HomeMy WebLinkAbout58_Civil Technical Review 1JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us _________________________________________________________________________________ SquareONE Resource Center | Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning Page 1 of 8 July 3, 2024 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP c/o John Holbert, PE 235 Salmon Street Brinnon, WA 98320 via email: johnh@statesmangroup.com RE: SITE ADDRESS: 308913 US Highway 101, Brinnon, WA 98320 CASE #: SUB2023-00025 (Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments Dear Mr. Holbert: Jefferson County received the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP (“PHMPR”) preliminary plat application on November 20, 2023, and received additional information on November 22, 2023. The application was determined complete on April 16, 2024, pursuant to JCC 18.40.110. Following review of the complete application, the County has identified items requiring correction, clarification, or additional information. Please address the following comments: TESC Comments: The TESC Plan has been reviewed for general compliance with: • The approved Development Agreement, • JCC. 18.30.060 and 070, which includes the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington 2019 (SWMM), • The applicant’s Geotechnical Report by The Statesman Corporation, dated December 17, 2008, and • The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). The items listed below are not in general compliance and must be corrected for preliminary plat review. 1. Existing Wetlands. Per the legend on sheet 7 of the preliminary plat, three wetlands have 100-foot buffers. This appears to be inconsistent with critical areas requirements – see Planning Technical Review Comments letter dated July 3, 2024. The applicant’s drainage report states that the development will not disturb the three wetlands located on site. See Drainage Report page 17. Please address the following: a. Wetland C and its buffer will encroach on five proposed lots. The EIS and SEIS require buffers to be restored with native vegetation. b. Two fairways may be affected by the wetlands and their buffers. c. Please show buffers on the plans and confirm there are no impacts. Buffers should be updated to conform to the required updated wetlands delineation – see Planning Technical Review Comments Letter, dated July 3, 2024. d. Please show the fencing and temporary erosion control measures around the wetlands during construction. e. Confirm the proposed site and erosion control measures will not encroach on any wetland buffers. Exhibit 58
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Case No. SUB2023-00025) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments July 3, 2024 Page 2 of 8 2. Geotechnical Report. Since phasing is no longer proposed as part of the project, the 2008 geotechnical report prepared for the EIS and SEIS should be updated to remove references to phasing and geotechnical recommendations must be consistent with the current construction proposal. Note that the geotechnical report, page 12, recommends phased grading so that stripped areas are kept to a minimum size and to minimize the time exposed areas are unprotected. Please also note that the geotechnical report recommends maintaining a 100-foot buffer from the top of the shoreline bluff slope. For many areas of the site, the current plans depict maintaining less than a 30-foot buffer from the top of the shoreline bluff. In some areas the plans depict encroaching into the buffer. The geotechnical report should be updated to analyze the current site design (see Planning Technical Review Comments letter dated July 3, 2024); recommendations related to phasing may be revised and the TESC plans should reflect the updated geotechnical report recommendations. 3. 200-foot Shoreline Jurisdiction. The proposed development will disturb a portion of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. Work within the 200’ shoreline jurisdiction shall be limited to that which is required for the removal of existing improvements and the restoration of areas disturbed for the removal of the existing improvements. See the TESC plan for silt fence encroaching the 200-foot shoreline setback. 4. Pumping of Stormwater. A sediment pond is proposed near the 200-foot shoreline setback. What is the plan to prevent runoff towards the bluff in the event the pumps fail? Is there a secondary plan of action in place to protect the shoreline and water quality at Hood Canal? 5. Missing Grading Information. The is no preliminary grading shown for the golf course or the sidewalks adjacent to the property line. Therefore, it is unclear how stormwater runoff will be mitigated during construction. Please include TESC measures to protect adjacent properties and Hood Canal. Items #6 to #11 listed below are not in general compliance with the code, but are not necessary for the preliminary plat approval. The applicant will need to address these comments during clearing, grading and building permitting. 6. Sediment Basins. The SWPPP calls for sediment basins, however, these basins do not appear on the TESC plan. a. The sediment basins need to be shown on the TESC plan. b. Refer to Construction Criteria under V-5.3 of the Stormwater Manual for silt removal and excavation standards to protect the bottom layer of future infiltration basins. 7. On-Site Screening. The Geotechnical Report by The Statesman Corporation, dated December 17, 2008, concludes granular soils can be used for bedding beneath fairways and greens. Cobbles and boulders can also be crushed on-site to produce gravel base for roads. If there will be a screening plant on-site, please show location on TESC plan and include erosion control measures. 8. NPDES Permit. The Construction Stormwater General Permit will expire on December 31, 2025. The Applicant shall apply for extension if project is to extend beyond that date. A copy of an approved and active NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit shall be provided to the County prior to issuance of the clearing and grading permit by the county. Exhibit 58
