Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 1 11/16/16 SRFP On behalf of the Annapolis Rowing Club, we have great interest in added public water access in Anne Arundel County. Gaining access to the water in this county comes at a very high price and it is prohibitive for many folks that would love to participate in rowing with us. Many of our members participate in the many other paddling sports in the local area and would greatly appreciate better access for watercraft like kayaks, SUP, canoes, Irish rowing boats and dragon boats. A community rowing/paddling site would be such an amazing addition to the county and would serve the needs of so many! We are happy to hear that you are making improvements throughout the county and hope that you will keep us in mind thank you for your consideration. Please visit our website for more information about our Club and contact info. http://www.annapolisrowingclub.com. See attached for more information about our specific needs.

2 11/16/16 BTBP Please continue to allow water sports / activities. 3 11/16/16 BTBP On behalf of the Baltimore Area Boardsailing Association (BABA), thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the plans for Beverly-Triton Beach Park (BT). I and our members have previously submitted comments and I have reviewed the new plans for BT. Our concerns are: 1) The car top launch area is too small for staging and launching equipment associated with windsports. Windsurfers and kiteboarders not only need to prepare and rig their equipment, but need to have an area to drop equipment between sessions (we launch an come back frequently then relaunch). The blue dot depicted on the map is too small to accommodate any more than a few sailors at a time (not including anyone who is kayaking or using a SUP). We would like to see an expansion of the car top launch area to include beach frontage to the north of the currently proposed area (up to 400 additional feet) so that separation is adequate. 2) The equipment used in our sports is best rigged and staged on a grassed area to avoid damage and dry for loading. It is unclear from the current plans if a grassed area will be available. North of the currently proposed launch area there is a proposed picnic area. We would benefit from some accommodation for staging of windsports equipment on the grassed area either in front of or in the proposed picnic area and having that picnic area moved to the north west or removed. BABA would be pleased to work with the car top boat user groups on design details for the loading and unloading zone and car top boat launch area, with special attention to the needs of the windsports. Please contact me if this is a possibility. Thank you for your continued work on the peninsula parks. BABA will help where we can to make them safe, clean, and enjoyable places for everyone. 4 01/09/17 BTBP When was the site survey completed for this project? 5 02/14/17 BTBP I do not believe it is wise to add traffic to this area. I moved here and purchased a home in 2015. In 2016, I had 3 different occurrences of either not being able to leave the peninsula or get on to the peninsula to get home for 3 or more hours. Many people, including my household , have elderly living as extended family and adding more traffic without road is just plain irresponsible and dangerous. What if something happened at one a school or church? What if a natural disaster occurred?Fire response and medical response times are already challenging! Lastly, finish the Muddy Creek Road work soon...this is endangering people and lowering quality of life. 6 02/28/17 MBP Would actually like to see more parks for fishing activity. Mayo looked great. Also residents should have priority. I am sick of fishermen coming in from dc. They should be required to get a park pass sticker. To use the parks. 7 03/03/17 SRFP I should first disclaim that I cherish this park as-is and use it daily to walk my dog. The plan seems very reasonable. I'm glad there are no plans to develop the cultural resource area and also that the only boat launches will be cartop. Some questions/comments: The proposed picnic areas in the NE section are currently forested. How much deforestation is planned/needed? My opinion is that for any deforestation, there should be reforestation (perhaps in the area NW of the proposed playground.) What type of ground cover will be used for roads/parking lots? I hope the plan is gravel. 8 03/06/17 Glebe I live on property that boarders the Glebe Heights CS and would like to get the contact information for the team involved with the planning and building of this park so my voice can be heard. Can you provide this information? How can I learn about the time and location of the meetings for the parks.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 1 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 9 03/10/17 BTBP NO PICNIC PAVILION!! PLEASE! Creates huge impervious surface on critical area. 'Beach'underwater at high tide. This is not a suitable party/event space or for 400 people in a day. Several small covered tables ok - no paving. 10 03/29/17 Other why are you even thinking about doing anything on the peninsula as pres trump has cut all funding for the bay ,if any thing all dollars and efforts on expansion (studies meetings legislation etc) should be plouded into bay projects such as the peninsula between the south river and Selby bay as this lack of action has created significant erousion in Selby .lets take care of projects that need taking care of today without spending $$on stuff for expansion purposes

11 03/31/17 BTBP Play equipment and Park area at the end of Beverly Ave. is slated to be leased to Mayo Community and lacks any parking for other Mayo residents. The play equipment is under utilized and I feel it is unfair that tax paying residents of the Mayo peninsula cannot utilize this equipment due to a lack of parking. The only access point is through trails in Beverly Triton and it is not feasible to walk strollers and kids long distances to access play equipment. There are two gated off road areas that could be opened or utilized for limited parking areas. Possibly offer a "lottery" for keys to the gate to limit the amount of traffic, or charge a yearly amount similar to Quiet Waters for the use of the park area and parking. I understand the residents are concerned with over crowding, however there are ways to control this and feel it is unfair to the remainder of the Mayo Peninsula to only allow access to this area to the local walkable residences. 12 04/03/17 BTBP Please keep boat access as is. I respect all park rules and are looking forward to the new improvements, however I am concerned that boat/surf/ kite launch privileges may be taken away from this location. 13 04/07/17 SRFP He is concerned about the traffic and non-expansion fo 214, the disturbance of wildlife, swimming in the polluted waters of the South River 14 04/07/17 Other I’m a concerned citizen and home owner from the Loch Haven community in AA county. Since I moved to Edgewater in September I have been thrilled to see so much wildlife. My husband and I have seen foxes, deer, hawks, Osprey, turkey, and many other varieties of birds. At first thought the idea of a developed park sounds good. Who doesn’t want more picnic areas, boat launches, and trails in the woods. However, after viewing the plans for South River Farm Park and going to the Mayo community meeting on April 4th, I do not support the development of any parks in the Mayo area or any other developments. I have never been much of an activist but I assure you I am talking a lot to friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers. I’m disappointed that so many county officials are in support. Water runoff, waste, schools, emergency, traffic, and wildlife must be significantly addressed and fixed before even thinking about anymore development in the Mayo area. Please stop developing in our town and consider all that will be lost if you proceed. 15 04/11/17 BTBP I'm submitting this public comment to express my disappointment in Mr. Schuh's decision to remove the swimming area for the Beverly Triton Beach Park, as a result of the FY 18 budget proposal. I can certainly appreciate the concerns of the community and the impact, but removing the swimming area from the plan when we already have such limited access to the water in the area is disgraceful. I fully expect that there will still be people swimming at Beverly Triton beach park this summer and for each summer to come, as there has been since it became open to the public, but you will have stifled adding the necessary infrastructure so that people could swim in safety and preserve the natural environment. I don't know how you can expect to have a beach park with ~1 mile of shoreline and not have a designated swimming area. 16 04/12/17 BTBP My understanding of the plans for Beverly-Triton Beach Park strike me as an attempt at commercialization and development, not access or public use. It is already open to the public. This park is a pristine and ecologically sensitive area. One of the few left for the range of wild life that life there. I have recently joined in with my Mayo neighbors to ensure that our peninsula does not become a county executive development project. 17 07/04/17 BTBP Can we please transfer this Madness to Gibson Island? I have paid $100,000 in property taxes since 2008 when I moved here. What is good for Schuh is good for us poor folk here on the Mayo Peninsula. Schuh is the ultimate hypocrite. Who is paying him off for this? I would like to know how so many people from Virginia and Washington DC have been tipped off to head for our neighborhood.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 2 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 18 07/13/17 Other I would like to comment on the proposed boat launch at the South River Farm Park location. There has been a resurgence of underwater grasses in Selby Bay that aids in the overall water quality of Selby Bay, the South River, and the greater Chesapeake Bay. These grasses are not going to withstand the potential abuse from boaters launching from the proposed boat launch. The location of where the launch is proposed will not lend itself to boaters using the current boating channel, but rather crossing over the beds of underwater grasses as they head out towards the South River and beyond. I know studies have been conducted and papers have been written to detail the resurgence of these underwater grasses. Perhaps they should be consulted and added to the review process. I think this behooves us to strongly reconsider the need of a boat launch in Selby Bay and hope that the underwater grasses continue to improve water quality. Additionally, Selby Bay is already a very busy location with 4 marinas and a yacht club that docks hundreds of boats. Heavy traffic concerns already precipitate a major concern for neighbors. An increase in kayaks and paddleboards further adds to the crowded conditions. The channel currently used by the boaters is fairly narrow and at times ignored by the boaters on Selby Bay. We can’t undo an already congested Selby Bay, but we can in the park planning process choose to not construct a boat launch that can only exacerbate an overcrowded situation. 19 07/21/17 BTBP I live in Saunders Point. It is dangerous that there are so many people from outside the area, outside the community, outside the county coming into our one way in, one way out peninsula. It is dangerous for a multitude of reasons. One is the increase in crime or potential for crime, as seen on what happened in Carrs Wharf a couple of weeks ago regarding a domestic dispute. Also, increased traffic and potential for more accidents which are a strain on our areas emergency resources. I would also like to comment that loch haven is incredibly built up and it can take over 5 minutes to make a left turn out of there sometimes narrowly missing oncoming cars to take the gamble to cross. Increasing even more traffic is causing so much greater harm to our residents here. Please consider many many other locations around Anne arundel county that have more ways in and out of the communities and stop putting increased risks on the citizens of the Mayo Peninsula. 20 07/22/17 BTBP I grew up in Hillsmere and I remember what a fiasco Bay Ridge was opened up to "picnicking" many years ago. People were getting drunk & getting into fights all day Sat. & Sun. So you need ADEQUATE Park Ranger staffing & regular police patrols. The roads are inadequate for people who aren't familiar with the curves. Who is going to keep the kids from climbing on the rock jetties? They are loaded with water snakes. Swimming?? It's ankle deep! those people will have to go out 200 yards to get to thigh deep at ANY of these parks. Why isn't land down in South County looked at. Launch ramps would work there.

21 07/22/17 SRFP As a resident of the mayo peninsula and having lived in the Annapolis area my entire life I have seen this area expand. Some of the expansions have been for the better, however some have made living in the area worse. My first concern and I believe a concern that is being overlooked by Steve Schuh and the planning committee is route 2 south. You have allowed the expansion of townhomes and apartments all down Admiral Cochrane drive. Now you may ask yourself what does this have to do with the parks? If you have ever tried to make your way south off of Aris T. Allen traffic backs all the way tothe Riva rd overpass. Then once you get on route 2 traffic is backed all the way to West street down past the south river bridge. The area around Admiral Cochrane heading south is already congested to a tipping point. Now I believe opening up these parks in the manner you wish will further add to the strain on the infrastructure making more difficult to even cross the south river to get to 214. Now onto the south river farm park. I don't think you all are taking into account the amount of growth that has already occurred in the area. Currently we have several house being built across from the ball fields. Already we have signs going up for more subdivisions going into my neighborhood of Glebe heights. We already have a very difficult time turning off Loch Haven to get out onto 214. The infrastructure cannot support the expansion of this park. Allowing more public access at this time without visiting the intersection of Loch Haven and 214 is a mistake. The gas station there also makes it difficult as people exiting often don't pay attention. Also, with more traffic on Loch Haven on a street lined with neighborhoods one accident shuts down the road and we can't get home. We already had this happen once this year when a car rolled prior to Glebe heights dr and we sat of Loch Haven for 45 min with no other way to get home. I ask that you consider infrastructure, the environment and and safety first before pushing all these new parks and then playing catch up to deal with traffic and Ems response times.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 3 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 22 08/28/17 Glebe I was wondering if there is more detailed information on what type of buffers and screening will be provided at the dog park areas and the adjacent properties in Coxby's Estate, and also are any road improvements planned, it appears quite a few parking spaces are being provided at both the Glebe Heights Park and Mayo WRF Park. Will a community meeting be held to show more detailed plans once they are available? 23 09/05/17 SRFP The proposals for development of the Mayo Peninsula parks without commensurate infrastructure improvements is irresponsible and reckless. Route 214, as it is currently configured, can barely sustain the traffic of the restaurant population. The addition of transient traffic will place an undue burden on the residents and represent an abdication of your responsibility to the people who currently live on the peninsula. 24 09/28/17 Glebe First, I want to thank the committee for your hard work in planning the parks for the Mayo area. I'm very supportive of opening these parks to the public and I really appreciate the committee's ability to patiently listen to the community's feedback. I think we still have some hurdles to get over (namely issues with traffic which I agree is a big issue) but I'm very happy at the progress being made. My house backs the Glebe Heights CS Park and I would like to see a few additions taken into account in the planning process. 1. I would like the height of the fence surrounding the dog parks to be 6 feet in height at a minimum to prevent dogs from escaping and causing problems in the neighboring community. Any less would not be sufficient in my mind. 2. I would like additional plantings of both tall and short evergreens surrounding the park where the park may be visible from the surrounding homes and to provide a sound buffer. If necessary additional fencing should be included to prevent park visitors from wandering onto private property surrounding the park. 3. public posting of Article 12, Title 4, Subtitle 9-905 that would state all dogs not confined to the fenced in park need to be on a leash at all times 4. public posting of Article 12, Title 4, Subtitle 9-909 that would state all excreta shall be removed and disposed of properly. 5. Signage explaining the fines for these 2 items and parks officials on site periodically to police them. In addition, I would like to propose some additional amenities to be placed in any of the parks if they would fit 1. Two regulation sized bocce courts in a separate fenced off area. I had these in a park I grew up near and it was fun for both young people (I played in an informal league in High school) and especially as a game for our older, less mobile community members(who may not get much use out of Frisbee golf or volleyball). This amenity could be applied to either the Glebe Heights, Mayo WRF, or South River Farms Parks sites well. 2. Some type of fitness trail or outdoor gym. A fitness trail would be more "static" pieces such as chin-up bars, parallel bars, sit-up stations and benches typically spaced out along a recreational trail (for example the trail in Glebe Heights CS). With no moving parts, such systems should be cheap, easy to install and maintain. An outdoor gym would have all the equipment in a centralized location and may include moving parts powered by bodyweight. These concepts could be applied to either the glebe heights, Mayo WRF, or South River Farms Park sites. Attached is a picture of an example of an outdoor gym Lastly I want to thank whoever added the idea of the Kids wetland park to the Beverly Triton site. I have a 10 month old daughter that I'm sure will love it! 25 09/30/17 SRFP I understood from your web page that the only difference between the two schematics was that one was color and one b&w, but when I look at Alternate Schematic 1 for SRFP, I see many differences. Mostly notably, Sch 1 shows 205 parking spaces and Alt Sch 1 shows 300 parking spaces. In addition, the link named Alt Sch 1 links to a document labeled Schematic Plan 2 on the plan itself. Please resolve or clarify. 26 09/30/17 SRFP This plan is starting to look more reasonable. First and foremost, access to the park MUST be through a new road from 214 and NOT through the community. You show the new road on the alternate scheme. As an architect, I like the layout of the primary scheme, the tot area, the frisbee golf, the dog beach, etc... I would suggest that the landscaping needs to be more intentional, even at this stage. Trees randomly placed around will not make this design special. I would highly recommend that you start designing intentional rain gardens integrated into the parking area, tot lot and pavilions. Utilize the curved design of the parking lot to define space, not randomly place buildings on the site. I am concerned about the picnic pavilions/areas, especially the ones in the North East section of the property. This area is way back there off marshy and wetland areas and I do not have a clear picture how/if trash removal and pumping out of the comfort station will be managed or how you will protect these areas with a structured road running through them. I can quickly see this becoming a rodent infested area with trash blowing into the river. Finally, there seems to be a disconnect between the parks and water access. You are showing a kayak launch and trails in a area that is being proposed for a boat launch. I like your plan much better and would suggest you stop the plans for a boat launch and focus on your plan for this area.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 4 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 27 09/30/17 SRFP In reference to South River Farm Park please create a new road in so people do not use Loch Haven Road. There is already too much traffic in our residential community. 28 10/02/17 SRFP I have several concerns with regard to the opening of South River Farm Park. The first is traffic on Loch Haven Road. We have a lot of problems with speeding in our neighborhood. We have just had a traffic study done and have been approved to install two speed bumps on Loch Haven Road. That traffic study was done with regard to existing traffic conditions and does not include the additional traffic that would be incurred with the opening of SRF parks. I would like to see access to the park from Central Avenue, and through the woods, bypassing Loch Haven Road altogether. Access from Loch Haven Road should be as it is used to be; bicycles and foot traffic only. My second concern is the wading area on the north side of the drawing, that is, the Limehouse Cove area. Our community uses that cove in order to access our community marina and I am concerned that the cove will become crowded with swimmers and boating accidents may occur. If a child is swimming underwater, they could easily be hit by a boat or a boat propeller. I am also concerned about safety of our marina and boats. It's only a very short and shallow walk from the Limestone Cove beach area to our marina. We have a tough time now keeping our own neighborhood kids from using our marina piers and boats as diving boards. Having additional children trespassing on our pier will become increasingly dangerous. What measures will be put in place to ensure that waders do not become swimmers? Will lifeguards enforce this wading only policy? The "wading only" policy is currently not being enforced at Mayo Beach Park or Triton Beach Park. My last concern is overall safety and supervision of the park for cleanliness and criminal activities. Who will be in charge of this and will there be a park ranger at the park at all times during operating hours?

