Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout066David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Gerald Steel [geraldsteel@yahoo.com] Monday, November 30, 2009 3:27 PM David W. Johnson Brinnon Scoping Comments for SEIS for BMPR Brinnon Scoping Comments for SEIS for BMPR.pdf David: Please find attached Brinnon's Scoping Comments for the SEIS for the BMPR. Gerald Steel 360.867.11-66 1 GERALD STEEL, PE ATTORNEY-AT.LAW 7303 YOUNG ROAD l'lw OLYMPIA, WA 98502 TeUfax (360) 867-'l166 Sent by fax to (360) 379-445 I and email to : dwj ohnson@co j efferson.wa.us November 30,2009 David Wayne Johnson, Project Lead Planner 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Scoping for SEIS for BMPR Mr. Johnson: The Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition (collectively "Brinnon") submits the following scoping comments for the SEIS for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (*BMPR"). As a preliminary matter, I note that your Notice of Scoping is inadequate because it has an inaccurate address for written scoping comments (zip code 989368 instead of 98368). Our members and others are prejudiced by this inaccuracy in your scoping notice and the legal notice for scoping should be corrected and reissued. ln your Notice of Scoping, you state that three alternatives are to be reviewed with the third alternative being: 3. An alternative to the preferred layout that shows the ability to achieve the requirements of the MPR and the objectives of the proposal on this site in a different form. The requirement for reasonable alternatives is in WAC 197-ll-440(5). In order to meet this requirement, there must be alternatives that "that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation." So the "different form" that must be analyzed are forms that have less environmental degradation than the proposal while still devdloping an MPR. SEIS Scoping November 30,2009 Page2 CONSIDER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES WITH LESS IMPACT TO GROUNI) WATER AIID HOOD CAI\IAL Perhaps the most sensitive resource that will be impacted by the-MPR is the ground.water and Hood'Canal. While the project is seeking water rights from DOE, DOE is not reviewing the environmental impact of thevarious levels and uses of requested water rights. These impacts must be analyzed in the SEIS. Research provided by Bnqnon for the MPR water Tlght! application r&iew suggests that creating the proposgd l8-hole golf course and other fertilized ldridscaping in the Mpn win result in a substantial increase in nitrogen and ot4er nutrient levels in the ground and surface waters. The ground water flows directly into the Hood Canal, which itself has an existing major problem with oxygen depletion caused by existing nutrient levels and existing nutrient loading. This issue must be adequately analyzed in the SEIS and there should be an alternative considered without a golf course and with state of the art nitrogen removal from residential and commercial waste water before injection of treated waste water into the aquifer. The MPR should be developed in such a way that it results in a decrease in overall nitrogen loading to Hood Canal compared to the existing condition. The County should require an alternative analyzed that approximates the objectives of the MPR but does so in a manner that results in a decrease in overall nitrogen loading to Hood Canal compared to the existing condition. As a mitigation for the Preferred Alternative, the County should require a liner under any golf course on the peninsula to capture the water that otherwise would incredse nutient loading in the ground water and Hood Canal. The County can then require state of the art nutritnt removal from this captured water before injection of the teated water into the aquifer. This should be considered a necessary mitigation of putting a golf course on this sensitive site in Hood Canal. Water traveling into the ground water under a golf course will have a minimum nitrogen loading of l0 ppm which will cause any rurlined golf course to increase nitrogen loading into Hood Canal significantly compared to the existing condition. USE OF GROI]ND WATER BY THE PROJECT WILL LIKELY RESTILT IN SALT WATER INTRUSION The project has proposed relying just on collection of rain water for its water supply and it alternatively has proposed relying just on ground water wells. These two options should be analyzed in the SEIS. The SEIS should consider that preexisting ground water rights are all fully utilized when analyzing any future withdrawal of ground water for the project. It is likely that ground water withdrawal for the MPR will result in salt water intrusion which will hann gxjsligtg water ri-ghts and harm existing lots on the peninsula that otherwise would be able get drinking water from an exempt well. It is likely that collection of rain water, and treatment before and after use, and then injection into the aquifer at careflilly selected locations will be thg only on-site water supply option that won't have significant adverse environmental impacts when mitigated. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MUST BE ADEOUATELY ADDRESSED In the 9-18-08 FDO in Brinnon Group v. Jefferson Countv (Case No. 08.2-0014) at32-34 and 4041, the Growth Board reviewed Brinnon's claim that there was inadequate analysis in the FEIS.regarding_the proponent's ability to reach zero discharge from the golf c6urse site, regarding specifications for "fuII" treatment of marina waterfand regarding water quality impacts of the anticipated traffic associated with the development. ftre Growth noird, iir essence, found that these issues were more appropriate for thii SEIS. Id. To meet Condition SEIS Scoping November 30,2009 Page 3 63(q) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-081 the rggulations should, at a minimum, require that stoffiwater facilities be designed in a fail-safe manner so that no stormwater from golf course associated development can reach the Hood Canal even in a (10 minute, I hour, and 24 hour) 500-year flood, based onpast weatherpatterns fortlre site,andspecifically-considering changes to w6ather patterns expected in the neit I 00 years from global warming. Said Condition 63(g) should be interpreted to not allow stormwater on a golf course to flow into and through the ground water into Hood Canal unless the stormwater has been treated to cause no increase in nutrients in Hood Canal compared to existing conditions on the site. Suora at 2. Water quality and quantity impacts to be analyzed pursuant to Ordinance Condition 63(o) should.include specilications for 'ofull" treatment of waste and stomt water throughout the project site including water used by boats in the MPR marina, and should include impacts on Hood Canal and its marine life from the different alternative levels of development including associated trafFrc both on and off-site. There must be project analysis parameters such as the 500-yr flood condition for 10 minutes, I hour, and24 hours that must be specified by the project specific development regulations to be able to properly size drainage and treatment facilities to meet the higher requirements for stormwater management applied to this project. REAS ONABLE ALTERNATIYES The FEIS did not consider enough reasonable alternatives. The SEIS should not make the same mistake. There must be reasonable altematives with their own zoning code amendments, development agreement and master plan. As discussed above one reasonable alternative should not allow a golf course. In this alternative, the housing should be laid out to minimize gading and disturbed areas andmaximize retention and viewing ofexistingtrees, habitat, and natural amenities. There could be walking, biking (rented), and horse (hired) trails as well as water features, boat rentals at the marin4 and other recreational facilities for active visitors. This altemative could be laid out to be a resort with a natural theme that is respectful of the existing natural environment. This altemative could be broken into tvro sub-alternatives one with the maximum allowed 890 units and another with about half that number of units. Commercial and recreational spaces must be well-defined. The conceptual plan set forth in the FEIS as the Proposal does not have any commercial directly on the Highway. In the area the Planning Commission proposed for Tourist Commercial north of Black Point Road, the FEIS Proposal shows jusf a residential district. Brinnon prefers the residential district in this area of the MPR. Further Brinnon requests that thg proj ect boundary with Highway I 0 I be required to be bermed with natural landscaping that will retain anatural look from Highway l0l looking toward the project and from the prbject looking toward Highway 101. The parking area is too close to Highway 101 in this area to not have a well-designed visual break between the Highway and theproject. TRAFF'IC PLAI\NING Traffic circulation, particularly !n the vicinity of Black Point Road and Highway 101, is a m.ajo-rproblem.fortheproject. IfBlackPointRoadisnotrealignednearHig[1way101,ihere will be traffic.jqmg created where the entrances to the north and south sides of the project intersect Black Point Road. -C_*t seeking_to enter the marina site will be backed up waiiing to make a left turn w_hile traffrc leaving the peninsula are backed up on Black p<iint RoadwaitingJg g9t orrto_Highway 101.. Ttere ihould be altemative eirtrances to the project analyzed in the SEIS. One alternative would be to move the entrance to the proiecf to"the sguth 9n Highway 1 01 to get as long a queue as possible between the new tee inirslction and the existing proposed intersection of the site roads with Black Point Road. The new Marina SEIS Scoping November 30,2009 Page 4 Entrance road alignment would begin going east offHighway I Ql and then curve to the north to align with the Marina Site entrance withbut any stopsigns wh91 g9ing -fro.m Highway 101 into tf,e Marina Site. Black Point Road would then end in a tee with this Marina Site entrance road. There would be a stop sign on