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Case No. SUB2023-00025) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments July 3, 2024 Page 3 of 8 9. TESC BMPs. Some of the sediment and erosion control items are missing on the TESC plan, details, or SWPPP. Please include the following: a. BMP C106 Wheel Wash b. BMP C107 Construction Road Stabilization c. BMP C154 Concrete Washout Area –Locate 50’ from sensitive areas such as storm drains, open ditches, wetlands, or infiltration facilities. d. BMP C200 Interceptor Dike and Swale- Locate at top or base of a disturbed slope or along the perimeter of a disturbed area to convey stormwater to a sediment trap or sediment pond. For grass lined swales, avoid sharp changes in alignment or bends. e. BMPC204 Pipe Slope Drains – For temporary stormwater conveyance down a steep slope f. BMP C220 Inlet Protection g. BMP C240 Sediment Trap – For tributary area of less than 3 acres h. BMP C241 Sediment Pond – For tributary area of more than 3 acres i. BMP C140 Dust Control to minimize dust during dry weather 10. Silt Fencing. Silt fences should follow contour lines as much as possible. Applicant to utilize interceptor dikes or swales as applicable. 11. Minimize Silting of Existing Vegetation and Adjacent Properties. Silt fences should be placed to protect sediment from entering adjacent properties and Hood Canal. See the golf course area along the western and eastern side of the project site. Silt fences should also be placed to minimize sediment to native vegetation that will remain in place per EIS mitigation measures for critical areas. For example, see the native vegetation areas located downstream of Cascadia House and Olympia House. Grading Comments: The Grading and Drainage Plans have been reviewed for general compliance with: • The approved Development Agreement, • JCC. 18.30.060 and 070, which includes the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington 2019 (SWMM), • The applicant’s Geotechnical Report by The Statesman Corporation, dated December 17, 2008, and • The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). The items listed below are not in general compliance and must be corrected for preliminary plat review. 12. Maximum Slopes. Per the Geotechnical Report dated December 17, 2008 in section 11.2.4 permanent cut slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1V for fill soil and recessional outwash and 1.5H:1V in the dense to very dense Vashon glacial deposits. Section 11.2.5 states permanent fill slopes should be constructed at 2H:1V or flatter. A few areas show contours steeper than 1.5:1 slope. Either flatten out the grades or show a wall. 13. Slope Away from Buildings. Revise grades to provide a minimum of two percent slopes draining away from all buildings. 14. Contour Issue. Proposed and existing contour elevations don’t match up north of “D” Road Cul-de-sac. Please correct. 15. Roadway Cross Slopes. The gravel roads west and southeast of the intersection of “B” and “H” Roads, as well as some side roads are graded at 33 percent. Please revise the roadway grading. 16. Typo. Slope is shown as “???” at the intersection of “A” and “B” Road. Please update. Exhibit 58
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Case No. SUB2023-00025) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments July 3, 2024 Page 4 of 8 17. Road Grading. Add contours along “C” Road. A portion of the road grades are missing. 18. Wall Heights. Call out wall heights. Walls taller than four feet will require a separate building permit. 19. Grade Information. Show contours or spot elevations for the sports courts. 20. Missing Grading Information. The parking lot north of Tract X-9 is absent of grading information. Please provide. 21. Grading Conflict. “H” Road grading extends into the building footprint identified for the Planned AGRA-Center that is shown on Tract X-9. Confirm the design intent and revise as needed. 22. Road alignment does not match grading. The road between Lots 36 and 37 must be regraded. It appears the road may have been relocated and the grading no longer follows the roadway. Stormwater & Drainage Report: The Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Report has been reviewed for general compliance with: • The approved Development Agreement, • JCC. 18.30.060 and 070, which includes the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington 2019 (SWMM), • The applicant’s Geotechnical Report by The Statesman Corporation, dated December 17, 2008, and • The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). The items listed below are not in general compliance and must be corrected for preliminary plat review. 23. Bluff Protection. A stormwater buffer pond and pump are proposed near the 200’ Shoreline Buffer. Please address your plan to prevent stormwater runoff towards the bluff in the event that the pumps fail. 24. Setback Distance for Well. Well #2 does not meet the spacing requirements to Pond #5. The spacing shall conform to V-5.5, at 500 feet from the water supply wells, per V-5.5, 3. (pg 738) of SWMM. Please revise. 25. Setback Distance for Well. Proposed stormwater management facilities exceed the 100-foot setback to drinking wells. Confirm whether SSC-1 Setback Criteria, under V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC) is required for proposed well #2. Revise if needed. 26. Infiltration Design Rates. Table 3 of page 387 of the drainage report provides general infiltration rates. The geotechnical engineer should recommend the acceptable infiltration design rates for each basin. Please provide the basis used for infiltration rates used throughout the WWHM model. 27. Pond Configuration. To confirm the infiltration basin location is adequate and will not affect site layout, such as road alignment and lot configuration, the following items need to be addressed: Exhibit 58