29 10/08/17 SRFP The roads can not handle additional traffic! The one road in and out of the area is not sufficient, when ever an emergencys takes place! (Storms, fires, accidents, etc.ect.), the residents are stuck in there vehicles for hours coming in and unable to leave the peninsula going out! Who’s is making these so called improvements? The politicians that live outside the area! Stop building! 30 10/11/17 BTBP I have written multiple times, so here I go again. I am severely disappointed in the lack of knowledge and care of our community in Edgewater. This city is starting to turn into a mini Glen Burnie. What happened to the quaint town that was Edgewater. Why are county officials i.e. County Executive Steve Schuh honing in on Edgewater as its next target to overpopulate. Has anyone seen the traffic, congestion, accidents, increased crime? It appears we are also battling am MS-13 epidemic (see todays Capital article) about a local Edgewater resident involved with MS-13 who murdered a woman. Our county funds should be focused on education, infrastructure and crime, not over populating and expanding small cities for the agenda of the County Executive and $$$. As it stands right now, every single morning it takes me over 20 minutes to get from Saunders Point to Muddy creek. You all should be focusing on making the roads safer. Additionally, it is very very scary trying to cross over from loch haven back towards the peninsula. I shoot out in front of other drivers hoping I don't get hit. There are accidents there what must feel like weekly. Increasing athletic fields on the peninsula is a horrible idea. The entire peninsula gets gridlocked with people who don't know where they are going and there is no way to get around them on the weekends. Find somewhere else to increase your coffers.

31 10/11/17 BTBP I like the alt. that has smaller parking. I see you have 2 fishing pier s. Are you planning on stocking this pond? There is no natural "feed" ( like in Mayo park). I have taken my kayak around this pond. I have a fish finder on the yak. The deepest spot I could find is 3 feet deep. Almost all of the pond is 2 feet. There is some perch in there. Not a lot. My biggest concern is properly manning this and all these proposed parks so that they are safe and have County reps here to maintain order. If they aren't there visitors will pay where they want and litter, as evidenced at Carr's Wharf. 32 10/11/17 MBP Either alt. has too much parking. If I have to choose, then I choose the alt. ( smaller parking footprint). This park needs to be properly manned the entire time it is open. I see two references for "ramp". does that mean for boat launching? If so, you're nuts! Other than rooftop boats, you cannot launch anything there with a motor. I recommended a private/public partnership for launching boats. Please do that! People already speed down Honeysuckle Rd. when you have public assess days. It is unsafe for the people that live there. There ARE small kids on that road. Or does safety matter? ONLY access?

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 5 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 33 10/11/17 BTBP Beverly Triton is one of the last undeveloped patches of woodland on the Chesapeake. Leave it alone and protect it as was the original edict. It takes 20 mins for an ambulance to get to the end of the peninsula now, more development will only make it worse. Traffic is already bad enough. I sit in rush hour every morning and evening getting on and off the peninsula. That's crazy to have traffic jams in MAYO,MD! This isn't Northern VA! 34 10/11/17 Mayo I prefer the Alt. There aren't many ball fields. How about moving the two old tennis courts ( in poor repair) behind the Mayo Community Ctr. and put new WRF ones in this park? I think people are afraid to go to the existing courts. they are off the beaten track. I prefer the Frisbee course here. but it's not central to the county. 35 10/11/17 BTBP Once again the changes suggested are not in any way representative of what our county needs. First of all, most of this is already available around the corner at Mayo Beach Park. Secondly, you are talking about building fishing piers and proving parking to areas of the park that have delicate infrastructure and are already eroding. There are pavilions being added but the trash cans have been removed and it is ending up on the side of the Triton Beach road. There is a plan to build a wetland playground for children - why - why would you destroy habitat where eagles breed to build something like this - it is a waste of money. Finally, I do not see any plans for improvement of the infrastructure to get to this park which is at the end of the peninsula. If there are going to be pavilions, what happens if there is a fire? It can take quite a long time for response if there is traffic or an accident which is ever increasingly frequent. Why is the county wasting money on this frivolous stuff when Edgewater elementary is falling apart, the roads don't super the traffic that is already here, there are 40 plus kids in middle school classes. The county needs to wake up and smell the coffee rather than trying to fill their own caufers. They are out of touch with what the residents want and more imporantly need. Fix the roads, fix the schools, help fix the drug problems then talk about boathouses and bathhouses. Who is going to police these? Who is going to clean and stock these. Who is going to clean up the trash along Triton Beach Road and how just how are you going to ensure safety if there is an accident and fire , medical or both are needed either for the park visitors or for the residents of Saunders Point.

36 10/11/17 SRFP Please ensure that South River Farm Park continues to enable cyclocross racing to occur every Fall. AACX is the only cycling race in the County and continues to promote cycling and racing with the County and region! 37 10/12/17 Mayo I am voicing my STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSITION to ALL of the above proposed projects. My reason mainly involves traffic and restricted access to the WRF peninsula on weekends. Most of the increased traffic these parks will cause will be on weekends. The traffic on Hwy 214 on Saturdays and Sundays is already slow and backed up all day. If there is any kind of accident or incident, it causes the peninsula to be an island and all of us living here are cut off! There is NO ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. FIRE, AMBULANCE, POLICE. NO ACCESS. If these parks are built, this will worsen the already dire situation. Until Hwy 214 is widened all the way to Shoreham Beach road, these parks SHOULD NOT BE FURTHER DEVELOPED. 38 10/14/17 Mayo Proposing ball fields and hundreds of parking spaces on a road that cannot handle the current traffic is negligible. The Loch Haven Rd and West Shore WRF Dr/River Club Dr. intersections are problematic as they stand now. Adding more traffic especially at these intersections will increase the risk of possible harm. Also, the current parks in our county are not well maintained. How will we be able to maintain additional parks/fields? This county continues to put the cart before the horse. Our area needs infrastructure, a centrally located fire station to decrease response times and schools FIRST! 39 10/14/17 BTBP I am against developing parks that increase traffic without upgrading the infrastructure to the Mayo Peninsula. 40 10/14/17 Other Excited for all of these parks. I do agree we need to address the roads. Can we add a turn lane which could also be used for emergency vehicles? 41 10/18/17 SRFP Words will not explain the frustration I have for the money hungry thieves who are in charge and attempting to move forward with these plans. As a life long resident of Loch Haven I have seen first hand the destruction you have already started to our neighborhood and peninsula. TOO MUCH ALREADY IF YOU ASK ME. IF YOU GO THROUGH WITH THESE PLANS THE ONLY THING YOUR HELPING IS YOURSELF. DEGRADATION WILL INCREASE AND SO WILL YOUR REPERCUSSIONS.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 6 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 42 10/21/17 BTBP Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the park development process. As a county resident, I make frequent use of Triton Park averaging 1 to 2 visits per week. I applaud you for including a kiteboard drop-off area. However, I strongly urge you to designate a wind and water sports section of the beach separate from the swimmers and sunbathing area. Ideally, this would be on the north section of the beach given prevailing southeast winds in the summer time. 43 10/21/17 BTBP Would really like to see a Northern launch for Kite surfers to ensure safety for all. 44 10/21/17 BTBP As a regular kite boarder to this beach, I would like to stress the benefit of having an area where we can launch and land our kites safely away from beach users. On the Northside downwind from the bathers in a SW would be out of the way and a great benefit. Thank you for your consideration. 45 10/21/17 BTBP Being a member of the kiteboarding community, I am very glad to see a dedicated area for gear dropoff but it would be ideal (and much safer for the general public) to also include a portion of the beach that is dedicated to kiteboarding due to the size requirements for the necessary gear. 46 10/21/17 BTBP We, kitesurfers often go to Trition in SE winds, which is typically in the warmer seasons when there are other people at the beach. The proposal looks good but it doesn't include a kite launch area. The best location for a launch area would be the north section of the beach since it'll be downwind of the beach goers. Please consider it. A revision would be greatly appreciated. We go to Triton often. 47 10/22/17 BTBP Thank you for engaging with the public. Would like to highlight that kiters need a protected launch area on the sandy beach along the north section. I propose the north section as we kite in SE winds and this will be downwind of the swimmers. This ensures SAFE beach access for all users. 48 10/22/17 BTBP It is great to see the county working to develop these beaches. Thank you for that. I would like to propose a modification to the plan to allocate a dedicated wind sports launch area along the north section of the sandy beach. This will provide a safe area for wind sport practitioners to launch in the predominant winds that this beach is used for, without running the risk of fouling with swimmers or other beachgoers. 49 10/22/17 BTBP Thank you for keeping Beverly Park an open space park. The natural, forested areas and trails are a rare and important asset to the whole county. I am a kitesurfer and also greatly appreciate that our sport is specifically named as a use for the park. People come from long distances for the car drop off, grassy rigging area, and the shallow entrance to the bay to launch kites. There is almost nowhere else in the county that is suited to our sport and we greatly appreciate that the park ranger is so welcoming to all of us. I would like to suggest that the northern area of the beach be designated for launching and landing kites. The park ranger makes sure that sunbathers and kids move from this area when we are there so we don't mix kiting with other uses that may introduce risks. I think that a path from the rigging area to a section of beach that has a sign to designate a small area for safe launching and landing of kites would be a benefit to kiters, other users of the beach and the rangers as they maintain order there. 50 10/22/17 BTBP 1) I want to congratulate the staff to open up the car park area across the entrance street. 2) I recommend that a sign be placed on the beach that the northern section be reserved as a kite launch area. 51 10/22/17 BTBP I am currently reside in Arlington, VA, but use the Triton Beach water access to perform the sport of kiteboarding. There are a handful of public beaches that work for our sport, and Triton is by far the best one. We are hoping when you discussing the future of this wonderful beach and the opportunities it may bring, please consider the following: Our sports needs a protected launch area, and maybe the on the sandy beach along the north section would be best. The reasoning is that, the Triton location is best in SouthEast winds, so that would keep up upwind and away from swimmers/beach goers. I must say, our kiteboarding Ambassadors and members are one of the best in the East Coast. Our crew is the most thoughtful, mindful and reliable men and women I know. Thank you all for your consideration and to allow us to have a voice in this decision. We hope to continue this conversation in the future.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 7 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 52 10/22/17 BTBP While I'm happy to see the development of the Beveryly-Triton park, it would be nice to have a better designation for the wind sport enthusiasts (kiteboard, windsurf) who have long used, cleaned and helped police this park. While the drop-off area is good, there needs to be a designated launch/rigging area to separate sunbathers from sailing gear. While either plan is sound, the alternate posted is better to facilitate a separation of swimmers/sundbathers and sport users. In the alternate plan the road comes in along the existing track, which will allow easy signage to show beach-goers to the south (right), windsports to the north (left). This is also a better area for launching kites due to the open space behind over the rangers house which allows clean airflow.

53 10/23/17 BTBP Thank you for our efforts in up keeping our parks, trails, and allowing access to the water for residents of the County. In terms of the proposed kayak/kiteboard area drop off, both those watercraft need a "Launch Area" on the water. This could be in a section just adjacent/across from the grass lawn or slightly North of the projected "Drop off" where there is open air free of trees for launching kites. Triton has a wonderfully long beach, which can easily be shared by all residents. 54 10/23/17 BTBP I appreciate the kiteboard windsurf paddle equipment drop offs in your design. It would be nice to have a spot on the beach designated to launch and land into the water. I have really enjoyed kiteboarding, stand up paddling and windsurfing at the mayo peninsula parks. I have using the parks since the Mayo wind permit system was launched. Triton has been really fun. I really appreciate the county allowing us to use these spots. 55 10/23/17 BTBP We are a group of kiteboarders in the area, and it is very important for us to be able to retain launching/ setup area to the north of the site. If at all possible, please make this consideration and alteration to the final design and construction. 56 10/23/17 BTBP The current proposed windsport launch site in the "Schematic Plan 1 - Beverly Triton Beach Park" is too close to the trees and is dangerous for kites with long lines. Please keep the current launch site which is directly in front (or center) of grass lawn and where the comfort/bath house is planned. The bathhouse can be moved near the trees where it provides shades and shelter from the wind for the families. 57 10/23/17 Other I just sent this message to the county this morning... I have a great idea that should put PLENTY of $$ money in the pockets of anne arundel county, make my home safer for my children and for my neighbors, and get DRUNK DRIVERS off our roads! I lived off of rt. 214E and river club Dr in Edgewater for several years now and have noticed A LOT more traffic coming on and off our peninsula. The tons of traffic stinks but I got used to the noise, I'm over it... What I am not over is the excessive speeding! ALL THROUGHOUT THE MORNING, DAY AND NIGHT! Also not to mention the number of DRUNK DRIVERS THAT took out my fence on two different occasions, side swiped my garage on another, and this past May someone actually DROVE THROUGH OUR ENTIRE GARAGE AND DROVE AWAY! My husband planted trees on the side of our house (our own guard rail, in a way) someone just took a couple of those out the other night. We found tire tracks going right over them. My home sits between 2 schools and 2 camps. The speed limit posted is 40mph. Everyone does AT LEAST 50+! On their way in and off the peninsula. I fear for all our kids who have their bus stops along 214. AAC has now opened a few of our beaches down here to the public which attracts even more traffic and potential DRUNK DRIVERS making their way down our one lane in and one lane out road. I'M BEGGING FOR SPEED CAMERAS OR SPEED TRAPS (they can sit right in my yard!) and I'M BEGGING FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO COME AND OBSERVE THE NUMBER OF DRUNK DRIVERS MAKING THEIR WAY ON AND OFF OUR PENINSULA *LAST YEAR A YOUNG MAN (19YRS OF AGE) WAS MURDERED IN A HIT AND RUN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT! I NEED TO KNOW THAT AAC IS AWARE OF THESE DANGERS TO OUR COMMUNITY! And I NEED TO KNOW WHAT AAC PLANS ON DOING ABOUT IT, other than we'll look into it. PLEASE help keep our peninsula safe 58 10/23/17 BTBP Regarding the Triton Beach renovation plans, I would like to post a comment on behalf of the local kiteboarding community. We have very much enjoyed and appreciated being accepted by the park, rangers, and county thus far. In light of that good relationship, we hope that the new plans would include a protected launch area for kites, on the sandy beach along the north section of the beach.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 8 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 59 10/23/17 BTBP 1. Why are the never any plans to make additional access from mayo road itself? Or Beverly beach community? Because county staff will be personally inconvenienced. 2. The studies done show there is already too much traffic on the peninsula causing delayed police and fire response. The county is intentionally putting our communities at more risk of total home loss if there were a catastrophic event. 3. There NEEDS to be an access fee for the park. "The same as all other county parks" Large numbers on residents from PA,DC, VA come to this park and pay nothing. To avoid going to other fee based parks. The current administration seems to dismiss this every time I bring it up...... the only reason would be they personally stand to gain from having MORE traffic on the peninsula. I.e. Business owners? County will be legally liable for injuries caused by the increased traffic and even further delayed emergency response times. 4. This park was set aside to PROTECT NATIVE SPECIES. The beach is being eroded causing more pollution in the bay and less native wildlife to survive. There are wild turkeys in this park RARE in AA county land these days and after the state of MD spent millions to get the population to start rebounding you are going to destroy their fragile ecosystem with more trails and more people. 5. Why does every park have to have various play areas and multiple parking lots? Can't we understand that natural areas are valuable too. Most people I have talked to don't seem to care whether there is a large bathhouse or just a small restroom. And why add fishing piers to a tidal pond that is only a few feet deep. Again the area is fragile please understand this.