Black Point Road where it tees into the Marina Site entrance road. There could'5e a-right tum offthe new Marina Site entrance road to enter the Resort District. Such a realignment would significantly improve haffic conflicts created by the FEIS proposed circulation pattem. SIGNAGE The attractiveness, sophistication, and success of the MPR will inpart be established by $e signage that the project is allowed and particularly that which is visible fr_om Highway 101. Tf,e most succesiful new projects are limited to one landscaped and front lighted monument sign visible from both directions (in a vee or perpendicular to the Highway) that is not higher than 8 feet. The SEIS should illustrate altemative signage regulations for major signs visible from Highway 101 and for minor signage. Signage should be sophisticated and not excessive, vulgar, and cheap. The signage regulations should address allowed on-site signage that is not designed to be read from Highway 101 , including street signs, residential building numbering and unit numbering, commercial identification signage on non-residential buildings, check-in offrce and lobby signage and small directional signs that should be limited to small monument signs with a one or more directions identified. Safety signs should also be regulated as to type and size. No outdoor signage should be allowed that does not meet specific requirements in the detailed BMPR signage regulations. PARKING AND ROAD STANDARDS There should be parking and road standards defined in the MPR regulations including regulations for sidewalks in high density residential and in commercial areas. No parking should be allowed in areas not shown on the master plan for parking. URBAI\ SERVICES The project is required to provide all urban services inside the MPR including urban fire, EMP, and police serices. The County may not allow these urban services to extend outside the development site. The SEIS must provide analysis of how the proj ect would provide urban services inside the project site that would not be available outside the project site. For example, it would not be reasonable to put rlew fire equipment in an existing fire station outside the project site because this would upgrade fire service outside the project site in the same way it would upgrade fire service inside the project site. The same is ffue for emergency medical and police service that serves the site. LAND USE The SEIS should address how the master plan, development regulations, and development lgr-egment_ryrd_all altematives will comply with all of the requirements established by Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and all of the requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, includin! the Brinnon Subarea Plan, and with the elisting development regulations that apply to al-i MPRs and with all mitigplon corditions in the FEIS. Further, the proposed dev6lopment regulations should explicltly require that any development associated v,,itli the project must be done in a manner consistent with and in compliance with all requirements of Oriinance No. SEIS Scoping November 30,2009 Page 5 0l-0128-08, all requirements inthe ComprehensivePlan, includinelheBrinnon SubareaPlan, *a-*ittr ttni eiistiiig divelopment regulations that apply to all MPRs and with all mitigation conditions in the FEIS and FSEIS. OPEN SPACE The master plan and master plan alternatives should explicitly identiff and permanently nrotect oDen sDaces and naturil areas to be left natural and development regulations should [ipii"iUy t*p development including other that native plant landscaping out of identified open space areas. SIIORT TERM RENTALS The Corurty general regulations provide: Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges, and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental; provided, that short-tenn visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort accommodation units. JCC 18.1s.123(2). This regulation requires 65 percent of the total units to be available for "short-term rental." This would preclude time-share owners from purchasing and using these units because when the units are used by owners they are not available for "short term rental." The development regulations must be clear that at least 65 percent of the total units can only be used for "short term rental'o and carurot be used by owners. The modmum rental period for short-term visitor accommodations must be defined in the development regulations. It would not be consistent with this regulation for an owner to use their r:nit for three summer months and then have the unit available for rent for the rest ofthe year and consider this to be part ofthe 65 percent of the total resort accommodations units that are made available for shore-term rental. Such a unit is better described as part of the 35 percent of total resort accommodation units that are not short-term visitor accommodation units made available for short-term rental. CRITICAL AREAS The SEIS should provide an updated wetland delineation. V truly for Brinnon