like Method or TruEarth Practices based: Not washing sheets and towels until guests leave Energy Star laundry equipment Let me know if you need anything more. Did we get on the 3/15 schedule? Thanks, Ann 2 Ann Burkhart, owner Pomona Woods 206‐480‐8467 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Friday, February 25, 2022 1:53 PM To:Emma Erickson; Susan Porto Subject:RE: MLA2021-00066 Pomona Woods Potable Water Sign Off Hi Emma‐ Thank you for the follow up! Do you have time to talk at 3 PM this afternoon? Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Emma Erickson Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 1:49 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA2021‐00066 Pomona Woods Potable Water Sign Off Amanda, Susan and I just added the potable water condition and signed off on the potable water activity. We are considering adding additional fees for our work on the case – just FYI. Call us if you have questions, Emma From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 1:20 PM To: Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Emma Erickson <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA2021‐00066 Pomona Woods Potable Water Sign Off Hi Susan and Emma‐ Have you both looked at the potable water condition in Tidemark yet? Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 11:18 AM To: Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: MLA2021‐00066 Pomona Woods Potable Water Sign Off Importance: High Hi Susan, Good Morning‐ I spoke with Brent and he approved the plan to create a recommended condition of approval in the Staff Report regarding #16 of the CWSP. Please provide the condition language you would like me to add to the Staff Report and please sign off the Potable Water activity in Tidemark by the end of today. Thank you! Best, 2 Amanda H. Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Amanda Hunt From:Susan Porto Sent:Monday, February 28, 2022 12:19 PM To:Samantha Harper; Bill Graham; Amanda Hunt Cc:annburkhart18@gmail.com; Pollock, R. Scott (DOH); Emma Erickson Subject:RE: Pomona Woods proposed water main extension / ZON2021-00040 / CWSP certificate requirement Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Samantha and Bill, Thank you for the clarification, we had not received your statement below, until now. At this point, I would say that the second condition in the case listed below is satisfied, with this message and your comment on the form already received. Amanda, this message should be attached to your copy of the form for the record. Thanks, Susan Porto, RS Environmental Health Specialist 3 Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360‐385‐9404 email@co.jefferson.wa.us | https://jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/ Always working for a Safer and Healthier Jefferson County CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e‐mail and destroy all copies of the original message. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT NOTICE: All e‐mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e‐mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e‐mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e‐mail unless it is exempt from disclosure under state law, including RCW 42.56. From: Samantha Harper <sharper@jeffpud.org> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 3:49 PM To: Emma Erickson <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> Cc: Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; annburkhart18@gmail.com; Pollock, R. Scott (DOH) <RScott.Pollock@doh.wa.gov> Subject: RE: Pomona Woods proposed water main extension / ZON2021‐00040 / CWSP certificate requirement ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. 2 Emma, I emailed Amanda Hunt a couple of weeks ago, we do not have a contract for water line extensions. The future customer will be required to follow the PUD’s extension policy, an appendix in the PUD’s 2021 Water System Plan Volume 1. The state does not review our water line extensions within our water service areas as we have technical specification and water details within our approved water system plan. The review is performed by the PUD to verify it meets the PUD technical specifications and standards. Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks, Samantha Harper, P.E. Engineering Director 310 Four Corners Rd | Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360‐385‐8341 | Fax: 360‐385‐5945 Email: sharper@jeffpud.org Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is subject to the Washington Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Therefore, this email and its attachments, if any, may be disclosed as a public record. Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. From: Emma Erickson <EErickson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 2:26 PM To: Samantha Harper <sharper@jeffpud.org>; Bill Graham <bgraham@jeffpud.org> Cc: Susan Porto <SPorto@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>; annburkhart18@gmail.com; Pollock, R. Scott (DOH) <RScott.Pollock@doh.wa.gov> Subject: Pomona Woods proposed water main extension / ZON2021‐00040 / CWSP certificate requirement Hello Samantha and Bill, Just FYI – Susan and I have signed off on potable water review of the conditional use permit ZON2021‐00040 for Pomona Woods with the following conditions: The conditional use for this project is approved for available potable water provided that there is an appropriately approved and installed water main extension from the Quimper Water System #05783 to serve the project. Future building permits will not be approved for available potable water unless the water tap is located on the subject parcel and connection is available. The Certificate of Water Supply Utility Service form must be completed to the satisfaction of Jefferson County departments prior to approval of any future building permits. Jefferson County is still awaiting the contract between PUD and Ann Burkhart but Amanda Hunt needs to proceed with the public hearing so we signed off our review with these conditions. 