60 10/23/17 BTBP PROTECT THE FIELD IMO we should try to prevent any structures/development from occurring to the left of the current access road as you approach the water. That field is one of the best attributes of Triton, whether you are a kiter, windsurfer or general park visitor, the field, free of structures is a wonderful aspect of the park that we should fight to protect if possible. It is maddening to me that the county wants to build so many structures/parking lots etc in this field. I do understand that this is likely the most sensible place to build as it is level and already cleared but that being said, we should fight to keep the view of the water as free of man made-structures as possible. There is plenty of space to the right of the trail as you come into the gated area of the park, and to the right at the curve as you turn towards the beach to build some of the structures like Pavilion, bathroom/shower facilities, etc. 61 10/23/17 BTBP I support the kayak launch at Beverly-Triton Beach Park. 62 10/23/17 BTBP I am a kiteboarder that frequently visits Triton Beach park on windy days.While in your planning stage I'd ask you consider a protected launch area on the sandy beach along the north section.I feel this would be the safest for both kiters and beach goer's. 63 10/23/17 SRFP I support the idea of additional playing fields. There is a lack of lighted field in the south river area. We are also in need of paved trails for biking and walking. This will be a safe alternative to biking on shared roads. 64 10/23/17 BTBP I kite at Triton often and ask for continued kiting access. Kiting adds a festive air to Triton beach. It would be great if there was a dedicated area to launch kites on windy days. 65 10/23/17 Mayo I am concerned that the recent traffic study is flawed. It used only the data for current bldg. permits. It did not take into account the additional building that WRF has not yet been permitted. I don't think it accurately reflects the 350 infill lots that were denied permits during the moratorium. Also, how does it account for the additional traffic driving on and off the peninsula for regular ball field practices and games from folks that live off the peninsula like South River Colony and Londontown. Many times 2 parents go directly from work to 1 ball field for their kids evening games. How will all those cars safely make left turns off Rt 214 into the WRF park? There are no plans for a center left turning lane on Rt 214 East. Currently traffic backs up at 8:00AM when 50 vehicles drop off school children at Summit School and have to make a left turn. I am trying to imagine how 550 parking spaces proposed for WRF park will impact traffic flow on Rt 214. I realize not all 550 will be coming at the same time but usually sports' practices are at the same time on week day evenings. Weekend games will have a huge impact with cars coming and going from 9:00AM when games start and continuing throughout the day. I am all for parks for kids and everyone. I think they are great. I want to make sure the County and State are going to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the increased volume of traffic that will come with the new and modified parks. I believe the traffic study does not accurately reflect the true increase in traffic on the Mayo Peninsula.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 9 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 66 10/23/17 BTBP I am a long time Crownsville resident and kayaker. We kayakers are hampered by the scarcity of public launch sites in Anne Arundel County. I am strongly in support of a car-top launch site in the Beverly Triton Beach Park for the additional access it would provide to the Chesapeake Bay. It is a challenge to find access between Jonas Green park and Galesville, so Beverly Triton Beach would be one answer, even while more is needed. Keep adding car-top launches to the AAC parks. 67 10/24/17 BTBP Adding amenities like bath houses and paved parking is a disservice to the environment, water quality and wildlife. The park is a beautiful nature preserve. I'd like to see it advertised as a nature preserve open to the public to take in the views rather than a park. It's important to keep some land on the peninsula and around waterways undisturbed from development and heavy vehicle/foot traffic.

68 10/24/17 Other Due to the already outrageous road congestion I'm pretty sure I am putting my house on the market next year. I have resided on the Mayo Penninsula for 35 years. I know there is no more to say. Go ahead and pave to the bay. I will be gone I hope ! 69 10/24/17 BTBP The undertaking of this project at Beverly-Triton Beach is enormous and seems to be in complete disregard for the communities that surround the park. The opening of a non-motor watercraft launch certainly seems like the beginning stages of trying to eventually get motorized watercraft made available. 214 past Muddy Creek isn't made to handle this volume of traffic and presents those of us who live here with enough daily challenges, adding thousands of more visitors every weekend will show even more of the issues this road creates. There was police activity 2 weeks ago that completely severed our peninsula from the rest of the County - these occurrences happen as a reminder that there's only one road out for those living beyond Muddy Creek Rd. We have already been told we are at 12+ minutes for any EMS vehicle to reach us, longer than is typical anywhere else. We live on septic sewers and wells, the increased usage for non-residents during peak visitor season seems ripe for problems to this system. The proposed 'safe space' for non-development is all inland, that's no coincidence. Enhance the beauty of the area through natural, non-errosion enducing ways, and while you won't get the boating/swimming traffic that seems to be the desire of the County Council you'll get lovers of nature who will continue to preserve the reason those of us in this area moved here in the first place. There are other ways to generate revenue in AA Co; however, it doesn't seem that those have been given as much of a push/green light as this project. 70 10/25/17 Mayo I continue to be very concerned about the capacity of Rt 214 to manage the proposed field installation for Mayo WRF. I commute daily from our home on the WRF Mayo peninsula which is off Rt 214, beyond the proposed complex and the traffic congestion between 4:30 - 7:00 pm is significant. As a parent whose children participated actively on soccer, softball and baseball teams from elementary through high school, I will attest that these games take place from 4:30 - 9:00 pm which falls at the same time as the commute time. I would encourage the County to widen the road through Camp Letts to accommodate this traffic. This past week, I visited a comparable facility in Severna Park which has approximately the same number of fields. I visited this complex on two consecutive evenings (arriving around 5:00 pm). Not only was there significant number of cars parked in the neighborhood, but the traffic turning into this complex resulted directly in significant congestion. In Severna Park, the community appeared to have alternative routes. It is important to note that there is ONLY one road in and out of the Mayo Peninsula and it is a narrow single lane road, with no shoulders. 71 10/25/17 Mayo Traffic is going to be a big problem. We already have traffic jams and this will add another 1200 parking spots on the peninsula. Roads cannot handle much WRF more. - What will the hours of operation be? I live right next to this park. - What about infrastr 72 10/25/17 BTBP I am part of a community of Kiteboarders who frequently use the Triton beach as a launch. The current plan would make it very difficult to launch as we do now. I appreciate the gear drop-off area, but we typically use the field area to rig our kites then launch. The pavilion and tot lot area would prevent us from doing this. That open field area is one of the best attributes to this park. I'd suggest having a larger setback between the pavilion and the water, or relocating them to along the treeline, or in the picnic area. 73 10/25/17 BTBP I would like to propose a 'wind' permit for Beverly-Triton similar to the one at 'Mayo-Wind'. A dropping off/unloadig area makes it difficult to use Beverly- Triton for Windsurfing. It would be nice if we could park closer to the water.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 10 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 74 10/25/17 SRFP I have been a Selby resident since 2005 and have served on the on the BOD of the Selby Community Association for a number of years. There are two serious problems with the South River Park plan. 1) Access, the Mayo peninsula has a single two lane road without shoulders in and out (Rt. 214) it is barely sufficient for the existing residents. Accidents have completely closed the road at least three times this year. 2) Erosion in Selby Bay, our community is investing a $250K to protect the community beach - this project is adding considerable boat traffic to an area that is very vulnerable. Any boat ramps should be placed on the South River side of the park where Selby bay is not affected by increased wake action, only soft access should be inside the Selby bay area (Kayak, paddle boards, etc...). Long point is eroding away from storms and boat wakes, if South Park wants to be a good neighbor then any planning should include restoration of the point. Selby and Lock Haven are small communities with limited access, the park authority needs to consider the impact of adding traffic to these areas. Rt. 214 does not have shoulders, there are no sidewalks or bike paths in any of these communities. The peninsula is on well water with a sewage moratorium in place - once these issues are addressed then I think the county should consider park development. 75 10/26/17 MBP 1. The limited parking near the car top launch sites. 2. Many potential users would like to be able to haul their equipment to the launch site by a trailer. No space under these plans. and 3. How about a launch site on the inland waters? Thanks for allowing this input. And, keep up this the good work 76 10/26/17 BTBP My comments will focus on Beverly-Triton Beach Park, (B-Tr) but my concerns about expanding impervious surfaces with huge, apparently paved, parking lots apply to all the Mayo Peninsula parks. In general, this THIRD plan still over-develops an ecologically fragile site. So much wasted tax-payer dollars....did THIS contractor actually visit the site? But I will try to delineate my concerns in an orderly fashion. PARKING: B-Tr is and should remain a nature preserve with eagles, egg-laying endangered horseshoe crabs, frogs, turtles and other valued wildlife and old groves of trees. Were every planned parking space occupied, the park would be over-run, damaged and lose its character and important role in absorbing, slowing and cleaning water running into the Bay. What happened to a total of 93? 96? parking spaces in the SECOND plan? The 103 currently planned spaces do not even count those planned for inside the park. And by the way, even and only on beautiful summer weekends, there have never been more than about 20-25 cars parked on the corner lot at one time since the Park opened to the public. There should be no parking N of the relocated TR-B Road, and no trails N of the road. There is nothing to see in this wetland, with a creek crossing it that flows directly into the Bay in storms, and not wide enough for a loop trail. Bored people not wanting to double back would be crossing Triton Beach Road all along it and entering the Park off the Park trails, compacting soil. And parking in that dark corner would only encourage bad late night behaviors. Parking areas must NOT be paved. The planned parking for 103 cars is in the buffer area and will be only sporadically used, and then mostly on summer weekends. It is not only fragile, but paving it will be a waste of money. At best, two rows of the pervious lattice-work frames would serve the purpose without damaging the ecology. There should be no parking inside the park, especially not anywhere near the water other than for temporary car top boat loading. Cars are heavy soil compactors, and this soil needs to absorb as much as possible. The picnic area is close to the entrance, which is a good idea and no one needs to park their car next to the picnic table. PATHS: Do the brown-colored paths indicate paving? If accessibility is desired, a paved trail paralleling the unpaved road for car top boat launching to the water is sufficient. There will be an extensive, paved loop trail connecting Glebe Heights, River Farm and RWT Parks that actually makes sense for those with accessibility issues. Paving the paths through B-TR Park ignores the fragile ecology and would undo the Rangers' admirable attempts to protect the cantilevered area above and along the eroding beach. Wherever paths cross marshy areas, little footbridges should protect them, as the planned walkway across the Big Pond/Bay shoreline would protect that area. And as already noted, no trails N or the relocated parking lot, please. CHILDREN'S PLAY AREAS: The envisioned wetland play space is a wetland in the Critical Area! No compaction, please! And there is no “pond” in that area east of Carvel Lane. It is marsh, as is the whole area, and in the critical area. If there is to be a tot lot, please no plastic, but rather a nature play space with sand “flooring.” BATHROOM/BATHHOUSE:

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 11 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment cont 10/26/17 BTBP Toilets are necessary and they need tending. Please consider an educational and ecological solution embodied by the CLIVUS self-mulching toilets. They need 'd little more tending than any other, and require no plumbing or sewer connection, saving our tax dollars. If there is no swimming at B-TR Beach Park why is a bathhouse needed? This is not Sandy Point! No kite boarders or windsurfers have ever expected to immediately shower. And again, the plumbing would be very expensive. Would we be sending a mixed message about not swimming? And please, what is a wildlife blind? Surely you aren't planning duck shooting in the park? Thank you for considering these comments and hopefully heeding them.

77 10/27/17 Other 1. Nature Parks: I propose that BTBP and SRFP be kept as natural as possible and their uses be in keeping with those at Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary (i.e. passive rather than recreational uses). Athletic fields, disc golf, playgrounds, picnic pavilions, etc. should be placed at WRF and GP, kept at MBP and removed from BTBP and SRFP. 2. Roads: The proposed 24’ wide paved road between WRP and SRFP is not needed because of existing access roads. At most, there could be a pervious surface walking trail connecting the parks. The planned 24’ wide paved road beyond the greenhouses and 52 parking spaces in the NE corner of SRFP are not needed. Nature trails should provide sufficient access to wading beaches and picnic areas. These changes will preserve significant forest and understory in WRP and SRFP. 3. Trails: Paving trails throughout the parks to make them ADA accessible should be heavily restricted and almost all the trails should remain natural (pervious) surfaces. In BTBP, “accessible” needs to be defined for trails and roads. How is the designated “accessible handicap beach” area accessed in BTBP? 4. Sewer: Proposed toilet and shower facilities for all parks should be connected to the existing sewer system and proposed/existing septic fields eliminated. These facilities could be moved closer to the existing sewer lines to reduce cost. 5. Swimming: Attention needs to be given to public health concerns and liability issues (some planned swimming/wading areas are currently designated impaired for water contact). 6. Traffic/Parking: For all the parks, up to 1,280 parking spaces (possibly 3,700 people?) are planned. If these were all used, traffic on Central Ave (Rt 214) and local roads would be seriously congested. Parking should be reduced significantly at BTBP, MBP and SRFP to relieve this problem. 7. Picnic Areas: These should be restricted to already cleared areas and forest/understory preserved (especially in SRFP). 8. FIDS: For all parks, Forest Interior Dwelling Species areas need to have planned uses specified.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 12 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 78 10/27/17 Other By this letter, the South River Federation (“SRF” or “the Federation”) conveys its comments on the schematic plans for the five parks on the Mayo peninsula submitted to the Committee on September 19, 2017. Overview The Federation commends the Committee on its ongoing engagement with the citizens who will be most affected by the proposed changes to the parks on the peninsula, and groups like SRF as it tailors the plans to maximize use and enjoyment of these public properties while minimizing adverse environmental impact and traffic and safety concerns. While there are some items in the plans that cause SRF concern (such as excessive parking spaces), overall the plans seem to incorporate a number of changes proposed in prior comment letters from SRF and others, and we remain optimistic that the final outcomes for these parks will enhance their use and enjoyment by the County’s residents. Parking is a concern, especially in light of the fact that once all proposed projects are implemented, there will be 5 parks for off-peninsula visitors to choose from, all with similar and sometimes overlapping activities possible, so offering maximum parking capacity may not be necessary. The Federation further recommends that all new facilities in the parks receive environmental site design and have stormwater from new impervious surfaces treated to the maximum extent possible. Finally, proposed toilet and shower facilities for all parks should be connected to existing sewer systems rather than septic systems. Each of these parks enjoys close proximity to tidal waters and non-tidal streams or ponds and all increased human waste should not be allowed to leach into the ground, even if Best Available Technology is employed. Bathroom facilities should be sited as closely as possible to existing sewer lines to reduce cost and environmental impact. The following comments relate to the color-rendered, primary plans for each park unless otherwise specified. Beverly Triton Beach Park The plan for Beverly Triton Beach Park (BTBP) is less impactful than many of the proposed park plans, emphasizing nature trails and preserving forested area. This model seems like the best compromise between increasing user availability while preserving natural resources and SRF commends the County’s restraint from countenancing prior proposals for redevelopment of BTBP, such as those in the 2000 Harms & Associates Master Plan, which included recommendations for ball fields, camping, canoes rentals, etc. The Federation notes that the proposed 130 parking spaces is excessive in light of the limited facilities at the BTBP, and recommends reducing that figure to preserve the fragile shoreline at this location from inundation with swimmers and waders. SRF also recommends that the parking lot be constructed of pervious stone or paving materials to reduce stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable, and that in addition to pervious paving materials, rain gardens, bioswales, and other stormwater best management practices be installed to ensure that stormwater is adequately treated and prevented from carrying sediment into the Chesapeake Bay or the natural ponds in the park. SRF requests that the County elaborate on the “Children’s Wetland Play Space” proposal, and clarify whether and how much clearing of forest would be required to effectuate that idea. Finally, SRF supports improving existing trails to make them ADA accessible, so long as any stabilization

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 13 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment cont 10/27/17 Other measures are constructed of pervious materials, such as wood chips or loose gravel, and do not increase stormwater runoff in the park. Mayo Beach Park 'd The proposal for Mayo Beach park seems compatible with the status quo at that park, i.e., more developed than the others. The Federation recommends that the proposed shower/comfort station by the car top boat launch be removed, as existing showers can be utilized. South River Farm Park The proposal for South River Farm Park (SRFP) reflects numerous improvements over the proposal for the plan at this time last year. The removal of ball fields is a common sense modification that SRF is glad to see the County making. Similarly, the reduction in parking from 309 to 205 proposed spaces is a step in the right direction; although 205 is still too many parking spaces. However, some concerning elements of last year’s plan remain. For example, the proposal for paved roads throughout the park remains. It is entirely inappropriate to pave a two-lane road onto the northern peninsula of the park (Mayo Point), and the proposal to place 42 parking spaces on that fragile peninsula should be abandoned as well. SRF believes that people should be able to swim and wade in the River, but Mayo point is shored up by living shorelines which will be adversely impacted by this design, which directs large numbers of people toward the point to access the River. Finally, Mayo Point is a known habitat for many varieties of birds, and allowing motor traffic out to the point will destroy this habitat, and is unacceptable. SRF supports the County’s efforts to open our River to more people for their recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. However, this increased access must be mindful of the nesting grounds for Diamondback terrapins and horseshoe crabs, which use the beaches in and around the Park for nesting grounds. For instance, research by the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Refuge Center shows that the proposed swimming area on Limehouse Cove covers areas of known terrapin nesting sites.1 In the siting of direct water contact activity areas, special care should be taken to ensure that they are sited such that they not disturb the nests or nesting grounds of any turtles or horseshoe crabs that use the beach for spawning. A site visit to the park last fall by the undersigned revealed several small sloughed horseshoe crab shells on the beach. In addition, SRF is aware of the historic presence of terrapins in the precise location of the proposed swimming areas. (See Exhibits to SRF Comments dated November 4, 2016.) See also an article in the Washington Post describing Ms. Margaret Whilden’s work and referencing the project that is the source of the collection report attached as Exhibit A.2 As before, SRF recommends that a targeted presence/absence survey be performed for these species on the shorelines in and around the park to determine where horseshoe crabs and terrapins are nesting, and that the water-related facilities be sited far from these nesting areas to protect nesting horseshoe crabs and terrapins. SRF generally approves of the disc golf proposal as a low-impact activity for the park, provided that the siting of disc baskets does not require clearing or grubbing of forest understory. The proposal from last year included the clearing of 6.5 acres of forest understory which should be avoided. Anecdotally, several areas surrounding the existing cleared area have had understory cleared naturally by deer, and if the County intends to site disc baskets in the forest, it should make every effort to site those forest baskets in areas with little or no understory. As the County notes, “[r]esearch indicates the presence of forest interior dwelling species (FIDS) on this site. The FIDS habitat protection area is limited to the site’s forested area…construction should…minimize disturbance to the protected habitat in accordance with the FIDS Site Design Guidelines.”3 The State’s FIDS guidelines provide, in relevant part: In addition to area requirements, many FIDS have additional habitat requirements for nesting. Reduction of forest size often results in the loss of specialized habitats/microhabitats. Small forests cannot sustain the same environmental conditions that larger forests can, such as higher humidity and complex vegetative structure. The vegetative structure (amount of canopy and lower and midstory vegetation) may be missing or inadequate in smaller forests. Younger, less structurally diverse and highly fragmented forests cannot support the same variety of plant and animal species that older, more pristine forests can support.4 (emphasis supplied).

