HomeMy WebLinkAbout017(_5,JV\ A
Cheryl Halvorson
From: Brent Butler
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:12 AM
To: Cheryl Halvorson
Subject: FW: BLACK POINT EIS Letter
FYI — MPR letter
From: Brent Butler
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:55 AM
To: 'Garth Mann'
Cc: 'Statesman Group - James Mazak'; 'Paradise Wilson Largen'; 'Alexander W. Mackie (Sandy)
(AMackie@perkinscoie.com)'
Subject: BLACK POINT EIS Letter
Dear Mr. Mann:
Attached is a letter that details our findings to date.
best,
Brent Butler
Brent A. Butler
Assistant Planner, Jefferson County
Long -Range Planning Division
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
TEL: (360) 379-4464; FAX: (360) 374-4473
8/23/2006
Page 1 of 1
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend • Washington 98368
360/379-4450 • 360/379-4451 Fax
www.cojefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment
Garth Mann, President August 23, 2006
Statesman Group, Inc.
7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. Southwest
Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9
CANADA
Re: Findings on the Consultant Reports and Summary Document for
MLA06-87 [Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) sections]
Dear Mr. Mann:
Throughout the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA06-87 and draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Departments of Community Development
and Public Works have identified core elements that must be addressed. As a review of
the draft EIS on an accelerated basis indicates that many of the requested elements are
still missing, we are concerned.
These comments result from an accelerated and incomplete review of the draft because
the findings so far indicate the need for substantive rewrite of the draft and the inclusion
of additional analysis to quantify impacts so that they can be understood, alternatives
analyzed and unavoidable impacts mitigated. The document shall be consistent, coherent
and complete as well as comply with all of the Federal and State -mandated requirements
with special emphasis upon those requirements that relate to the historic resources on site.
At this time, the documents are not ready for public notice. Please note that if this
proposal requires review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the
Federal Government, as the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer stated was
possible, the project would require a minimum 36 -month timeline. As lead agency for the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Jefferson County must comply with the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-440 and (WAC) 197-11-444, which
detail the contents to be included in the EIS as well as the elements of the environment
under review and process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
In the six-page attachment attached hereto and incorporated by reference to this letter, we
have divided the core missing elements into (A) Transportation, (B) Cultural Resources,
(C) Public Service and Utilities, (D) Structure, (E) Energy and Natural Resources, and (F)
Maps and Tables. In conclusion, we reiterate that these findings are the result of a
preliminary review of the draft and that more guidance will follow. Moreover, some of
the probable significant adverse impacts (PSAI) listed in the June 13, 2006 scoping letter
are restated, as we remain hopeful that you shall also refer to the guidance we have
provided in that letter. The turn around time for a review of the completed draft document
by the various departments of Jefferson County and the State of Washington for a project
of this scope will be roughly five weeks upon receipt by us. Once the guidance has been
incorporated in the document as requested in the June 13, 2006 letter and in the
attachment submitted to you today, and upon completion of a five-week review of the
resulting document, we shall release the document as the draft Environmental Impact
Statement to the public for comment.
Very truly yours,
Brent Butler,
Lead Planner, Pleasant Harbor MPR
Ova,
Stacie Hoskins,
SEPA Responsible Official
cc: Josh Peters, Director of Long -Range Planning
Frank Gifford, Director of Public Works, Jefferson County
Al Scalf, Director of the Department of Community Development
John Fischbach, Jefferson County Administrator
Dr. Allison Brook, Washington State Historic Preservation Officer
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street - Port Townsend • Washington 98368
360/379-4450. 360/379-4451 Fax
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS MLA06-87
August 23, 2006
A- TRANSPORTATION
A summary of communications between the Department of Public Works and the
Statesman Group documents that the proponent has failed to date to provide the
components of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to Jefferson County.
1) The Public Works Department described the required components of the TIA to
the proponent in a memo dated May 19, 2006. These included an analysis of
existing conditions and projected trip generation, trip distribution, peak hour
traffic volumes, intersection turning movements, and Level of Service for
roadways and intersections. Based on this data and analysis the TIA would
identify likely significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.
2) The proponent's transportation engineer Manuel Abaca responded in a letter dated
June 28, 2006 that proposed as a first step projecting trip generation based on
traffic counts from other resorts in the Northwest with similar characteristics.
3) The Department concurred with this proposed methodology in a letter dated July
13, 2006. The Department stated that the proponent should provide a description
of the resorts to be studied to the Department prior to collecting traffic data. The
Department also requested a detailed description of the proposed MPR, in
particular proposed on-site commercial development to serve the needs of the
resort clients since this would significantly influence the volume of traffic
generation. The Department also requested that at each step in developing the
TIA, the proponent provide work products to the Department for review and
comment.