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Case No. SUB2023-00025) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments July 3, 2024 Page 5 of 8 a. The typical slope for infiltration basins is 3:1. Refer to Figure V-5.4, pg. 762 of SWMM. Ponds 1 and 4 have 2:1 side slope. Please confirm there are no geotechnical restrictions to the steeper slope. b. Maintenance access to the ponds is not shown. Please confirm that there is adequate access space for basin maintenance. c. Ponding depth greater than four feet deep requires fencing. What is the maximum elevation of ponding depths? d. BMP T7.10 Infiltration basin design criteria requires a pre-settling basin for Ponds #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6. 28. Sampling Report. The Pleasant Harbor pre-construction required quarterly sampling report is missing Aquatic Life Temperatures and Water Contact Recreation Bacteria count. Please update accordingly. 29. WQ Basins. The infiltration basins, that will provide the required runoff treatment, shall provide a treatment layer as part of the BMP (similar to BMP T7.30: Bioretention, or native soils must meet the criteria for Runoff Treatment per V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC). Please update the design where needed. 30. DOE Infiltration Approval. Note that the use of infiltration will need to be approved by DOE to confirm there is no violation of groundwater water quality standards. See SSC- Ground Water Protection Areas, under V-5.6 Site Suitability Criteria (SSC). This approval from the Department of Ecology must be provided to Jefferson County prior to issuance of County clearing and grading permits. 31. WQ Treatment. The treatment chosen for stormwater runoff are Contech Stormfilters, bioretention swales, and infiltration basins. a. Infiltration treatment for basins 2,3 and 5-9 is acceptable per SWMM. b. A Bioretention Swale used for subbasin 4-1 is acceptable per SWMM. c. Contech Stormfilters are approved by SWMM and listed in in Emerging stormwater treatment technologies (TAPE) d. Basins #1, #4, and #10 utilize a manufactured treatment vault in compliance with BMP T7.10. See https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Stormwater-permittee-guidance-resources/Emerging-stormwater-treatment-technologiesManufactured. e. The plan’s details, however, call for Oldcastle Biopods. Though this is also acceptable per DOE and is listed in TAPE, it differs from the plan itself. Please confirm which treatment will be used and revise the plans accordingly. 32. Pond Liners. Kettle C is being converted to a reclaimed water pond. See Geotechnical report for recommended pond liners (page 397 and 398 of the drainage report) and include liners in the future construction permit documents per the geotechnical recommendations. 33. Conveyance Calculations. The drainage report states the stormwater conveyance was designed per SWMM. However, the SWMM does not provide a conveyance calculation method. (See Volume 1- chapter 1, pg. 42, Exclusion of Conveyance design. “Design guidance for conveyance systems is not included in this manual. This topic is covered in standard engineering references.”). Please revise to use a conveyance calculation method approved by DOE. 34. Storm Drainage Easements. Applicant shall provide easement for public stormwater conveyance pipes on private property. Exhibit 58
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Case No. SUB2023-00025) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments July 3, 2024 Page 6 of 8 Transportation: The roadway section has been reviewed for general compliance with the Jefferson County Transportation Design, JCC 18.30.080, Construction Manual and 2017 NFPA 1141 (Brinnon Fire Department), and the Development Agreement and mitigation measures in the FEIS (p 5-5). Jefferson County Transportation Design and Construction Manual: 35. Roadway Lane Width. Per Section 3.7.8.1.2, a 12-foot all-weather travel surface and two-foot shoulders on either side are required, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel surface. 36. Total Roadway Width of 20’. Per Section 3.7.8.2.2, a total width of 20 feet, including 16 feet all-weather travel surface and two-foot shoulders on either side for roads serving up to 15 dwelling units, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel surface 37. Total Roadway Width of 24’. Per Section 3.7.8.2.3, a total width of 24 feet, including 18 feet all-weather travel surface and 2-footshoulders on either side for roads serving up to 15 dwelling units, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel surface Required Action – The roadway sections must be revised to comply with the minimum travel lane width of 12 ft, potentially 16 ft or 18 ft in some areas with 2 ft shoulders added to both sides of the roadways. *Note* - Make sure that horizontal curve radius of roadways at centerline is a min. of 30 ft. 2017 NFPA 1141: 38. Per Section 5.2.3, roadways shall have a minimum clear width of 12 feet for each lane of travel excluding shoulders and parking, the current roadways sections only show 10-foot travel surface 39. Per 5.36, Fire lanes providing two-way travel shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The current roadway section only shows a 24-foot wide roadway path of travel 40. Per Section 5.3.6.2, fire lane widths shall not include shoulders, sidewalks, or drainage, ensure the travel lanes meet width requirements without including shoulders, sidewalks, or drainage 41. Per Section 5.3.15, the clear opening through gates in fire lanes shall be at least 2 feet wider than the travel way, something to keep in mind when installing gates. This will be reviewed with construction permits. 