3 Also we spoke with Scott Pollock today to make you do not need to have a water main extension project thru him. He is relying on you to know whether you are exempt or not from the water system project approval based on how your water system plan is written. Please let us know one way of the other so we are in the loop, Emma Erickson Environmental Health Specialist Jefferson County Environmental Public Health 360-385-9407 eerickson@co.jefferson.wa.us | www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/ Always working for a Safer and Healthier Jefferson County CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT NOTICE: All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is exempt from disclosure under state law, including RCW 42.56 1 Amanda Hunt From:Amanda Hunt Sent:Monday, February 28, 2022 4:01 PM To:Morgan Higdon Subject:RE: MLA2021-00066 Pomona Woods Public Hearing - Post to DCD Notice Page Thank you! Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Morgan Higdon Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:55 PM To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: MLA2021‐00066 Pomona Woods Public Hearing ‐ Post to DCD Notice Page Can do! Morgan Higdon Office Coordinator Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mon-Thurs 9am - 4:30pm, closed from 12-1 mhigdon@co.jefferson.wa.us http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us From: Amanda Hunt Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:45 PM To: Morgan Higdon <MHigdon@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: MLA2021‐00066 Pomona Woods Public Hearing ‐ Post to DCD Notice Page Hi Morgan, Good Afternoon‐ Can you please post the following to the DCD Notice Page on Wednesday, March 2nd ? Here is the Public Hearing that needs to be noticed: Application Number: MLA2021‐00066 Applicant: Pomona Woods LLC Postal District: Port Hadlock 2 Location: Parcel # 921183008 & 921183002; Section 18 ‐ Township 29N ‐ Range 1E; Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Notice of Public Hearing Date: March 2nd, 2022 Project Description: TYPE III CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMALL‐SCALE TOURIST RECREATION USE RETREAT CENTER ‐ Pomona Woods LLC (“the applicant”) proposes to construct a commercial, small‐scale tourist and recreational retreat center (“Pomona Woods”) along Oak Bay Road in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Pomona Woods Retreat Center would accommodate guest reservations for group activities such as yoga retreats, business group retreats, and corporate or not‐for‐profit strategic planning. Rooms would not be reserved for individual guests. The 7,155 square foot Pomona Woods Retreat Center proposes twenty‐four rooms, a commercial kitchen to serve guests three meals a day, and would accommodate a maximum of thirty‐five guests and seven employees. A caretaker residence (for two on‐site caretakers), septic system, main parking lot (29 stalls), caretaker parking area (2 stalls), lawn area, one access road, and one entrance sign are also proposed to serve the retreat center. The proposal would create 53,497 square feet of new impervious surface. All work would be conducted on a vacant, heavily forested property. There is a Coastal Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone located on the property. No other critical areas are located on the property. The applicant has submitted a SEPA Environmental Checklist, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Custom Soil Resource Report, Class IV General Forest Practice Application, and Geotechnical Report in conjunction with the Conditional Use (Type III) Permit application. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A SEPA Determination of Non‐Significance was issued for this proposal on March 2, 2022. File Location: G:\PermitCenter\2‐Permits\MLA\MLA21‐00066 Laserfiche: Jefferson\Community Development\DCD PUBLIC CASE FILES\2021\2021 MLA (Master Land Use Applications)\MLA21‐00066 Once you have the DCD Notice Page file location, can you please send me a link (which I will forward on to the parties of record). Thank you! Best, Amanda Hunt Amanda Hunt Assistant Planner Jefferson County Community Development Phone (Desk): 360‐379‐4458 Monday‐Friday 8AM‐4PM ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us EFFECTIVE TUESDAY 7/1/2021 DCD WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. M‐Th 9:00‐12:00 1:00‐4:30 DCD will maintain limited customer interaction and recommends scheduling an appointment to meet with staff. DCD will no longer be accepting building applications by drop off or mail, you must schedule an appointment with front staff to submit. A mask and social distancing is required. Please visit our website https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/dcd to see how we can best serve you during this time. Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone: 360‐379‐4450 Mail: 621 Sheridan St.; Port Townsend, WA 98368 POMONA WOODS PROJECT CHECKLIST AND ITEM MATRIX MLA2021-00066 – ZON2021-00040 # ACTION ITEM/CONDITION COMPLETION - DATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Prepared by Assistant Planner, Amanda Hunt Dated: 3/2/2022 1 Pre-Application Conference held 05/04/2021 See “Exhibit K” for pre-application conference outline PDF 2 Conditional Use Permit Application received 06/23/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 3 Application Fees paid 06/28/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 4 Geotechnical Report received 07/14/2021 - 5 Incomplete Application Letter sent 07/23/2021 Requested information for parking plan, landscaping plan, sign plan, and stream verification, See “Exhibit I” pg. 1 for PDF 6 Revised Site Plan received 07/26/2021 Received revised site plan, and information explaining sign plan and absence of stream 7 Road Approach Permit Application received 07/28/2021 RAP2021-00068, See “Exhibit T” for email 8 Public Works Stormwater Guidance email 08/03/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 9 SEPA Exemption Interpretation Assistance email 08/05/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 10 Stormwater Site Plan & Large Stormwater Packet received 08/09/2021 - 11 Site Visit 08/12/2021 Assistant Planner & Staff Biologist confirmed no streams or wetlands present 12 Request for Public Works Review sent 08/13/2021 Email request sent to Public Works, See “Exhibit T” for PDF 13 Additional Information Request Email sent 08/18/2021 Requested SEPA Checklist, See “Exhibit T” for PDF 14 Soils Report received 08/19/2021 See “Exhibit D” for PDF 15 SEPA Checklist received 08/19/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 16 Parking Plan received 08/19/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 17 Revised Stormwater Plan received 08/19/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 18 SEPA Invoice Sent 08/19/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 19 Substantially Complete Application Letter sent 09/1/2021 See “Exhibit I” pg. 5 for PDF *Exhibit U* POMONA WOODS PROJECT CHECKLIST AND ITEM MATRIX MLA2021-00066 – ZON2021-00040 # ACTION ITEM/CONDITION COMPLETION - DATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Prepared by Assistant Planner, Amanda Hunt Dated: 3/2/2022 20 Notice of Application issued 09/15/2021 SEPA uploaded to SAW account, Comment periods ends 9/30/2021, See “Exhibit J” for PDF and “Exhibit T” for emails 21 Public and Agency Comments received 09/15/2021 – 09/30/2021 See “Exhibit O” and “Exhibit P” for PDFs 22 DRD Reviewer Letter sent to EH 10/15/2021 EH Comments due 10/29/2021, See “Exhibit I” pg. 6 for PDF 23 Revised Site Plan received 10/28/2021 - 24 Public Water Connection Feasibility Emails 10/29/2021 – 11/23/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email(s) 25 SEPA Checklist reviewed and annotated 11/04/2021 - 26 Project Review Status Update Email(s) 11/04/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 27 Revised Stormwater Site Plan received 11/10/2021 - 28 Revised Large Stormwater Packet received 11/10/2021 See “Exhibit E” for PDF 29 Additional Information Request Letter sent 11/10/2021 Requested information for revised SEPA Checklist, Public Works review of revised site plan, FPA update, public water connection update, public comment response in application, See “Exhibit I” pg.7 for PDF 30 DPW Review Fee sent 11/10/2021 Paid 11/22/2021, See “Exhibit I”, pg. 9 for PDF 31 Revised Stormwater Site Plan 11/17/2021 See “Exhibit E” for PDF 32 Revised SEPA Checklist received 11/17/2021 - 33 DCD Phone Conference 11/18/2021 Follow Up Email sent on 11/19/2021, See “Exhibit T” for email 34 Revised SEPA Checklist received 11/22/2021 See “Exhibit C” for PDF 35 Revised Site Plan received 11/22/2021 See “Exhibit G” for PDF 36 Revised Geotech Report received 11/22/2021 See “Exhibit H* for PDF 37 Rain Garden Calculations received 11/22/2021 See “Exhibit E” for PDF POMONA WOODS PROJECT CHECKLIST AND ITEM MATRIX MLA2021-00066 – ZON2021-00040 # ACTION ITEM/CONDITION COMPLETION - DATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Prepared by Assistant Planner, Amanda Hunt Dated: 3/2/2022 38 Road Right of Way Email 11/28/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 39 EH Septic Review Check In Email 12/09/2021 See “Exhibit T” for email 40 Road Right of Way Site Visit 12/15/2021 - 41 Requested Fire Department Review 01/06/2022 See “Exhibit T” for email 42 Public Works Stormwater Check In Email 01/10/2022 See “Exhibit T” for email 43 DCD Fire Department Review Letter received 01/10/2022 See “Exhibit P” for PDF 44 Additional Information Request Email sent 01/11/2022 Requested written verification from JPUD, EH, and DCD Fire Inspector that water connection, septic system, and emergency access/utilities are feasible, See “Exhibit T” for email 45 EH Septic Review Check In Email 01/26/2022 See “Exhibit T” for email 46 Certification of Water Supply Utility Service received 01/31/2022 See “Exhibit L” for PDF 47 Fire Rescue Review Letter received 02/03/2022 See “Exhibit M” for PDF 48 Check In Phone Call w/ Applicant 02/07/2022 Received additional information (FAQ Sheet) on 2/9/2022 in follow up email, See “Exhibit I” for PDF 49 EH Potable Water Sign Off Emails 02/25/2022 – 02/28/2022 See “Exhibit T” for email 50 Notice of Public Hearing issued 03/02/2022 See “Exhibit J” for PDF 51 SEPA DNS Issued 03/02/2022 See “Exhibit S” for PDF 52 Application/Staff Report issued 03/02/2022 See “Exhibit R” for PDF 53 Public Hearing 03/17/2022 -