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 14 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment cont 10/27/17 Other It is apparent that the State’s guidelines militate against unnecessary disruption of the understory at this site, as it is vital habitat for FIDS. Mayo Water 'd Reclamation Facility The Federation observes that many of the proposed facilities for the Mayo Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) will be sited on ground that is already cleared, compacted, and historically used for water reclamation. In view of these facts, SRF does not object to the proposals outlined by the County in its report. Glebe Heights Community System The Federation does not object to the proposed dog park and nature trail proposals at the Glebe Heights Community System park, but comments that 139 parking spaces seems excessive for a park with such minimal offerings for visitors. SRF also requests that the County elaborate on the nature of the “existing cultural resource” on the site. SRF also notes that a better possible plan for this area, assuming it is owned or will be owned by the County, would be the establishment of a forest-banking site to help the County replant trees lost to development. Conclusion Thank you for considering these comments and the comments of other concerned citizens regarding these park proposals. 79 10/27/17 MBP I am strongly opposed to 'pevious concrete' since it is way over priced and not effective in the long run. It appears to be 'get-rich scam' with certain contractors. I am opposed to any increase in pavement at Mayo and any increase in road traffic through small roads through an otherwise quiet neighborhood where children have been allowed to play historically. Your project threatens the way of life of the tax-paying citizens and the quality of the Bay through additional water runoff, as well as disrupting the more skittish wildlife and nesting birds. This project is not good for residents, human or animal.

80 10/27/17 BTBP I am in opposition to the current level of planned development and would like the County to work DIRECTLY with the Citizens of the Mayo Peninsula in order to plan the development of the Parks. The traffic load generated by ANY park development on the Mayo Peninsula will have a large negative impact to the already onerous traffic situation on the peninsula. Issues with Beverly-Trident Beach Park: • Impervious surface built in a Critical Area • Lack of County funds to upkeep Park development • Bathrooms/Showers/Sewer Leach field in Critical Area • 121 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 363 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (109 parking spots for 327 vehicles for plan #2) 81 10/27/17 MBP I am in opposition to the current level of planned development and would like the County to work DIRECTLY with the Citizens of the Mayo Peninsula in order to plan the development of the Parks. The traffic load generated by ANY park development on the Mayo Peninsula will have a large negative impact to the already onerous traffic situation on the peninsula. Issues with Mayo Beach Park: • Impervious surface built in a Critical Area • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • Bathrooms/Showers/Shower Leach field in Critical Area • 175 parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 525 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (204 parking spot for 612 vehicles for plan #2) 82 10/27/17 SRFP I am in opposition to the current level of planned development and would like the County to work DIRECTLY with the Citizens of the Mayo Peninsula in order to plan the development of the Parks. The traffic load generated by ANY park development on the Mayo Peninsula will have a large negative impact to the already onerous traffic situation on the peninsula. Issues with South River Farm Park: • Impervious surface built in a Critical Area • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • Bathrooms/Showers/Leach field in Critical Area • 208 parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 645 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (310 parking spot for 930 vehicles for plan #2) 83 10/27/17 Mayo I am in opposition to the current level of planned development and would like the County to work DIRECTLY with the Citizens of the Mayo Peninsula in order WRF to plan the development of the Parks. The traffic load generated by ANY park development on the Mayo Peninsula will have a large negative impact to the already onerous traffic situation on the peninsula. Issues with Mayo WRF Park: • Impervious surface construction • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • 608 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 1928 (Weekdays)/2760(Weekends) vehicles a day according to plan #1 (603 parking spot for 1913 (Weekdays)/2745 (Weekends) vehicles for plan #2)

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 15 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 84 10/27/17 Glebe I am in opposition to the current level of planned development and would like the County to work DIRECTLY with the Citizens of the Mayo Peninsula in order to plan the development of the Parks. The traffic load generated by ANY park development on the Mayo Peninsula will have a large negative impact to the already onerous traffic situation on the peninsula. Issues with Glebe Heights CS: • Impervious surface construction • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • 139 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 417 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (140 parking spot for 420 vehicles for plan #2) 85 10/27/17 Other These comments are submitted for members of the Chesapeake Paddlers Association, Inc. a sea kayaking club with 650 plus members throughout the Chesapeake Bay region. We regularly use venues in Anne Arundel County and have a keen interest in water access issues there and specifically on the Mayo Peninsula. The showers and toilets at Beverly Triton Beach Park and South River Farm Park improve hygiene and comfort by allowing people to rinse off sand and Bay water and modestly change clothes before going home. The Beverly Triton Beach Park pedestrian ramp at the kayak drop off will make getting gear to the beach easier. Relocating Carvel Road minimizes interaction between Beverly Triton Beach Park pedestrians and cars taking paddle-craft to the launch. The kayak launch at South River Farm Park onto Selby Bay will let kayakers access the South River. The fishing piers into Deep Pond at Beverly Triton Beach Park, Big Pond at Mayo Beach Park and Limehouse Cove at South River Farm Park will allow people to fish and divert foot traffic away from the beaches and small boat launches. The small totlots at South River Farm Park and Beverly Triton Beach Park makes these parks more family friendly. We suggest some adjustments to the planned improvements to prevent conflicts between picnickers at the planned pavilions and kiteboard, wind surfer and paddle-craft launchings at Beverly Triton Beach Park and Mayo Beach Park. Addition of paddle-in campsites at secluded areas of Beverly Triton Beach Park and South River Farm Park would create sought after Bay side kayak camping in Anne Arundel County. Beverly Triton Beach Park—CPA prefers schematic #1 to alternative #2, primarily because relocating the road separates car and pedestrian traffic accessing the beach area. Further separation can be achieved by relocating the waterfront pavilion and the tot lot to the edges of the wooded area along the pedestrian walkway. Relocating the pavilion helps separate the active watersports (windsurfers, kiteboarders, kayakers, SUPers) from pedestrian beach use, preserves open grassy space necessary for board and paddle-craft users to rig and prepare their boats, and preserves the existing splendid view out over the beach to the Bay. Relocating the totlot also helps with this separation of activities and provides natural shade for the totlot (The shaded playground at Mayo Beach Park is much better for playing children than the unshaded, baking hot playground at Fort Smallwood Park, for example). CPA suggests creating a second windsports launch at the south end of the park, and including a paddle- in campground at the south end of the park in the trees beyond the entrance to Deep Pond. Mayo Beach Park—CPA suggests relocating one or both of the proposed pavilions nearest the park entrance to the open area near the large parking area, west of Flagg Pond. In recent years, the Baltimore Area Boardsailing Association (BABA) worked with the Department of Recreation and Parks to optimize this area for windsurfing. cont 10/27/17 Other This area should be preserved for rigging and preparing windsurf boards and other cartop boats prior to launching. Relocation of the two pavilions proposed 'd for this area separates the active watersports (windsurfers, kiteboarders, kayakers, SUPers) from beach users, preserves open grassy space necessary for wind and paddle craft to rig and prepare, and provides a level area for users to move heavy paddling and wind gear (a kayak or windsurf rig can weigh more than 60 pounds) on the flat from cars to water. The other cartop launch at the far end of the park requires people to move gear down a steep hill to the water and back up again, suitable for kayak carts, but less so for hand movement. South River Farm Park—The proposed kayak launch on Selby Bay is a great improvement. CPA would like you to consider including a paddle-in campsite on the wooded point extending into South River. This would vastly increase the capability to do extended kayak touring on the Bay.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 16 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 86 10/27/17 BTBP We are situated at the extreme eastward tip of the Mayo Peninsula and have experienced greatly increased traffic and greatly increased police/fire response times since we moved here 20 years ago. Over the last 5-10 years, it is expected that there will be at least five (5) occasions each year where an issue will cause a one (1) hour or longer delay in our getting onto or off of the peninsula. Adding increased volumes of traffic and housing will eventually cause significant loss of life or significant property damage, aside from the complete change to our quality of life. I foresee my family moving and taking our tax dollars elsewhere. 87 10/27/17 SRFP Please respect the environment and limit developments on the peninsula. Maybe do incremental parking no more then 50 at a time. 88 10/27/17 Other Approving this plan is absurd,the traffic on 214 is already unbearable.Adding more traffic will put a great strain on our emergency services. 89 10/27/17 MBP While I appreciate the county's desire to expand access, I ask that you please perform traffic studies to clearly understand the impact to the two-lane road that leads to the park, all the way from the intersection of 214 and Muddy Creek Rd. I would be delighted to support development and increased access to all the parks on the peninsula if we had 4 lanes. As it is, any incident from a mindless fender-bender to tree trimming to a hit and run closes down access. This has life and death implications for emergency services. Increasing parking without ensuring traffic flow is incomprehensible. 90 10/27/17 BTBP No, I don't want all those parking spaces. The beach is already too crowded. And the trees that have fallen onto the beach because of erosion are still there and make using the beach impossible in many places. So there really is not much space for people to sit. Where are all these people to go? And development is happening to fast and to such an extent that there are traffic jams on Route 214. Even though the road is being widened, a lot more traffic will cause congestion. 91 10/27/17 BTBP I live in the community just beyond Beverly Triton park. I feel like the proposal to expand parks on the peninsula will be detrimental. Traffic, community safety, emergency responders, wildlife, and our waterways will all be impacted greatly In a negative way. Please take the time to let the affects of the building moratorium take place before inviting thousands of people to an already crowded, congested area. We do not habe the infrastructure! 92 10/27/17 BTBP The charm of this park is that it is still undeveloped. Please keep it that way. It's one of the last areas where unspoiled nature can be experienced on the western shore. It would be a shame if it became like Sandy Point--overcrowded and littered. 93 10/27/17 SRFP The charm of this park is that it is still undeveloped and provides visitors with a real nature experience. Please keep it that way. It's one of the last areas where unspoiled nature can be experienced on the western shore. It would be a shame if it became like Sandy Point--overcrowded and littered. I urge you to not develop this park, rather leave it as is. 94 10/27/17 BTBP Hi - thank you for reading my comment. Looking closer at the Triton plan it would be great for windsurfers, kiteboarder, SUP and other watersports to have an additional more southern launch spot (towards Beverly Beach). It could also alleviate some of the parking problems that may occur in the northern part of the park. 95 10/27/17 BTBP What makes this park a treasure is that it is mostly left to nature. At what point does the county decide that it would rather have the equivalent of Sandy Point rather than the nature preserve we have now. The hiking trails are what make them special. No need to pave critical areas. As for the parking, put grass pavers in the existing grass lot and leave it open. The cut off will only INCREASE speed on the road. Let's be honest as call this what it is. An opportunity for developers. If we have $ to burn, how about picking up the trash (roof shingles, etc.). This is why I believe this plan is not to "improve" the park. And if its approved, what "additions" will be needed next time? Bathrooms? Boat Ramps? Concession Stands? Pavilions? ... It's a slippery slope that starts with the wrong intention. Development. 96 10/27/17 BTBP I am totally agaist this development. The motivation to increase use and traffic on the peninsula is bad for our safety and bad for our community. Leave the park natural. With storm water issues, climate change, and bad storms, this development will make things worse.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 17 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 97 10/27/17 Other There is no infrastructure to support this, along with all the new homes being built. Opening these beaches to be mini-Sandy Points puts the entire population of the peninsula at risk. The county needs to widen 214, build a new fire station, add a light at Loch Haven, etc, before even thinking about "improving" the parks. That this is even being considered right now reeks of political corruption. I grew up in Mayo, but recently moved because I could no longer tolerate the traffic (and knew it would only get worse). 98 10/27/17 BTBP I vote NO to any improvement or public access. It is only going to make local travel worse than it already is with the new construction that should have never happened. It will increase crime in the area by inviting those who are not from here. It is just all bad bad bad...... If there is 1 accident or we have to leave in an emergency, or even need emergency service it will not be possible. Who ever is thinking this up is an idiot! 99 10/27/17 BTBP As a resident of Mayo for over 17 years, I have seen the building and overcrowding grow. The traffic has steadily gotten worse and worse without adequate road improvements. I am against the changes proposed to our Mayo parks. 100 10/27/17 BTBP As a resident I've seen first hand the traffic and congestion caused by a single small accident on 214. The peninsula cannot handle the number of people coming to the area to utilize the parks. The residents of the community should not have to suffer for the short term pleasure of those from outside the community. I've also seen first hand the wildlife that resides in these parks. It's their last refuge. More human activity will damage to their habitat and cause them unnecessary stress. I support some improvements to the parks such as cleaning up litter and trash that was dumped over the years as well as adding some amenities for children but we do not want a Sandy Point in our backyards. I grew up in Arnold/Cape St. Claire and I've had to deal with the traffic and congestion it causes. We do not want this as a community and respectfully ask the county to stop trying to shove it down our throats. 101 10/27/17 SRFP I do not want any of them and way too many parking spaces for south river farms park - plus Loch Haven Road should not be the route to get to the park. 102 10/27/17 Other The road infrastructure needs to be addressed before any parks or beaches are opened to the public. We don’t need any more new homes consteucted on the Mayo peninsula either. Please listen to the citizens. 103 10/27/17 Other I would ask that county reduce the proposed number of Mayo Peninsula Parks parking spaces by at least half to 750. Weekend traffic would likely by negatively impacted to a very large degree if the entire 1300 spaces are created. I am greatly concerned about the proposed spaces as they relate to the intersection at Loch Haven and Rt 214 because half of the proposed spaces would be accessed via Loch Haven Road. Presently, traffic backs up at or, rather speeds past, cars turning left from 214 onto Loch Haven. It's too bad the current lane widening at Muddy Branch/214 wasn't carried past the Loch Haven intersection as this would have greatly alleviated not only the current hazardous situation, but also the negative impact from ANY number of additional public parking spaces anywhere on the peninsula..... let alone 1300. I humbly urge that planners reduce the number of proposed parking spaces to minimize increasing the traffic hazard that already exists at Loch Haven/214.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 18 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 104 10/28/17 SRFP I am a firm supporter of making public parks accessible to all, local and non-local residents. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are a natural gift that I am grateful to live near. I also understand and respect how much human development affects the unique and fragile ecosystem of this beautiful estuary. The current plan of development for South River Farm park turns a natural marshy landscape into a park that could exist anywhere. If the point is to give water access to as many as possible, why a volleyball court and dog park? Why cover a gourgeous field of wildflowers and other natural growth with a parking lot? Why turn currently accessible gravel parking spots into even more impervious, paved surfaces? The scope is too big, as would know any person who has actually walked this gift of nature. Residents and non-residents alike that want the convenience of picnic tables, volleyball courts, dog parks, paved parking, and bathrooms may continue to visit Quiet Farms, Sandy Point, and Mayo Park (on select weekends). There just isn't any justification for the scope of proposed development at South River Farm Park. The county continues to say the need is a public boat ramp, yet the design goes well beyond. Where is the research about how many people want this? I don't see anyone coming to South River Farm Park, which is already open to the public in its current state, and leaving because it's inaccessible. People come because they are seeking the quiet beauty of green grass, trees, marsh land, and small paths. Please heed the request of local residents who use and love the park in its current state. Make it accessible to all AND honor its current state of undeveloped beauty. Both are possible but do require much more forethought and time to get it right. Really, what is the rush? 105 10/28/17 Other Please implement Option 2 for use of the South River Park. This is the option with park access from the the Water reclamation area / Route 214 and does not have traffic driving into the community of Lich Haven. If traffic comes through the community to drive into the park this will create a public safety issue. There are no sidewalks in Loch Haven. Walkers use the street. Speeding on stretches of straightaways is an issue. An analysis, per our community newsletter, says we qualify for speed bumps to slow traffic. The issue of safety of our community members would increase if option 1 is implemented. The roads in Loch Haven are narrow with no shoulders. Traffic would back up when park activities start and end. Thank you for reading this and considering this feedback.