4) In an email dated July 26, 2006 the proponent's representative James Mazak
suggested using Port Ludlow and Alderbrook Resort to project trip generation. In
a memo dated August 4, 2006 the Department responded that while considering
Port Ludlow and Alderbrook might be helpful, it was not sufficient. While Port
Ludlow is designated as a MPR, it is predominantly a residential community that
predates the Growth Management Act. The proposed Black Point MPR, on the
other hand, is required to be a resort development with limited residential
development in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360, as it was prepared after the
Growth Management Act was passed. The Department also noted that Alderbrook
is significantly smaller than the proposed MPR. The memo stated that the TIA
should also consider Northwest resorts that are of similar nature, size, and
location. The memo also reiterated the request for a detailed description of the
proposal.
5) In an email dated August 18, 2006 James Mazak attached a document entitled
Transportation Summary. It briefly describes the components of the proposed
MPR and very briefly discusses commercial development, access points,
proposed transportation improvements, and measures intended to reduce
transportation impacts. It does not provide a detailed description of the proposed
commercial facilities beyond stating that they would include a convenience store.
It does not provide the necessary data and analysis regarding trip generation, trip
distribution, peak hour volumes, and turning movements to reach conclusions
regarding transportation impacts and mitigations.
6) In accordance with the need to review and compare each of alternatives, a detailed
traffic analysis is needed for all other alternative scenarios. Without this, the
transportation element will be incomplete.
7) To date with the exception of the description of the MPR components, the
proponent has failed to provide the data and analysis requested by the Department
that is necessary to develop the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). This includes an
analysis of existing conditions, the names and descriptions of Northwest resorts to
use to project trip generation, and projected trip generation, trip distribution, peak
hour traffic volumes, intersection turning movements, and Level of Service for
roadways and intersections. In the absence of this data and analysis there cannot
be a discussion of likely significant impacts and appropriate mitigation.
8) The Transportation Summary also raises a question regarding the nature of the
proposed development. Is it predominantly a resort or is it residential
development? In Area A at Black Point the Transportation Summary it states
there will be 700 residential units, including 570 villas and town homes and 130
condo -tel units. In Area B at the marina it states there will be 100 residential town
homes. The distinction between 670 villas and town homes and 100 condo -tel
units seems to imply that the former are full time residences while the latter are
time share resort structures. If this is the case the proposal would not appear to
meet the requirements for a MPR under the Growth Management Act.
B - CULTURAL RESOURCES
1) The State Historic Preservation Officer and the Skokomish Tribe were aggrieved
by the lack of consultation during and prior to the drilling of 66 test pits. A
determination was made thereafter that an archaeological site assessment of the
`Area of Potential Effect' (APE) must be done in accordance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. The Skokomish Tribe has indicated that
cultural resources are likely to be found within the boundaries of the project area.
Inconsistencies between the appendices and draft and a lack of detail on the
depths and locations of structures, foundations, footings and staging areas prevent
this area from being properly delineated. This lack of information is especially
significant given the finding by the Transportation Performance Audit Board's
review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project, which states that the `Area of
Potential Effect' was not adequately defined prior to the initial site development
of that project. The APE will include all areas in the proposed construction area,
2
staging areas, as well as infrastructure, utilities, and recreational footprints per
36CFR800.16.
2) In addition to the definition of the APE, Statesman shall prepare a list of
appropriate and relevant archaeological and cultural data gathering tasks needed
to assess the APE and identify cultural and archaeological resources. The tasks
to be accomplished and a timeline for such shall be presented to the DAHP,
Jefferson County and affected Tribes for comment and discussion. These tasks
shall include but not be limited to, interpretation of soil boring logs and
geoarchaeological techniques proposed for assessing the geomorphologic
environment as it relates to human adaptation of the landscape in the project area,
proposed field survey methods, survey, results, and reporting; a strategy for the
identification of culturally important places or Traditional Cultural Properties, and
development of avoidance and/or mitigation measures as appropriate. All tasks
will be completed to DAHPs survey standards and in compliance with relevant
regulations and statutes including Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, RCW 27.53 and 27.44 and the State Environmental Policy Act.
3) In the event that avoidance and mitigation measures prove insufficient and
cultural resources are uncovered, a pre -approved Contact Plan of Action (CPA)
must be adopted. This CPA shall detail among other things the chain of contact at
the Tribes, DAHP and Jefferson County, including which responsible officials
shall be contacted in the event of contact with cultural resources.