42. Per Section 5.3.16, all gates at the entrance to fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from the roadway and shall open away from the roadway, unless other provisions are made for safe personnel operation, something to keep in mind when installing gates. This will be reviewed with construction permits. 43. Per Section 5.4.2, parking Lot aisles adjacent to any building shall provide a travel lane with a minimum 24-footclear width, like the roadway section, any parking lot will also require a minimum 24-foot drive aisle. Required Action – The roadway sections must be revised to be in compliance with the above standards and to accommodate fire apparatus and vehicles, gates will need to be constructed to code, and parking lots will need to have at least 24 ft wide drive aisles. *Note* - Make sure that turns have an outside curb line radius of no less than 50 feet to accommodate all fire apparatus and vehicles Exhibit 58
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Case No. SUB2023-00025) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments July 3, 2024 Page 7 of 8 Development Agreement and FEIS/SFEIS Mitigation Measures: 44. Transportation Mitigation. For improvements along Black Point Road and US Highway 101, the Developer shall coordinate with WSDOT and other applicable agencies to ensure the necessary requirements and mitigation measures are met. Please note that the Development Agreement (Section 8.11.4) and the FEIS (p 5-5) require providing US Highway 101 and Black Point Road improvements and an on-site transit stop and bus pull out (as required by the Transit Authority). The applicant shall update the Preliminary Plat Plans to depict these improvements. Sanitary Sewer: 45. Revise Section 4.2 of the “Pleasant Harbor Sewer System General Sewer Plan” (PHSSGSP), dated June 17, 2022 to clarify that the LOSS will not be an interim system and that phasing is no longer planned as previously contemplated in the Development Agreement. 46. Revise Section 13 of the (PHSSGSP), dated June 17, 2022 to include specific water quality requirements for this project such as identified in Section 8.8.6 Condition 63(r) of the Development Agreement. 47. The design flows in the Engineering Report attached to the PHSSGSP, appear to be different than the design flows in Section 10.2 of the PHSSGSP. Please correct. 48. Section 1.0 of the Engineering Report attached to the PHSSGSP, implies a single lift station will be used. This does not align with the three lift stations discussed in the main body of the PHSSGSS. Please revise. 49. Based on the comments above it appears that the Engineering Report needs to be updated to coordinate with the current design intent. Review of the engineering report was suspended pending this update. 50. Add discussion in the PHSSGSP of how the wastewater system will address demonstrated impacts to water quality both on-site and off-site. This is required per the Developer Agreement Section 6.2. 51. Please indicate on the drawings and PHSSGSP the construction sequencing of the various wastewater treatment system components relative to project occupancy. 52. The plat shall include easements for sewer facilities (reclaimed water pipe and ditch, etc.) when pipes are crossing parcels not dedicated to sewer facilities. Please confirm that easements are proposed in these conditions. 53. In addition to Washington State Department of Ecology requirements, the wastewater system shall meet Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.15, 18.30.040 and 18.30.180 as applicable. When preparing construction permits, please note that when said code sections conflict with Washington State Department of Ecology, the more stringent shall apply. Water: 54. Per Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan, Section 4-20, the fire hydrant spacing is not compliant. Please revise. 55. Call out the minimum 10-foot horizontal separation between water and sewer mains on the water plan. Please verify that all water and sewer mains provide the required separation. If additional easement width is required to provide the minimum separation between water and sanitary sewer utility lines, please revise the easements as needed. 56. As part of the plan documents for construction permitting, please include: a. Well design and data for wells Exhibit 58
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Case No. SUB2023-00025) Civil Technical (General Conformance) Review Comments July 3, 2024 Page 8 of 8 b. Storage reservoir information c. The materials and specifications of all pipe, valve, hydrant and other appurtenances called out on plans. d. Pipe coverage and all other design elements related to the vertical design of the water line to include, but not limited to pipe restraints, blow off valves, pressure reducing valves, vacuum/air release assemblies. If you have any questions or concerns with our responses in this letter, please contact me directly at (360) 352-1465 or email me at bill.dunning@scjalliance.com Sincerely, Bill Dunning, PE Principal cc: Josh Peters, AICP, Jefferson County, Community Development Director George Terry, Associate Planner Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Exhibit 58