106 10/28/17 SRFP I wrote a comment on South River Farm a year ago, and I see no evidence that it was considered. So this time, I will be more specific. There are a lot of playing fields at the WRF park. The Loch Haven area already has a park with playing fields less than a mile away. Move the group-recreational functions from South River Farm to the WRF, which is already developed because of its prior use. Move the pavilion(s), frisbee golf, and volleyball to WRF at the expense of some of the playing fields. I am pleased to see that WRF will have a separate entrance, not on Loch Haven Road. A large portion of South River Farm is shown as “highly restricted” due to environmental and other concerns -- for good reason. This is the last undeveloped tract on the south shore of the South River. There are marshes, tidewater grasses, forest, and a pond. It’s a rare treasure. This park should be a nature-preserve type of park, with gravel paths, signage, some picnic tables, and nothing else disturbed. Its mission should be education and enjoyment of nature. Parking for *182 cars*? Paved trails that remove a large number of trees? Disturbance of forests for frisbee golf? A “wading” beach to destroy what’s left of natural coastline? A drop-off paved area so that people don’t have to walk? A dog beach? It feels as if the county has thrown every function possible at this pristine property. Please try to see my point of view on this and actively consider a natural park as the alternative. Speaking for no one but myself, I do not object to a kayak/canoe launch since it requires less disturbance than the other functions. The parking area can be an already-paved area (improved). If a trailed-boat launch is proposed, I do have arguments against it, not the least of which is the challenge of turning left on to Loch Haven Road from the busy Central Avenue in normal oncoming traffic with a lot of boats on trailers. There are many, many commercial marinas on the peninsula for this use. The Loch Haven and Glebe communities are bearing a lot of development in the coming years, both residential building and parks. You have us scheduled for 3 new parks, which will give a total of 4 (including Loch Haven Park) in a small residential area; plus clearing of a lot of forested land for developers. Even if you do not care about the environment, the burden on these communities should be reason enough to use a very light hand in your approach to South River Farm; not at all as proposed.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 19 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 107 10/28/17 Mayo There are a lot of playing fields proposed at the WRF park. The Loch Haven area already has a park with playing fields less than a mile away. My WRF recommendation is to move the group-recreational functions from South River Farm to the WRF, which is already developed because of its prior use. Move the pavilion(s), frisbee golf, and volleyball to WRF at the expense of some of the playing fields. I am pleased to see that WRF will have a separate entrance, not on Loch Haven Road. 108 10/28/17 Mayo From everything we’ve heard, there aren’t any plans to mitigate traffic issues, or improve our roads onto the Peninsula. With a total of over 1200 new parking WRF spaces, I’m concerned about the additional traffic. Police and fire responses are already delayed, so what will happen when the additional traffic causes additional accidents, or children are injured at one of the new parks? Plus, all that blacktop significantly increases impervious surfaces and run off to the Bay.

109 10/28/17 Other The park concept plans presented by Human and Rohde on 9/19/17 indicate a more realistic design of Resource Conservation Areas with regard to BTB and SRF, than any proposed over the past 18 months. The plans for SRF and MWRF should incorporate sole access from Rte. 214, as Loch Haven Drive was designed as a collector road for the extant communities and will not handle the capacity of the added residential development in progress and future access to Glebe Park without major upgrades. Parking spaces in SRF should be of a similar ratio to that which the County Executive approved for BTB, or 53 spaces, as these are both sensitive ecological sites. With the Recreation and Parks Department’s estimate of 3 passengers per vehicle, 160 visitors arriving in vehicles could be using the park on a given weekend day. The ADA required parking spaces for 53 spaces would be 3, one of which should be van accessible. Three van accessible spaces should be the limit of spaces planned for the northern peninsula abutting Limehouse Cove, the South River, and Glebe Bay, so that the this area can retain its purpose as a stormwater buffer for these bodies of water. All of the parks should be planned to utilize the effluent carry-off system which was recently upgraded. It is irresponsible to plan these types of public facilities within several hundred feet of access to the system and design septic fields at water’s edge to accommodate the sewer volume. The parks were purchased to preserve the land from development to assure the health of the adjacent bodies of water. The County has a responsibility to honor the intent. Additional comments on SRF: 1.The Frisbee golf fields should be relocated to the two western open areas of SRF to avoid play-thru around the tot lot and walkway to the waterfront. 2.The volleyball area was not indicated as a need or discussed in previous plans. Consider omitting this, as these require upkeep to eradicate plant growth. 3. Reforestation required should include a buffer along the western border at Loch Haven Drive and the current park access road. 4. Dedicated supervision staff will be required at the waterfront “wading” area, as boat traffic to the adjacent marina is frequent and shoreline grasses should not be trampled. While the plans do not indicate retention of the existing pier, if rebuilt it would be an attractive nuisance for diving which can be hazardous in low tides. 110 10/28/17 Glebe I support the comments of the South River Federation in the development of this park. There is too much impervious parking area for the size of the dog enclosures. The amount of parking would indicate that there would be 130-200 dogs at the park at any given time. The enclosures surely do not fit that many dogs. The number of spaces should be reduced to about 40. Any unused cleared area should be reforested and no trees should be taken. The county has been in the news for not properly using reforestation fees for planting trees. This is a great opportunity to honor that obligation in a public space. 111 10/28/17 Other In general,the Mayo peninsula is indicated in your needs-assessment map as having low needs for park development. The Loch Haven Beach neighborhood is indicated as having medium need, presumably due to density of housing; but the neighborhood (in which I live) has private facilities for recreation and should be indicated as low need. Your plans are extensive for an area of low need and indicate that the parks to be developed are not for our need at all. Therefore, all of the complaints you are receiving about road and emergency infrastructure are especially pertinent: These parks, if they are used at all, will bring in a lot of traffic, while infrastructure on the peninsula is a better use of the funds. 112 10/28/17 BTBP Clearly there is a "build it and they will come" attitude. What is the basis for the parking calculation-projected use, or maximizing number of spaces? Will pervious/porous asphalt be used for the accessible paths? What mitigation efforts will be made for trees cut to make way for development in this park? There is irony that a children's wetland play space will be built in a natural area and likely disturb existing environment to be built.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 20 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 113 10/28/17 Glebe Clearly there is a "build it and they will come" attitude. What is the basis for the parking calculation-projected use, or maximizing number of spaces? Will pervious/porous asphalt be used for the accessible paths? What mitigation efforts will be made for trees cut to make way for development in this park? 114 10/28/17 MBP Clearly there is a "build it and they will come" attitude. What is the basis for the parking calculation-projected use, or maximizing number of spaces? Will pervious/porous asphalt be used for the accessible paths? What mitigation efforts will be made for trees cut to make way for development in this park? Why are there 2 cartop launches, mere feet away from each other? With these expanded facilities, will this park be open more than summer Sundays? 115 10/28/17 Mayo Clearly there is a "build it and they will come" attitude. What is the basis for the parking calculation-projected use, or maximizing number of spaces? Will WRF pervious/porous asphalt be used for the accessible paths? What mitigation efforts will be made for trees cut to make way for development in this park? What traffic changes will be made to Central Avenue to accommodate 600+ visitors? 116 10/28/17 SRFP Clearly there is a "build it and they will come" attitude. What is the basis for the parking calculation-projected use, or maximizing number of spaces? Will pervious/porous asphalt be used for the accessible paths? What mitigation efforts will be made for trees cut to make way for development in this park? What improvements to traffic along Loch Haven Blvd and Central Avenue will be made to accommodate increased traffic from this park, as well as others off Loch Haven? Taken together, there will be significant additional traffic on these residential roads. Why is there a dog beach? Why is one needed if a large dog park (essentially the only purpose of the proposed Glebe Park), a walkable distance away? Uncollected pet waste will flow right into a sensitive ecosystem with SAV grasses. Are two wading areas really necessary? 117 10/28/17 MBP I have seen the traffic and amount of vehicles increase in the 18 years living in Selby. We cannot continue to allow more cars/people onto the Mayo Peninsula unless major infrastructure are made. The County officials continue to allow builders permits for more houses and ignore the fact that there is 1 way in and out, which is a safety hazard. Please don't make more parks or allow more homes to be built unless serious consideration is taken to improve roads.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 21 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 118 10/28/17 BTBP • Working with a company that has mindfulness toward environmental protection is a plus -- Human&Rohde seems a great improvement over the last engineering group. • Can we work together to ENHANCE the RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA that this park is? Can every decision for ‘amenities’ be based on CONSERVING RESOURCES to Limit Impact? • The people of Mayo get protective of Beverly Triton and South River Farm because WE KNOW THESE PARKS ARE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREAS. Anything the county does that goes against CONSERVATION is an offense to the Chesapeake Bay and to Mayo Citizens. Please don’t make these parks into some common commercial venture that exploits the natural resource. Can we think outside of the box? PLEASE. • RESOURCE -- that which sustains us, gives us information & education • CONSERVATION -- to carefully protect something; to use sparingly • Play Space -- any play space should utilize NATURAL components, avoid Plastic. Combine landscape elements with carefully chosen Natural Materials (children can practice balance by walking on a log, etc.). NO PLASTIC play-sets that exist in every neighborhood in this county. Can we think outside the box here?? • Mr. Schuh said that BT Park would have 96 parking spaces. We suggest to begin with half that -- 48 at first -- so that we may assess the environmental impact of that many people upon this shore, and the impact upon this peninsula. It is already evident that HUMAN TRAFFIC HAS IMPACTED BT BEACH GRASS TO THE POINT OF DISSIPATION, squandering the resource that holds the shoreline. • Could Parking be made PERVIOUS?? --Suitable for a RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA. Do parking lots have to be IMpervious? • The 5 Parking Spaces near Pavilion 2 go against the county’s own philosophy -- We were told that parking is not allowed there b/c parking under these trees would compact the soil and kill the trees. • The label for NO Swimming was forgotten. To tell us there is No Swimming, while citizens carry rafts into the park, seems an ‘Alternative Fact’. Wading and Shallow Water Play is NOT Swimming?? • Do bathrooms have to be WATERFRONT BATHROOMS? ‘Comfort Station’ terminology is confusing. A Bathhouse is not required since there is NO Swimming. • Bathrooms should exist near the ‘Parking for 5’ at Pavilion 2 -- It is close to the water well, so underground pipes would be shorter. OR, an even BETTER Idea --> National Parks have composting toilets, as does Assateaque Island. Why not use this as a teaching tool, much like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation does?? Let’s teach people about the RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA that Beverly Triton is. If showers are necessary b/c of windsurfing, then 1 outdoor, pull-chain, cold water shower, near to the well. Let people Walk there from the beach. They NEED to, for Health. --> No hot water -- CONSERVE RESOURCES. • If the Picnic Areas mean tucking tables under the trees -- Fine. Many citizens fear the cutting of trees for picnic areas. • A new paved driveway to serve as kayak drop-off is unnecessary. Our own neighbors walk their kayaks many blocks to get to the same sight. cont 10/28/17 BTBP Walking a kayak from the parking lot is a luxury in itself. THE EXISTING DROP-OFF IS ALREADY A BONUS. Direct beachgoers to walk through the large yard, if 'd conflict of uses in driveway becomes a true problem. • I’m sorry, but a RAMP for Handicap access to the Beach??? Explanation here is crucial. Don't wheelchairs get stuck in the sand?? This is also the prime area for Horseshoe Crab Spawning. And, not that I agree w/ it, this is the area where kite- boarders launch. • Before installing a boardwalk at ‘the sand pit’ please consult with a Geologist (CBF). Educated opinion indicates that that waterway should actually be opened wider so that Deep Pond gets a larger transfer of Bay Water. That would even enable the beaches to grow in size. WE NEED A VAST ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN BEFORE WE MAKE A VAST PEOPLE PLAN. • The more people we have on the shoreline of BT the more sediment re-suspension, nutrient additions to a fragile waterway, microbial contamination, urination & defecation in baby diapers released into the water, trampling of littoral surfaces, destruction of fringing vegetation which leads to reduced buffering capacity & Erosion --> Less beach, not more beach. • A proper evaluation of human traffic is essential to maintain this as a RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA. Incremental increases in human traffic would be the key, so that we understand Environmental Impact. • We desire this park to remain the ‘RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA’ that it is, with all ‘amenities’ supporting CONSERVATION of RESOURCES. • The county would get more locals supporting the project if the county respected this wish. It is ignoble to call us NIMBY b/c Mayo wants to protect our peninsula’s Resource Conservation Area.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 22 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 119 10/28/17 SRFP South River Farm Park is the most pristine piece of property there is on the Mayo Peninsula and should be kept as such. It is a Resource Conservation Area and should be treated that way. Taking out any tree at all is a crime, especially to add a paved road. The county would have to get a variance ... The County getting a variance on it’s own laws??? That’s just not right. There is a True Need for humanity to touch RAW Nature, and that is what is offered at SRFarm. It’s already perfect. Aren’t we suppose to protect the shorelines? Didn’t the Sierra Club plant beach grass where ‘Wading’ is indicated? Beach Grass -- to Stabilize the Beach. People trample beach grass. If you think ‘the diamond’ exists within the grounds, then WALK there. Chances are you need to. Being able to drive there is an abomination. It goes to show the leaders of this project to be ENTITLED, as if the desires of the HUMAN is all that matters. WALK the property, Human. This park is already open for you to see. 120 10/28/17 Other 1286 parking spaces is more than 8 acres of parking. This is unacceptable. I would like to trade the impervious surfaces of Park parking spaces for a Bike Path so that I may bike to these parks, instead of having to drive my car and take up parking spaces. There is nothing conservative about nearly 1300 parking spaces. Our teenagers would like to travel on their bikes. This was a need considered in the Small Area Plan of prior years. It was also considered Rec/Parks before the Schuh administration. Instead, we are making 'Low-Impact' Parks, HIGH Impact, and forgetting that those who live in Mayo, and those who lives outside of Mayo, would like to travel the peninsula SAFELY, by bicycle. Trade the impervious surface of parking lots for a heart healthy bike path. Please.