C- PUBLIC SERVICES and UTLITIES
1) Proposed mitigation measures fail to adequately address the substantial impact on
the Fire & EMS system.
2) Under mitigation no. 1 change adequate fire flow to read sustainable adequate fire
flow.
3) Under mitigation #2 Add "All fire hydrants installed shall have 2 2.5" and 14.5"
outlets. The 4.5" outlet shall have a 4" Storz fitting with cabled cap. All structure
FDC connections shall be curbside and shall also have a 4" Storz fitting with
cabled cap."
4) Under mitigation #5, rewrite as "Install hydrants, install portable fire suppression
equipment and hoses at the marina. Fire district #4 Training Officer to conduct
annual training with marina staff on operating afore mentioned equipment.
5) Under mitigation no. 7 Add "As per Jefferson County Fire Protection District
#4's specifications and needs assessment."
6) Under mitigation no. 9 add "as well as the International Fire Code requirements."
7) Proposed mitigation measure no. 10 is NOT approved by the Fire Chief. This is in
direct conflict with standing DOH and Jefferson County Medical Program
Director directives. No EMT can operate in the state of WA with out being
associated with an EMS agency and the approval of the MPD, DR Sandra smith -
polling.
8) It is important to note that transport of residents will be necessary, as well as other
essential public services that can only be accommodated by an impact fee for
FIRE and EMS.
9) How are the buildings going to be heated?
3
10) Each structure shall have a remote alarm enunciator panel, were appropriate with
an exterior red strobe, visible from the roadway. Each structure shall have 1 Knox
key box, appropriate for the structure, for fire department key access. All gates
shall have Knox padlocks; all FDC connections shall have Knox lock plates.
D -STRUCTURE
1) NOMENCLATURE - The Comprehensive Plan MPR alternative should be
renamed Brinnon Sub Area Plan alternative and needs to be appended so that it
more clearly identifies what is envisioned throughout the draft. It is not a
hypothetical alternative as stated on page 14 (this sentence should be removed).
2) ADD ALTERNATIVE No. 3 - An additional alternative, which could be named
HYBRID and that incorporates both the proposed Statesman Group alternative
with the substantive elements of the Brinnon Sub Area Plan, needs to be included
in the draft.
3) CONSISTENCY - Inconsistencies are apparent in the text because while page 12
of the draft says that 546 units will be built in Cell A housed in 53 buildings that
are either two-level townhouses or one -level bungalow -style villas, section 2.1 of
Appendix 1 (Vol. I, Geotechnical Report) states that Cell A shall consist of 700
townhouse units in 100 buildings. This discrepancy appears throughout this
section. Although we requested one complete copy of the draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) we have instead received a draft EIS in four different
mailings over the space of two weeks that does not appear to have been properly
woven together. To date, we have received the following: (1) hard copies of the
draft Environmental Impact Statement on August 2, 2006 which summarizes the
findings of the seven Appendices, (2) 7 Appendices on August 4, 2006 and (3)
electronic copies of an Economy and Rural Character section on August 16, 2006
and (4) a Transportation Element on August 18, 2006 that is inadequate. This may
have led to the lack of consistency among and between the elements.
4) SECTION MISSING - Where is the section on a planned action?
5) SECTION MISSING - Where is the section arguing in favor of this project by
explaining how it adheres to the Growth Management Act?
6) PERMITS - What permits are needed? The draft does not indicate all of the
permits that are expected for each of the phases envisioned.
E- ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1) LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT - The description of Low Impact Development
(LID) on page 13 is inaccurate and needs to accurately reflect the fact that LID is
`a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes conservation and use of
existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale stormwater
controls to more closely mimic natural hydrological patterns in residential,
commercial and industrial settings,' quoting from Puget Sound Action Team's
Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Proponent must provide specifics in
the wildlife and habitat of the Best Management Practices as well as the Golf
design that shall be used to mitigate impacts on the golf course.
2) HYDROLOGY — A section needs to address hydrology as it relates to numerous
elements embedded LID, which implies an understanding of site hydrology,
4
hydraulics and drainage patterns, all of which appear missing. Developed
conditions need to mimic this to the fullest extent possible. Potential alternations
to onsite drainage pattersn and expected affect on adjacent parcel needs to be
preened in DEIS. Also, any potnentil impact o the steep slopes, bluffs that would
result from point discharges needs to be identified.
3) FOREST PRACTICE and CONVERSION - Where is the discussion on Forest
Practice and conversion which should include the impact of wind and wave action
on the built and natural environment at Black Point Pleasant Harbor? Said
components are critical elements to any green building and design program
because increased wind on specific trees will accelerate the erosion of the bluff,
blow down trees on the golf course, impact energy efficiency as well as endanger
human life. More relevant information can be found in the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency's 2005 Costal
Construction Manual, which details approved planning, siting, designing,
constructing and maintaining of buildings in coastal areas. This project must
adhere to the `best available science' in this area.
