HomeMy WebLinkAbout56_Revision Cover Letter_2024-0325
Cristina,
1) We are responding to your request for clarification on project phasing by rephrasing the project
narrative to show that we are intending to follow the requirements of both the development
agreement and the 2019 amendment to it. The replacement document is part of this submittal.
2) Under the heading of other permits required we had not identified any additional permits under
our original submission. We have a better understanding of the requirement and are submitting
a list of State and County permits to correct the deficiency.
3) The conservation easement required by the Development Agreement 8.8.7 as appendix M has
now been recorded and a copy of the easement showing the county records label number
664860 is included to replace the appendix M submitted with the original application.
4) I asked Steve Hatton about the fire flow and his short answer is 2000GPM minimum at the point
of use. The rest of his response is included in our fourth response under the heading of fire flow.
5) We are going to respond to your comments about the compliance narratives in the order
delivered them. Responding to 5 (a), We have reached out to both the Port Gamble SKlallam and
Skokomish tribes for input on signage for cultural education around the area referred to as kettle
“B”. We have set this area aside at the request of the PGSI tribe to be an undeveloped wild area.
Details are submitted with this document. Responding to 5 (b), The wildlife management plan
has been revised to reflect the latest project site plan. It is included along with the write up to
replace the appendix P submitted earlier. Responding to 5 (c), the reserve areas for the recharge
wells are shown on pages 11 and 18 of the revised preliminary plat drawings at triangle note 5.
Responding to 5 (d), I have supplied a narrative directing you to each of the areas where site
specific vegetation issues could be shown on the drawings. Items like wetlands, the kettle “B”
reserve area and the conservation easement. Most of the vegetation management plan is
prescriptive in nature speaking to general methods for eradicating invasive species and
reclaiming areas damaged by earlier land use. In general, we will follow the green belt and buffer
requirements of the plan. A site plan drawing has also been included with areas of natural
vegetation called out. The drawing also indicates the wetlands, conservation easement,
screening vegetation, and planned landscape types. Responding to 5 (e), our response covers the
monitoring plan that the project is following. The project has however been contacted in writing
by the WDFW supporting the discontinuance of the monitoring program.
6) Responding to comment six we are including the completed certificate.
7) Response to comment seven come in several parts. First the draft CC&Rs are now in this
package, second the proposed road lighting drawing from MPE is included along with the Dark
Skys write-up, the only transit stop is already depicted on the preliminary plat drawings. A
supplemental site drawing is included to show areas where natural vegetation and wetlands are
being preserved, This drawing will show proposed screening and soil stabilization plantings and
road side plantings. We have included the project design review guidelines which lists plant
Exhibit 56
pallets which architects and builders must use for plantings. It also depicts and specifies the
landscape details required by the PHMPR for construction.
8) The SEPA checklist has been amended to reflect the expected impact of the elimination of the
LOSS, and the substitution of kettle C as the location of the storm water retention pond for the
proposed location at kettle B. The final revision of the SEPA checklist will cover the impact of
using the modular building program we are planning to use. The revision can be found in part
“A” paragraph 11.
Exhibit 56