121 10/28/17 BTBP I feel we need city water, gas & better roads in the area before money is spent on beaches. Traffic has become a nightmare getting to Saunders Point. 122 10/28/17 Glebe I don't understand the need for 139 parking spaces for a trail. This adds more impervious space to an area that is losing green space every year. I also don't understand why the county wants to continue pouring money into parks in Mayo without improving infrastructure and safety first. An emergency substation is needed before parks. 123 10/28/17 SRFP I'd like to see SR Farm park left as a nature park. We can't keep adding impervious space in critical areas! Our waterways are vulnerable. Adding more pavement will not help in the efforts of cleaning up our rivers. Also, adding more vehicles to the failed Loch Haven intersection is irresponsible. Safety should come first. Lastly, we cannot add more parks to the county to maintain when the county is not able to maintain the existing parks and sports fields. 124 10/28/17 SRFP I am very concerned about the impact of development on the nesting eagles in the park, specifically, and also the other established wildlife In the park. I don’t see evidence of any consideration for the impact on the wetlands. I thought wetlands were to protected and preserved. There should certainly be no boat ramp (for 30 ft boats! ) that would require annual dredging of the sensitive areas along Brickhouse creek. A. kayak launch Is much more in keeping with the environment of the area and obviously less invasive. Why doesn’t the proposed construction have to adhere to the same standards homeowners have to, regarding waterfront construction/building/landscaping regulations?? Will the parking, bike paths, etc be paved with permeable materials to prevent runoff? 125 10/28/17 BTBP Hi , I have lived here for 15 years < I pay high taxes to live here ! We have the worst most dangerous water in the state of Maryland ! I believe we should sue the state for this lack of safety concern . bring city water to us ! second natural gas bring us a choice in energy ! that would be nice , third fix these dangurs roads , wider and paved would be nice . and now I have on weekends wait to get into my own neighborhood ... really !!! , the open park has brought unwanted personal to our area ! thanks for that ! , how about charging to inter the park to pay the rangers a good salary and keep the unwanted out ! and by the way Mayo park has all the facilities open it back up > OOOO yeah they closed it because it got to bad & rough there ... do the right thing bring the peninsula what it needs and then you can do whatever you want there >>>> just a thought ! 126 10/28/17 MBP Mayo is already such a difficult drive. With one way in and one way out, it is not capable of handling this large influx of traffic/ people.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 23 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 127 10/29/17 Other This is in regards to ALL of the parks. There is legitimately no way the roads can handle the kind of influx of cars, one way in and one way out doesn’t cut it as is. The last thing Mayo needs is something else to increase the amount of cars that come up and down Central Avenue. I happen to work at the Old Stein, and we sit outside before open around 4:00 and you can watch hundreds of cars go buy in just a few minutes. If you actually sit there and count them. Granted there’s only X number of parking spots and not everyone will be going at the same time all the time, etc. there is just nowhere to put those cars and more cars increases the chance of an accident and if you live in mayo, you know how long you sit in your cars waiting and waiting to move a couple feet of anything at all. Overall, bad idea...keep the park small, you’re just ruining for those of us that live down here and appreciate these parks more than people who lives miles and miles away. 128 10/29/17 MBP I would like to address parking at cartop launch at Mayo Beach. In plans, it is not sufficient for typical crowd that shows up on windy days or other informal paddling events etc.. Since this usage is not 'daily', pavement is not required. I would suggest re-arranging fence to be farther from the actual beach in that area to protect and exclude a larger area of grass/beach from vehicle traffic, but still provide parking for estimate 20 'permit-only' cartop launch vehicles with some amount reserved for handicap parking, all arranged in a more orderly area near the chain/gate entrance. In review of current area and its use, it seems reasonable that at most, a graveled access to vehicle parking in grassy spots has shown itself to be generally adequate for past decade+ of use and makes minimal impact on natural appearance and drainage. I would further suggest increasing the un-mowed, natural grass area by factor of 3-5X as possible and including planting 5-15 additional trees in that area to make a more natural-appearing and user-friendly picnic/shade area to achieve best use for picnicking and animal habitat. In any case, maximizing the natural looking shoreline will be the ultimate legacy development you should strive toward since pavement is very infrequently removed. 129 10/29/17 Other This makes me sooo mad....steve schul is pushing this....making one extra lane and acting like it will now be ok to have all these people coming into our communities....the traffis is still unreal and going to be a nitemare...he sure is not doing this to his community...it makes my blood boil 130 10/29/17 SRFP My family is thrilled to see a dog beach in the works for this park!! It will be the only place in Edgewater where our water babies can SWIM legally off leash!! We love going to Quiet Waters for the dog beach but realistically it's too far away. And if you haven't noticed, dogs won't run around with each other in the heat. So the only way for them to get exercise and socialization is too cool off by splashing around in the water! Tired dogs=better behaved dogs! And better behaved dogs make for better neighbors and family members. 131 10/29/17 Glebe The idea to serve dogs seems good, however, this many parking spaces -- 139 -- is excessive. Can we start with 20-25?? As we see the Need increase, then we can spend more tax payer dollars for more parking. Use an INCREMENTAL approach so as to analyze environmental and community impact. Can the parking lot be created with PERVIOUS surface? 132 10/29/17 MBP The penisula can not handle the traffic it has as is. We do not want to open are parks the visitors do no care about the parks and leave their trash are loud and have no respect for our properties. 133 10/29/17 MBP Lets get city water to the residents of this area, before spending money on parks. 134 10/29/17 SRFP I'd like to have a dog beach at the farm park. It would be a great place to let my dog play with other dogs. 135 10/29/17 SRFP YES!!! to a Dog Beach at this park! The local communities do NOT allow dogs on their private, neighborhood beaches,(although some neighbors willing ignore this rule) This would be a GREAT option & allow more locals to enjoy & explore this beautiful park! 136 10/29/17 SRFP Very much in support of a dog beach! We would know so many people who would benefit from it

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 24 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 137 10/29/17 Other I hope those who are planning this much expansion are taking into account the impact you will make on our waterways. I feel that there has been no data or research presented to those who live on the peninsula, what the long term impact of this much development could mean to our watershed. There are many rules that apply to homeowners in terms of impervious lot coverage allowance and the county is FIRM that those numbers of lot coverage must be met no matter the hardship. Thus, when I see this much pavement being added to areas that do not have it I wonder if you all are overstepping your bounds and holding us to our numbers on our lots, but not worry about the numbers on county land. I would appreciate seeing the plats of each proposed development and what the impervious numbers are stated as allowable and then the grading documents that show how much impervious space you all plan to add at each site. 138 10/29/17 Other We don't have a stable enough infrastructure on the peninsula to be running 1500 more vehicles in and out from the parks, do not move forward w this plan.

139 10/29/17 SRFP It looks like there is a place to launch canoes kayaks and small boats. Are the other 3 ramps on the Selby bay side of the park for trailer able boats? If so an area for trailer parking will be needed. What will the hours of operation be? 140 10/29/17 Mayo Adding more vehicles to Central Avenue will increase the danger some of us already experience daily just trying to leave our community (and businesses). WRF This is especially true for communities that are on the right-side of Central Ave. traveling east. Please do not make it impossible for us to travel in our own community. 141 10/29/17 BTBP I'd like to see Beverly Triton stay as a nature preserve. Adding pavement and bath houses in a critical area as well as increased vehicle and foot traffic can be harmful to our waters, wildlife and overall environment. There has been a lot of talk about opening parks in Mayo for people to use, but no talks of an environmental plan, adequate infrastructure or funds to help upkeep these parks. Spending funds on parks when other things in the area are needed including a fire station and safer roads is irresponsible. Please keep the beautiful, natural park as it is. 142 10/29/17 BTBP I do not support any kind of parking lot for the parks in Mayo. The roadways cannot handle anymore influx of traffic. We have already seen more crime since the opening of the park. I have grown up in Mayo and seen many changes, and not in favor of this change. We are on a peninsula for a reason, for the quietness, less crime and less people. Keep it that way.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 25 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 143 10/29/17 Other We live on the Mayo Peninsula and deal with the limited access on and off the peninsula on a daily basis. Our serious concerns about and opposition to the proposed park development can be summed up in a single word: TRAFFIC. There are a number of negative impacts resulting from the park expansions and new residential construction that are proposed at the same time for this one small area, including overwhelming the current capacity of local infrastructure (roads, schools, emergency response) as well as adverse environmental impacts to the critical areas. These comments focus only on the traffic and resulting safety impacts – but we strongly believe that it would be bad planning and very bad policy for Anne Arundel County to proceed with the proposed park improvements before addressing both the traffic problems and other infrastructure that are essential to serve this increased activity. In my neighborhood there is significant alarm at the planned increases in traffic that would be generated not only by the new and expanded parks that are proposed for the immediate Mayo area, but also from the tidal wave of new planned residential development coming online now due to the end of the building moratorium and the newly operating sewer system. The problem is that these additional developments, both parks and housing, are coming before the infrastructure to support the development has been put into place. This cart-before-the-horse approach makes it look like the county’s different departments (housing, parks, transportation) have not worked together to first establish the infrastructure needed to support the proposed park expansions and proposed new residential construction. The county’s own Boat Launch Study, January 2017, describes provisions for new and expanded boat launch facilities, some of which are on the Mayo Peninsula. The study calls for public road improvements sufficient to handle the wide vehicle/trailer combinations that would be using the boat launching sites. Failure to follow the study’s own recommendations with respect to road improvements raises further safety concerns for local residents as well as park users in this area. Speaking as someone who drives on/off the peninsula to work and errands daily, I have personally experienced far too often the consequence of living in a community where there is only single-lane access in and out. Anytime there is a traffic accident or construction or any other obstacle all traffic simply stops. There are no alternatives around the stoppage and we are all just stuck. On Rt. 214/Central Avenue in Edgewater there is no sidewalk and almost no turn lanes, no center lane, in most places no shoulder, and thus no way for traffic to squeeze around any road hazard. There are considerable back-ups daily during the AM and PM commute periods, and that is before the proposed park expansions and new housing units bring additional traffic to this already congested area. For example, I have personally: Missed work on occasions when I literally cannot get out of my own neighborhood; Spent more than an hour waiting to get home due to a collision and closure on Rt. 214 where drivers turned off their engines and sat in their cars; Had deliveries unable to reach my house due to a blockage on Rt. 214. And now the county wants to add even more traffic to the current mess without first fixing the roads??? Health and safety issues cannot be ignored. It is already very difficult for an ambulance or fire truck traveling on Rt. 214 during peak periods

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 26 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment cont' 10/29/17 Other Ingress and egress for emergency vehicles is already restricted for those of us living on the peninsula because Rt. 214 is a single lane in each direction. This d limited access for emergency vehicles would be further eroded with the proposed park and residential development that adds thousands of new road users to Rt. 214, raising health and safety risks not only for current peninsula residents but also for park users and new residents. The proposed new parks would hit the afternoon commute especially hard as that is when team sports are played, during the after-school hours. Parents dropping off or picking up their children from the new sports fields would mix with already heavy commute traffic from local residents who are just trying to get home. I calculated the number of new road users on Rt. 214 that would be added to the current heavy traffic from the proposed park development and the new housing units, taking these numbers directly from the county’s own publically available planning documents. Here is what I found: Park users: At least 1334 additional vehicles on Rt. 214. This is the number of new parking slots as shown on the proposed park plans posted online at AACounty.org. The county plans show: Beverly Triton, 111 slots; Mayo Beach, 180 slots; South River Farms Park, 300 slots; Mayo WRF Park, 603 slots; Glebe Heights, 140 slots. This number of parking slots does not even consider those parents who do not park but simply drive on Rt. 214 to drop off/pick up their children from the proposed playing fields. New Housing: At least 710-1400 additional vehicles on Rt. 214 for new residents of the proposed additional housing, not counting an unknown number of construction vehicles during construction and home services vehicles (gardening, repair, etc.) on an ongoing basis. County records show that 35 residential in-fill lots are already permitted for construction, another 350 in-fill lots were awaiting the end of the building moratorium, and as many as 700 (down from 1400) lots are slated for development. Assuming a modest 2 vehicles per new household, the planned housing would add at least another 710 to 1400 vehicles to the already congested Rt. 214. This is a minimum number as many households have more than 2 vehicles, and further does not include an estimate for heavy duty construction vehicles that would be building the newly proposed residences. In sum, our strong feeling is that Anne Arundel County has a fundamental obligation to first protect the health and safety of existing peninsula residents who depend every day on a single lane road, Rt. 214, and must honor that obligation before exceeding current infrastructure capacity by expanding the number of new road users on the single lane road. If Anne Arundel County sincerely wants to increase public usage of peninsula natural resources by developing new parks, it must first protect public health and safety by establishing infrastructure, specifically public roads including Rt. 214, that are capable of handling the extra traffic. 144 10/29/17 BTBP As a long time resident of the Mayo Peninsula, I have seen the number of residents and traffic increase year after year. Even with the building moratorium, KHovaian managed to build homes off Loch Haven Rd. The main thing that has not changed in Mayo is fixing the infrastructure that leads to all of these parks. We are not against the parks being enjoyed by all, we are against all of the development of them BEFORE fixing what directly affects the SAFETY and WELFARE of the residents on the Mayo Peninsula. The money allocated for Beverly Triton is NEEDED for road fixes, shoulders, a fire substation, water safety and conservation, just to name a few of the necessities that come before amenities. Beverly Triton was purchased and planned as a Resource Conservation Area - LEAVE IT AS SUCH! This jewel on the critical areas needs to be saved, not paved with parking spaces, trails, bath house, pavilions, etc. Are we to Save the Bay or Pave the Bay? This park is a vital buffer for the Bay and vital environment for many species of wildlife and plants. It could be a valuable teaching tool left as is and run as Jug Bay is run. I have commented on the plans before and to have to comment again makes me wonder - are you actually listening? or is this just an exercise to check a box? PLEASE SLOW THIS DOWN! Once it's destroyed we can't get it back. As a board member of the Neighbors of the Mayo Peninsula, I have attached the NOTMP's response to the County as part of my comments.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 27 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 145 10/29/17 Other We are writing on behalf of the Neighbors of the Mayo Peninsula to voice opposition to the proposed planned development of the five parks in the Mayo Peninsula. To be clear, it is not that we oppose the development of the parks but the level of development. The Neighbors would like to see the parks developed in a passive nature which will work in harmony to preserver the shoreline environment, improve the quality of bay waters as well as improve the Quality of Life for the residents of the Mayo Peninsula. Currently both the Federal and State government have labeled the South River as having impaired water quality. The currently planned development of the five parks will further harm the water quality as well as unnecessarily disturb shoreline. On top of this will be the added burden of the vehicle traffic on/off the Mayo Peninsula. Looking at the current plans for Beverly/Triton a question we would like to have an answer to is, “What will the current level of development give to the public that it doesn’t already have?” It has public access, a car top boat launch, nature trails, and is not a swimming beach. All of these are what he current level of development promise. Why spend 3.5 Million to needlessly develop? The development of Mayo Beach will do nothing more then add needless impervious anchorage to a Critical Area further degrading the water quality at a public swimming beach to the point where the county may close it due to poor water quality. The full development of the South River Farm Park will completely destroy a wonderful nature reserve. Currently there is a nesting pair of Bald Eagles living on the south end of the park where the county desires to put a Power Boat Launch, which will need dredging to be of use, as well as a car top boat launch. This all on top of the large area of impervious surfaces inside of a Critical Area. The Developments of Mayo WRF and the Glebe Heights Dog Park will add a massive amount of impervious parking surfaces to the Mayo Peninsula which is already suffering from a lack of Conservation Green space. The current plan for the Mayo WRF calls for the entrance to be located on Loch Haven drive. This will greatly exacerbate the traffic problem not only on Loch Haven but without traffic control devices on Route 214 as well. In short, all five parks will dramatically reduce the Green Space/Critical Area vegetation on the Mayo Peninsula as well as increase the traffic load to an unmanageable mess which will hamper Fire/EMS/Police activity on the Peninsula. An additional question will be, “Who will pay for the maintenance of the five parks over time?” The county cannot currently support the parks it has in inventory now, why would it make sense to add five more parks to its fiscal budget? I will list out, per park, the issues we see with the planned development: Beverly/ Trident Beach Park: Impervious surface built in a Critical Area; Lack of County funds to upkeep development; Bathrooms/Showers/Sewer Leach field in Critical Area; 121 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 363 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (109 spot for 327 vehicles by plan #2) Mayo Beach Park: Impervious surface built in a Critical Area Lack of County funds to upkeep development; Bathrooms/Showers/Shower Leach field in Critical Area; 175 parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 525 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (204 spot for 612 vehicles by plan #2) South River Farm Park: Impervious surface built in a Critical Area cont 10/29/17 Other Lack of County funds to upkeep development; Bathrooms/Showers/Leach field in Critical Area; 208 parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 645 'd vehicles a day according to plan #1 (310 spot for 930 vehicles by plan #2) Mayo WRF Park: Impervious surface construction; Lack of County funds to upkeep development; 608 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 1928 (Weekdays)/2760(Weekends) vehicles a day according to plan #1 (603 spot for 1913 (Weekdays)/2745 (Weekends) vehicles by plan #2) Glebe Heights Dog Park: Impervious surface construction; Lack of County funds to upkeep development; 139 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 417 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (140 spot for 420 vehicles by plan #2) At the end of the day, the citizens of the Mayo Peninsula are asking for the County to listen to their desires and concerns for the level of development occurring on the Peninsula. The Park feedback from two years ago over just the Beverly/Triton Beach Park was ~80% in favor of leaving it as it is. The rest was from those that lived off Peninsula who would not be negatively impacted by the loss of Critical Area, Increased traffic load, and increased threat due to lack of sufficient access by Fire/EMS/Police.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 28 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 146 10/29/17 BTBP I was recently shown Beverly-Triton Beach Park, and cannot comprehend why this beautiful public asset is not afforded full public access. My tax dollars support this property and other county parks, and this one should be fully available for public use including swimming. The neighboring community has a beach, and that property could readily be fenced off for its protection. This park is a jewel, and should be used as effectively as the likes of Downs and Quiet Waters, with the county making maximum use of its features. I am astounded and dismayed that this is not currently the case. 147 10/29/17 MBP I was recently shown Mayo Beach Park, and cannot comprehend why this beautiful public asset is not afforded full public access. My tax dollars support this property and other county parks, and this one should be fully available for public use, as appropriate for its features. I am astounded and dismayed that this is not currently the case. 148 10/29/17 SRFP I was recently shown South River Farm Park, and cannot comprehend why this beautiful public asset is not afforded full public access. My tax dollars support this property and other county parks, and this one should be fully available for public use, as appropriate for its features. Any other conclusion fails to serve the interests and needs of the public that owns it. 149 10/29/17 MBP As a member of the Neighbors of the Mayo Peninsula, I'm attaching our response to the parks. That said, Mayo Beach Park suffers the same issues as ALL 5 parks - failing infrastructure leading to every park. We need to have our SAFETY and basic infrastructure needs met before the 'wants' of planned amenities for these parks. Mayo Beach runs through neighborhoods that are seeing an increase of traffic speeding through their communities and increase of trash thrown on our lawns - I watch this every time the beach has an open day. There are no sidewalk for the residents and it's too dangerous for kids in the neighborhoods to walk or ride. When do we start addressing the safety concerns of the residents and destruction of the environment BEFORE BUILDING OUT?! A bath house, rinse off, whatever you want to call it right on the beach is NOT environmentally sound for the Bay. Concerns/comments for Mayo Beach Park: • Impervious surface built in a Critical Area • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • Bathrooms/Showers/Shower Leach field in Critical Area • 175 parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 525 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (204 spot for 612 vehicles by plan #2)