4) MITIGATION - The proposal must quantify the impacts on streams, wetlands and
shorelines and base any mitigation on the magnitude of these impacts. The
impacts analysis and proposed mitigation presented in the DEIS must be based on
a mitigation report prepared by a qualified biologist or scientist. On page 23 No. 5
(Mitigation) does not appear to be needed based on the 3rd paragraph on page 21,
which describes kettle slopes as low to moderate slope stability. DEIS needs to
address all habitats within the project area, not just the forested portions
5) KETTLES— The reports needs to clearly identify which depressions in the terrain
or kettles are intended for use as retention ponds. Are the kettles with wetlands to
be used as retention ponds? If so, why are they being chosen over others that are
not? This needs to be tied to the permits, i.e.: is the proponent expecting to obtain
a United States Army Corps permit to fill the kettles that are wetlands?
6) EXCAVATION — The report indicates that 1,500,000.00 cubic yards of fill are
expected to be generated.
7) CELL D — please include this in the natural environment section, as an
explanation of it appears missing.
F- MAPS & TABLES
1) LAND USE - The draft does not have Land use maps.
2) INTERIOR ZONES - The draft does not have interior zone maps detailing the
single family, multifamily, mixed-use, commercial, recreational and open space
areas.
3) PUBLIC TRAILS - The draft does not include a list of public trails, identify if
any are envisioned or show how residents and the public shall access the
shoreline.
4) EXISTING CONDITIONS - The draft does not have a map of existing conditions
with the current configuration of interior roads as well as structures.
5) CROSS -TABULATION - A table is needed that illustrates for each alternative
the mitigations proposed for each impact. This will help the public better
understand the options.
As stated in the scoping letter dated June 13, 2006, Jefferson County identified probable
significant adverse impacts (PSAI) to `Elements of the Environment' in nine principle
areas, including (1) Shellfish, (2) Water, (3) Transportation, (4) Public Services, (5)
Shorelines, (6) Fish and Wildlife, (7) Rural Character/Population, (8) Archeological and
Cultural Resources, and (9) Critical Areas. Moreover, we requested that these 9 PSAI
areas be investigated and mitigation measures listed. To date this has not been done
adequately for the following reasons, including:
a) With respect to PSAI 1, shellfish, further analysis needs to be performed on
increased boat traffic. On page 2 of the June 13th letter, Jefferson County
requested Statesman Group to quantify the impact of the additional increase in
boating traffic within Pleasant Harbor on the shellfish closure `within a range of
values' and to address mitigation. Page 1 of Appendix 5 addresses this issue by
stating, "Further development of the Pleasant Harbor Marina is not anticipated as
part of the proposed project by Statesman Corporation, but the proposed resort
development may cause increase [sic] marina traffic." This proposes no
mitigation nor does it answer any of the questions therein. This is of particular
concern as the US Navy operates in the area and is particularly interested in
increased seagoing traffic.
b) With respect to PSAI (2), water, the (7) subcategories that need to be analyzed in
the environmental impact statement, including (a) sewer service, (b) rainwater
harvesting, (c) water quality, (d) groundwater, including saltwater intrusion, (e)
water rights and (f) surface water does not appear detailed enough for a sufficient
analysis of what needs to be performed to mitigate direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts of nutrient loading in Pleasant Harbor and Hood Canal. The sewer
treatment facility is not adequately explained nor the alternatives investigated in
sufficient detail. You should note, however, that this area of the report does not
appear to be adequate, but also has not been reviewed in sufficient detail to
provide more detailed findings of fact.
c) With respect to PSAI (3), transportation, the (5) five subcategories that need to
be analyzed, including (a) Highway 101 and the county road(s), (b) internal
circulation, (c) access to and movement within the marina, (d) pedestrian
circulation, and (e) bike movement through a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis and
investigations is not completed, as outlined by the Jefferson County Department
of Public Works in accordance with the standards of the Washington State
Department of Transportation.
d) With respect to. PSAI (4), public services, the (3) three subcategories need further
review, as follows: (a) fire, (b) police, and (c) schools as it appears only to touch
upon surface elements. The ten (1.0) changes in the section listed as Public
Services and Utilities were suggested by Fire Chief Bob Herbst as these address
the concerns of the Fire District Number 4, where the project is proposed. This
could be used as a guide to revise the other public service areas.
101