150 10/29/17 Glebe Glebe Heights Dog Park: • Impervious surface construction • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • 139 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 417 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (140 spot for 420 vehicles by plan #2) 151 10/29/17 Mayo TRAFFIC!! With RT 214 as is now, and the 'fix' at Muddy Creek DOES NOT address the numerous issues - how do you think Mayo can handle the traffic load of WRF more ball fields?! Mayo WRF Park: • Impervious surface construction • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • 608 of parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 1928 (Weekdays)/2760(Weekends) vehicles a day according to plan #1 (603 spot for 1913 (Weekdays)/2745 (Weekends) vehicles by plan #2) 152 10/29/17 SRFP I, and another resident, went to 16 of the marinas on the South River. We asked who had public ramps; who knew about a ramp study; who if they had a ramp would like more business. We found 5 marinas who said they would like more business, have the infrastructure and ARE in the business of running a boat ramp. So why is the County getting into the business of running boat ramps and competing with existing businesses? Why not some public/private partnerships that use existing businesses and infrastructure saving the environment and helping our local businesses? Why are we looking to tear up yet another Resource Conservation Area? Steve Schuh says (quote) "We have a Special responsibility to nuture the critical asses of our shoreline, and, as County Executive, I will preserve our open spaces, and lead the effort to restore our waterways." OK - PROVE IT! Don't tear up the vast area of woods and marsh that are vital to the health of the Bay for amenities that will destroy it. The trails there now are great as they are. Leave these areas natural for all to enjoy the wildlife and environment there as well as helping to 'Save the Bay'! South River Farm Park: • Impervious surface built in a Critical Area • Lack of County funds to upkeep development • Bathrooms/Showers/Leach field in Critical Area • 208 parking spots which will increase the traffic load by 645 vehicles a day according to plan #1 (310 spot for 930 vehicles by plan #2)

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 29 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 153 10/29/17 BTBP As a Park Ranger with the Maryland Park Service and former Recreation and Parks employee, who just recent discovered the Beverly Triton Beach I would like to submit a few comments about Beverly Triton, which is just a few miles from my home. I am an avid kayaker and would absolutely like to see a car top launch site at this location, and Including a drop off location with a traffic circle type design would be best for this, so that traffic is never blocked off in a small parking area. A small primitive kayak camping area, available by reservation only, would be an added bonus to this park. I also string,y believe that the viewscape of the Chesapeake should be preserved at Berverly Triton Beach and that a tot lot playground, pavilion and restroom building should not be situated so close to the water. These amenties would be much better tucked into the woods. A nature play area would be a much better option for this park, in my opinion, allowing children to explore and experience the environment. Restroom facilities could be more "green" and potentially even off the grid if they are to be located close to the water. Restrooms with shower facilities will likely have regularly clogged drains from the sand, so I would recommend just having rinse off showers/ outdoor showersin this area. Any pavilion or picnic grounds should also be located further back from the water. Typically visitors expect to park right next to their pavilion and do not wish to carry things a long distance, especially when asked to pack out any trash. The pavilion, if necessary for this park, should be located closer to the entrance and parking. All parking areas should consider permeable pavement, to lessen the storm water impact from the park. Overall, this park should remain a passive use park with very limited development, especially along the shorelines. Anne Arundel County has a unique opportunity with this park to protect and preserve public lands along the Chesapeake while offering the basic amenties for visitors seeking access to the area. Additional nature programming and monitoring of the resources could certainly be offered at this park, as well. Horseshoe crabs use this beach in the spring for breeding, which is ecologically significant to this area. Monarch butterflies and pollinators frequent this area in the late summer and early fall. Numerous migratory birds pass through this area. I look forward to visiting this park more in the future. 154 10/29/17 Mayo My main concern with this proposal is the unconscionable amount of traffic it will bring to the already congested Rt 214. At 461 spots, the county's normal WRF calculation is 3:1. This ignores the fact that this parking is primarily for sports fields, which tend to turn over every hour on weekends, and every hour to 90 minutes on week nights. That increases daily traffic in the evenings (during prime rush hours) to up near 1800 cars, and on weekends, it raises to 4,149 cars. Even at half that number, the current road cannot handle the volume. Add to this the planned building, which begins this fall on the Mayo Peninsula (35-50 homes to start) and the road quickly becomes impossible to navigate. This proposal needlessly puts lives at risk, as EMS cannot get through that volume of traffic. While I can see the value of using this resource for public benefit, a smaller scale proposal, or better means of managing the traffic flow is crucial to the residents of the peninsula. 155 10/29/17 BTBP The current proposal is back to 130+ parking spots, after the County Executive publically promised to reduce the number below 100. What is the public to make of such a flagrant change? Additionally, the parking at B-T Park has never exceeded 60-75 cars a day at the height of the summer. The proposed lots (both inside and outside the fence) appear to be within the state limits that do not permit impermeable surfaces within 1000 feet of the Bay or wetlands (2 wetlands border the larger proposed lot). Further, as the beach has been clearly not advertized as a swimming beach, there is no merit or justification in building a bath house. Such a proposal only invites the very use the County Exec said he was not supporting. Again, a flagrant change of position that will come back to haunt the county, either in the media or in litigation. Significantly, there seems to be very little reason for this scale of $4.M development when you have a fully developed park at Mayo within 3 miles of B-T. Surely, the county could make a better balanced use of this park without investing that scale of funding and instead put the funds to areas of the county that are not adequately served by a park. Finally, I would note that the increased parking spots would create a volume of traffic that the tiny one lane road to the park will have difficulty handling and will have a significant adverse impact on resident. Please reconsider this proposal.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 30 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 156 10/29/17 SRFP *Environmental study by Waterfront Access group is not being considered. Impervious surface should not be installed to access the environmentally sensitive waterfront. Stop any development beyond the proposed Kayak put-in (except for natural trails.) *County code should be changed to provide for pervious trail surfaces *Current usage of the site for bike races, etc. should be accommodated. *Less parking / impervious surface should be constructed. No evidence for needing 205 spaces. *All construction techniques should meet highest environmental standards. *Safety of existing residents should be paramount as current conditions include no sidewalks and narrow road once inside Loch Haven Community. *This is an active AACo Public Works facility. Where will these services/staff go? *NO Wading beach. Environmental damage would occur. * While AACo would benefit by having more volley ball courts, I do not know that this single court adds value to the county. 157 10/29/17 Other All Parks on the Mayo Penninsula. I am against this until the proper infrastructure is made sound and independent access roads are granted to each of those parks. None of the parks should be accessible through each of the communities. The impervious surface for parking lots will not be a win win for the Chesapeake Bay. There are already marinas here that have boat launches. You will destroy their sales and business by creating additional launches. Take Mayo Park and open it up to the public and enhance it. The public needs to be made aware of the high fecal count in-the water. You are inviting additional health problems and I have contacted the health department on several occasions. No signs have been posted warning of this hazard. A baby was in the water and pictured oN the front page of the capital during a high fecal content. It’s obvious that the residents and the patrons are not being protected. Ambulance service cannot get up and down the peninsula especially at Camp Wabama to save a child’s life. We seem to be so concernd with having all the parks built with no consideration for the safety of the visitors or the residents of these communities. What is a child’s life worth to you?

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 31 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 158 10/29/17 BTBP 1. CHANGE THE NAME from Beverly Triton BEACH Park. There is no beach. There is a rapidly eroding shoreline. Call it something like "CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE AND WETLANDS RESTORATION AREA" Calling it a beach means beach towels, beer, and swimming, trash, and destruction of the fragile ecosystem. This is not the 1960's. Retain low impact environmentally friendly focus, not call to mind "OC Western Shore". 2. No PAVILLIONS in the Park. Pavillions mean PARTY. 3. No BATHHOUSE. This is not Ocean City or Sandy Point. If people need to take a bath, they should take it at home. Maybe put in an outdoor rinsing shower. 4. NO SWIMMING. The location is not practical to support the type of volume that comes with swimming beaches. No BATHHOUSE. Again, there is no BEACH. Only an ERODING Shoreline. Let's do SHORELINE RESTORATION, not SHORELINE DESTRUCTION. 5. NO WATER CONTACT. This is actually a farcical term to allow swimming but not call it swimming. 5. IF AA COUNTY INSISTS ON SWIMMING, OPEN MAYO BEACH PARK TO THE PUBLIC. There is already a bathhouse, parking, picnic pavillion, and playground. It is taxpayer FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE to duplicate already existing facilities 100 meters up the shoreline. 5. PAY TO PARK. $6 minimum. Walkers and bike riders no charge. 6. 25-30 parking spaces MAXIMUM. The typical visitor should only spend 3 hours at the park. This is not an all-day type of bring the cooler, the six pack of beer. The bathroom should be in the parking lot. The visitors can use it when they arrive, and when they leave. We don't need a facility for multiple use all day long. 6. LOCATE THE BOAT LAUNCH by BEVERLY BEACH. There is already a hardscape at Beverly Beach. Let the boaters park and launch their boats down at that end which is already paved for their cars close to the shore. 7. WETLANDS Play Area. Make it natural and educational. NO PLASTIC!!! Plastic is inappropriate in a nature preserve. LONDONTOWNE has a wonderful playground as an example. 8. BIKE ACCESS and Bike Racks. Car traffic should be discouraged. BIKE TRAFFIC should be encouraged. DEAD MAN's CURVE is insufficient to handle a flood of traffic back into the environmentally sensitive dead end of a peninsula. Develop a GREEN NETWORK of biking and hiking trails all up and down the peninsula needs to link all of the parks together. That is true QUALITY OF LIFE, when a family can ride their bikes from park to park, and LEAVE THE CARS and TRAFFIC JAMS at home. Inviting FLOODS of DC traffic into our small neighborhoods is irresponsible and an misallocation of scarce taxpayer dollars. Developing a network of biking and hiking trails connecting the parks will ensure that this will be a QUALITY OF LIFE asset for the wellbeing of Mayo Peninsula Residents. The opposite will occur if our neck of the woods becomes a stomping ground for the DMV. People will be angry and start to move away, and in my case, take my $10K a year property taxes to somewhere else, like maybe NC. 8. DOG BEACH down near Beverly Beach. You can't tell longtime residents that we can no longer walk our dogs here and make this a no dog area. A Dog Beach near the Beverly Beach area is needed. 9. NO SMOKING, NO ALCOHOL, NO DRUGS. This needs to be enforced. I've seen people smoking pot, drinking hard liquor, throwing beer cans in the sand, etc. It's scary to watch some of these people driving away. One couple looked like they were on heroin. This stuff needs to be closely supervised and enforced.

159 10/29/17 MBP Why is this park not open more than just a few days during the year? 160 10/29/17 BTBP Why is there no swimming? Such a beautiful park.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 32 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 161 10/29/17 MBP I represent the not-for-profit Baltimore Area Boardsailing Association. We are cartop watersports participants and our members include windsurfers, kite boarders, kayakers, and standup paddle boarders. As part of our mission we serve as advocates for access to clean, safe, launch sites. Mayo Beach park represents the premier windsurfing spot in the entire Maryland section of the Chesapeake Bay. The combination of consistent winds, sandy beaches, grassy rigging area and plentiful, convenient parking has no equal. The updated park plans for Mayo Beach park seem to show that the parking situation - one of the primary factors that makes Mayo Beach Park so great as a windsurfing location - could be significantly degraded. It appears that the current grass parking lot that can accomodate dozens of vehicles with cartop craft will be replaced by a small lot that can accomodate just six vehicles and may not be restricted to permit holders. This will significantly reduce the convenience factor as parking in the upper lot would require transporting gear a significant distance down to the beach. The Baltimore Area Boardsailing Association advocates that the proposed plan be changed to restore the grass parking lot in front of cartop launch area and continue to restrict access to it to Mayo Wind permit holders. This grass parking area has successfully been used by the Mayo Wind program for as long as I've been a member - over 13 years. Just as it was used - just yesterday, October 28th - by at least 10 vehicles on a beautiful, late October day. I, and our other users of Mayo Wind are available to clarify any of our concerns with you as needed and we sincerely hope you will consider preserving Mayo Wind as the best windsurfing spot in the Maryland bay. 162 10/29/17 Other I have lived here for 14 years and been going to Triton Beach Park regularly since then. I am happy to see it used more frequently, but I do strongly think that the proposal goes too far. There should be fewer parking spaces and less infrastructure added to the park. Rt. 214 is already a massive traffic problem and that needs to be addressed before any additions are made to the parks on the Mayo Peninsula. 163 10/29/17 BTBP We don't need improvements to the parks, more parking spaces, more cars, etc. The traffic on the peninsula now is bad enough. No more development until we have upgrades to our infrastructure.

164 10/29/17 Other This email is a summary of my comments for all of the parks. Only minimal changes to the parks should be made at this time, with the options to add changes at a later date. Full land use planning for the peninsula has not been undertaken and, without it, we cannot gauge cumulative impact of residential development park expansions on either the environment or local communities/traffic/safety. The parking, approximately 1200 total spaces, is too high at this time. The number should be greatly reduced; more can be added later if development/land use plans are adequate for addressing cumulative concerns. At BT, eliminate the small parking area located on the other side of the re-routed road. You will re-create your pedestrian safety concerns. The use of the Water Reclamation Facility as a sports complex should be re-considered entirely. The rotation of traffic for these activities could be quite high near a problematic intersection. Future land use plans for the peninsula could include the need for additional forest cover, and the WRF should be considered as a site. It could still be park. In addition, I've been told that the upkeep on existing fields is underfunded. Let's not add to the list. Bathhouses should not be included on the plans at this time. The county needs to hold a lot more conversations about its public swimming policy, both in terms of traffic impacts and public health concerns. Don't over commit and send mixed messages until those conversations take place. I spoke to a person this week who has a friend about to undergo his 3rd surgery for a "flesh eating" bacterial infection he got from water contact in the county just though a cut on his toe. Slow this down, please, and collect information and public opinion. I support unpaved trails and kayak launches. Pervious surfaces should be used for all parking. I also ask that public input be a guiding force in these plans.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 33 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 165 10/29/17 SRFP Although I'm not opposed conceptually to the county developing South River Farm, I am very much opposed to any development that has the potential to exacerbate existing issues that are already adversely impacting the environment, public safety and the overall quality of life of residents who live in and around the 5 proposed Mayo peninsula parks. The following are the most compelling reasons to consider resident involvement and participation in developing these parks further: The South River is currently on Maryland's 303(d) list of impaired and threatened waterways and any increased development associated with the impervious parking and bike trails will contribute to additional and unnecessary polluted stormwater runoff. In turn, this additional pollution will jeopardize the work the South River Federation has been doing to restore and protect the river's shoreline and the recovery of river grasses required to support crabs, fish, and shellfish. Unnecessary development of buildings, bathhouses, and other buildings will destroy habitat associated with the interior forest trees and the recovery of underwater grasses, which are critical to maintaining a healthy wildlife and natural park environment. Increased vehicular traffic through a private community in close proximity to the community's recreation area puts the public safety at risk on roads that were designed for residential traffic. Much of this development as currently proposed for SRF contradicts your vision as presented on the county website located at http://www.aacounty.org/our-county/vision-mission/index.html where the county clearly conveys your commitment to: "enhance our natural environment by cleaning up our waterways and protecting our open spaces" There is very little about this development that either enhances or protects our open spaces or the environment. South River Farm Park which is the largest of the 5 planned for the peninsula should be developed in a way that preserves as much of the natural ecosystem as possible and with as much public input and involvement as possible. Please let's work together on next steps, anything short of collaborating on the future development being planned for the Mayo peninsula and we’ll all fail to realize your vision of “enhancing and protecting our natural environment ” 166 10/29/17 BTBP I am very concerned that providing amenities to people coming to the park will sacrifice protecting the shoreline and the environmental area. Why isn’t protecting these resource areas a priority so that future citizens will still have access to quality park lands? I have also not heard any plans to work with existing boat launch areas in marinas? Private- public partnerships would be a win-win for everyone.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 34 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 167 10/29/17 Other We agree with Mr. Schuh’s vision statement when he expressed this goal for the county: “Improving public access to public land and waters without disturbing wildlife habitat and sensitive areas.” To that end, we believe that Beverly-Triton Park and South River Farm Park should remain low-impact nature parks — places where people come to refresh their spirits and that serve as models for the conservation of natural resources, showcasing the ecosystem and teaching people how they can protect it at the parks and at their homes. Both of these parks are Resource Conservation Areas in a county where shoreline development pressures loom large; they should be managed in ways that respect the intent of that designation. We also believe that the development of these parks will impact neighboring communities and peninsula traffic as a whole, especially when combined with pending residential development on a 2- lane road. We believe it is wisest and most respectful of both the environment and the community to begin with very modest changes to the parks that can be re-evaluated over a period of time and provide a real-world measure of impacts, rather than projections leading to work that cannot be undone. We accept increases in parking, but ask them to be minimized at this time: 48 parking spaces at Beverly-Triton; 30 at South River Farm, 25 at Glebe Park. This minimizes impervious surface and allows for more changes in land use on the peninsula to take place before deciding on additional capacity. Use pervious materials in every setting. Reconsider the extent of athletic fields at the Water Reclamation Facility. We are concerned about the amount of turn-over traffic for practices and games at one of the peninsula’s most congested and dangerous intersections. Remain true to a low-impact vision that has been repeatedly defined for Beverly-Triton and South River Farm. This means diverting intense human activity from sensitive shorelines, underwater grasses, fringing grasses, and forest habitat. We understand that you describe it as “wading” instead of “swimming,” perhaps to suggest less impact to the shoreline and peninsula traffic. While the impacts may (or may not) be lessened, they are still a problem, especially when rules are not enforced. You also create an unbalanced burden on the Mayo Peninsula by saying that all county waterfront areas will allow “swimming” or “wading” yet you do not advertise all of them as such. Bacterial infections from the Bay remain a public health concern and the county has declined to post warning signs on these beaches because they are not for “swimming”; this is misleading, especially when a small cut can lead to major health problems. We request no bath houses at this time until policies are considered and clarified. Mr. Schuh has stated in his Vision, that he will “respect the wishes of the local communities,” and over 1,000 people have signed a petition asking for No Destruction of Habitat, No Bathhouse, and No Paving at Beverly-Triton. Present the full picture all at one time. Plans for South River Farm Park should develop no further until outcomes from the power boat ramp study are clear. Despite how the process has evolved inside the county bureaucracy, these are not two separate issues. They must be integrated, and the plans discussed as a whole. Likewise, plans for the parks should be finalized as a set, so that cumulative impact can be evaluated, especially the potential combination of wading/swimming beaches with sports fields and a power boat ramp. 168 10/29/17 MBP I was born in Annapolis and have lived here over 30 years. I frequently visit Mayo Beach Park to windsurf and it is my favorite location to windsurf out of the entire middle Chesapeake Bay. After looking over the schematic for the changes to the park, I'm not very happy to see a parking lot for only six vehicles just to the north of Pavilion 1. I was just at the park yesterday (Saturday, October 28th) and there were 14 windsurfers. If the new parking lot was in place, this would have come close to meeting the number of spaces needed. Several windsurfers use trailers due to the amount of gear needed for windsurfing, so they would not even be able to use the parking lot at all. Having to drop off gear at the launch area and park in the main parking lot is extremely inconvenient as many times we need to change boards, sails, fins, etc. based on changing wind conditions. Please reconsider the plans and either keep the grassy lot as-is with the chain and lock or increase the parking lot to a much larger size.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 35 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 169 10/29/17 BTBP As I studied the schematic plans to develop Beverly Triton Beach Park I couldn't help wondering why the county would like to turn this small neighborhood beach and woodland area into a regional park that includes a bathhouse. Particularly when swimming is not and should not be allowed. The "beach" is very narrow and does not have the capacity to accomodate a large number of visitors. Erosion already is a problem. Part of the beach is actually at the bottom of a small cliff. I read some of the comments of visitors to the park regarding the beach area and they include the following: small place for a few people, small beach area, little neighborhood beach, horseshoe crabs and jellyfish, beach a bit small... A parking lot that includes close to a hundred spaces would result in overcrowding, as would pavilions. We have county parks that already include areas for swimming, pavilions, and large capacity parking. Why turn a wildlife habitat with a small but beautiful shoreline into an overcrowded sea of humanity? The park should have walking trails and a few benches where one can enjoy peace and tranquility away from the crowded, hectic conditions of daily life. We should respect our natural resources for ourselves and future generations. The park should not have more than thirty parking spaces. There should be a charge for parking to help with expenditures to maintain the park. The four handicap parking spaces closer in makes sense. If a comfort station is deemed necessary it should be placed near the parking lot. One outdoor shower with a foot shower attached could be placed next to the comfort station. Just wondering, did anyone take into consideration the petition with approximately one thousand signatures against developing Bevely Triton Beach Park?

170 10/29/17 Other All parks. I am unhappy with these plans. I am appalled at the amount of cars being invited into the Mayo Peninsula without respect to the infrastructure which was dated 20years ago. How is that such a small area deserves 5 developed park lands? Parks that also require almost 1300 parking spaces? This park development combined with new development coming after Nov 1 is vicious. It feels vindictive and terribly considered. It is clear that the CE and planners don’t respect me, or other residents or the environmentally sensitive Mayo Peninsula. So unfortunate and vindictive.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 36 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 171 10/29/17 Other After a careful review of the proposed Mayo Peninsula Regional Parks Schematics, I offer the following comments to guide the master planning process for Beverly Triton Beach Park, Mayo Beach Park, South River Farm Park, Mayo Wastewater Reclamation Facility Park and Glebe Heights Community System Park: Beverly Triton Beach Park (BTB) - Considering the environmentally sensitive character of BTB, this Park should be devoted as much as possible to passive, environmentally sensitive uses rather than recreation using nationally recognized principles for sustainable park planning and design. Planning, designing, constructing, and operating Sustainable Parks often includes the following elements: • Minimizing environmental impacts from the onset through sensitive siting of a park within the landscape and careful consideration of the various uses within the park boundaries • Protecting and enhancing habitat areas • Educating the public about the value of natural resource stewardship • Incorporating rain water reuse, grey water for irrigation, efficient irrigation systems, etc. • Recycling waste products and striving to limit waste as much as possible • Minimizing pollution impacts resulting from park features and user activities • Utilizing Green building techniques (e.g., solar power, natural lighting) to reduce energy costs Reference: Oregon State Parks, Developing Sustainable Park Systems in Oregon, A Component of the 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan – http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/docs/scorp/2013-2018_SCORP/Developing_Sustainable_Park_Systems.pdf US National Park Service's Guidelines on Sustainable Principles of Sustainable Design - http://www.nps.gov/dsc/workflows/dssustain.htm - Master planning for BTB should include a thorough wetland designation study with strategies to preserve and protect the wetlands. - Master planning for BTB should include a thorough designation of forest conservation requirements. - On Page 18 of the January 2000 BTB Master Plan, MD DNR identifies that BTB beach areas had some of nesting densities of horseshoe crabs on the Chesapeake Bay. I understand that the Park Ranger conducted counts this year in May and June. Master planning for BTB should include a thorough study of the horseshoe crab nesting habitat and strategies to protect it. Horseshoe crab nesting habitat support migratory bird populations in North America. - In 1996, the MD DNR identified that an adequate survey of Federal and state rare, threatened and endangered plants and animals had not been conducted for BTB. Master planning for BTB should include a thorough survey of rare, threatened and endangered plants and animals. - Master planning for BTB should include a Federal Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) survey to determine if the forested portions of the Park are FIDS habitat or if they are suitable for FIDS habitat mitigation locations. - Master planning for BTB should include a multimodal transportation study of Shoreham Beach RD to design and plan infrastructure improvements to provide safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to BTB and MB Parks. - The Schematics for BTB propose 130 parking spaces. County Executive Schuh has previous indication that parking at BTB would be capped at a total of 96 parking spaces. These parking totals are excessive and not consistent with sustainable park design and protecting and preserving the sensitive nature of BTB. This parking count should be reduced to protect the sensitive nature of the parks habitats and ecosystems and the fragility of the shoreline. - Triton Beach Road should be realigned to facilitate creation of a parking area behind the main gate of the Park and to eliminate the potential hazard of a pedestrian street crossing to access the Park. The parking lot should be constructed of pervious stone or paving materials to reduce stormwater runoff to the maximum extent possible. - I recommend the elimination of the “Children’s Wetland Play Space”. This area of the Park is a wetland and bog and should not be disturbed. - All trails should be constructed with an impervious surface consisting of wood chips or loose gravel to minimize impervious area and stormwater runoff. Mayo Beach Park (MB) - The proposed uses for this Park seem consistent with the current uses and facilities already developed on the Park. Master planning for MB should more thoroughly determine demand for these facilities - The Schematics for MB propose 204 parking spaces.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 37 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment cont' 10/29/17 This parking count is excessive given the constraints of access roadways to this Park. - Master planning for MB should include a multimodal transportation d study of Shoreham Beach RD to design and plan infrastructure improvements to provide safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to MB and BTB Parks. - All trails should be constructed with an impervious surface consisting of wood chips or loose gravel to minimize impervious area and stormwater runoff. South River Farm Park (SRF) - Considering the environmentally sensitive character of SRF, this Park should be devoted as much as possible to passive, environmentally sensitive uses rather than recreation using nationally recognized principles for sustainable park planning and design. - Master planning for SRF should include a thorough wetland designation study with strategies to preserve and protect the wetlands. - Master planning for SRF should include a thorough designation of forest conservation requirements. - Master planning for SRF should include a thorough survey of rare, threatened and endangered plants and animals. - Master planning for SRF should include a Federal Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) survey to determine if the forested portions of the Park are FIDS habitat or if they are suitable for FIDS habitat mitigation locations. - Master planning for SRF should include a thorough study of the horseshoe crab nesting habitat along Mayo Point and strategies to protect it. Horseshoe crab nesting habitat support migratory bird populations in North America. - The Schematics for SRF propose 205 parking spaces. These parking totals are excessive and not consistent with sustainable park design and protecting and preserving the sensitive nature of SRF. This parking count should be reduced to protect the sensitive nature of the Park’s habitats and ecosystems. - I propose the elimination of the two-lane vehicular roadway out onto the northern peninsula of the park (Mayo Point), and the proposed 42 parking spaces in this sensitive and extremely fragile area of SRF Park. This roadway is not consistent with principles for sustainable park planning and design. - The uncontrolled nature of the entrance to this Park poses a significant security problem. When the Park is closed how will access be controlled. I propose a security gate at the entrance to control access. - All trails should be constructed with an impervious surface consisting of wood chips or loose gravel to minimize impervious area and stormwater runoff. Mayo Water Reclamation Facility Park (MWRF) - The proposed ballfields and picnic facilities seem to be acceptable facilities for this re-purposed property. Master planning for MWRF should more thoroughly determine demand for these facilities. - Re-forestation of this Park as a potential County forest banking location may be the better use for portions of this Park not needed for ballfields and picnic pavilions and facilities. - The Schematics for MWRF propose 608 parking spaces. This parking count is excessive given the constraints of access roadways to this Park. - The uncontrolled nature of the entrances to this Park poses a significant security problem. When the Park is closed how will access be controlled. I propose security gates at each entrance to control access. - I propose the elimination of any vehicular connection between MWRF and SRF Parks. This disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas would be too significant to mitigate any possible benefit of creating a new vehicular connection. cont' 10/29/17 A trail connection with an impervious surface consisting of wood chips or loose gravel would be acceptable. - All trails should be constructed with an d impervious surface consisting of wood chips or loose gravel to minimize impervious area and stormwater runoff . Glebe Heights Community System PARK (GHCS) - The proposed dog park and nature trail seem to be acceptable facilities for this re-purposed property. Master planning for GHCS should more thoroughly determine demand for these facilities. Is a tot lot compatible with a dog park? - Re-forestation of this Park as a potential County forest banking location may be the better use for portions of this Park not needed for a larger than necessary dog park, tot lot and an excessive number of parking spaces. - The Schematics for GHCS propose 139 parking spaces. This parking count is excessive given the constraints of access roadways to this Park and the proposed use for a dog park, tot lot and nature trail. - The uncontrolled nature of the entrance to this Park poses a significant security problem. When the Park is closed how will access be controlled. I propose a security gate at the entrance to control access. - The nature trail should be constructed with an impervious surface consisting of wood chips or loose gravel to minimize impervious area and stormwater runoff.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 38 of 39 Mayo Peninsula Parks - Public Comments on Master Plan Concepts 11/1/2017

No. Date Park Comment 172 10/29/17 SRFP I moved to Loch Haven Beach 8 years ago from the Northern Virginia area. I moved to Edgewater and in particular to our beautiful community for the peaceful, beautiful, and serenity that it would provide for myself and family. My husband and I are business professionals that work in DC and Reston Virginia and endure the long commutes for the serenity that Loch Haven has brought to us. We have also enjoyed South River Farms Park and our hope is that it is left in its natural beauty for all residents to enjoy. Edgewater already has Mayo Park that has a complete infrastructure in place and available to the county but this has not been allowed to be utilized to its fullest extent and has limited access. Why? I have and I have continued to be perplexed as to why the county would want to commercialize South River Farms when there is already an existing Mayo Park that has the parking and infrastructure today. Here are the challenges I see: Additional Cost to Tax Payer, Safety concerns for those in Loch Haven, increased Traffic and environmental impacts. The plans for South River Farms is vast. We implore you to reconsider and look at what is existing already in the county. Please leave South River Farms for the beautiful sanctuary that it is and do not disrupt the residents of Edgewater any further. Thank you and please please rethink this plan. 173 10/30/17 BTBP There was a petition with 1000 signatures that supporting no further development at Beverly Triton Beach Park. The park at Fort Smallwood is very unattractive. It is like walking on a Battery of asphalt and parking. The natural setting was destroyed. We DO NOT want that same destruction at our natural area here. Keep the money and use it to fight the opioid crisis which does not seem to be taken seriously by this County Executive. LESS IS MORE. No DEVELOPMENT OF TRITON BEVERLY BEACH PARK. It is already open to the public. Money does not need to be wasted on parking lots and bathhouses. 174 10/30/17 BTBP I have review both plans for Beverly Triton Beach. The plan 2 ( alternative) is not possible due to safety concerns crossing a public roadway to access the park from the parking lot. Plan 1 would work (from a safety perspective) by rerouting the roadway. However, the entrance road leading up to the gatehouse would need be extended further down the road to allow more cars to wait in line and not block traffic on the public roadway.Also, no additional ( proposed future lot) would be allowed on the northwest side of the new public roadway( safety concerns). 175 10/30/17 BTBP My comment is for all the peninsula parks in Edgewater. I understand growth is normal, but you cannot keep expecting our peninsula to absorb overgrowth without negative repercussions. Our traffic is overwhelming and we are overcrowded as it is. Allowing so many impervious parking places and growth to an over populated area is ridiculous and pollutes our waters and ruins the environment and the safety of all that live in the area. Stop.

R:\Data\Shared\Capital Projects\Property Management\Parks and Trails\Mayo Peninsula Parks\Master Planning\Comments\Comments 111616 to present.xlsx11162016_10292017 Page 39 of 39