HomeMy WebLinkAbout011Michelle Farfan
From: David W. Johnson <dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:19 PM
To: Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins
Subject: FW: Pleasant Harbor SEIS No Action Alternative
Let's discuss at next week's MPR meeting.
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:18 PM
To: 'VMorrisCS@aol.com'
Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net; David W. Johnson
Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor SEIS No Action Alternative
Yes, that sounds right. I believe a No Action Alternative would be "current MPR zoning with no development until
signing of a Development Agreement and Zoning Regulations." We will discuss this next week at Staff.
From: VMorrisCS@aol.com [mailto:VMorrisCS@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:13 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Pleasant Harbor SEIS No Action Alternative
David
I just briefly reviewed the description of the No Action Alternative in the FEIS (November 27, 2007). It addresses a
development scenario for the site based on underlying zoning at that time, and assuming a planned rural residential
development process for the golf course property. It was estimated that approximately 30 homes could be built, with a
permanent resident population of 15 to 20 people (assuming that 50% of new homes would be only seasonally occupied)
It is my understanding from the 1/14/10 conference call that Craig and I had with you, Stacie and Al that the underlying
zoning was changed to MPR concurrent with the change in the land use designation. No interior zones have
been mapped yet, and there is no zoning code or development regulations in-place yet to guide development of the site.
So it does seem that we have a change of circumstance from when the No Action Alternative was formulated for the
Comp Plan Amendment EIS in 2007. Al suggested during the 1/14/10 call that no action on the current proposal might
look like the property being sold to some other applicant who would pursue an MPR subject to the BoCC conditions, or
some other Comprehensive Plan amendment by the County. Would you give this some further consideration among
yourselves for discussion one more time before we make a recommendation to legal reviewers re: the No Action
Alternative?
Thank you,
Vicki
Vicki Morris Consulting Services
7732 18th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115-4426
206.522.8057
Cellular: 206.501.8227
FAX: 206.523.4648
In a message dated 2/3/2010 3:36:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, VMorrisCS@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 2/3/2010 3:04:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us writes:
Vicki & Craig,
After talking to Vicki I recall her saying something about the No Action Alternative. According to my
notes from the December 16, 2009 meeting with Garth, the No Action alternative was dropped and
will not be considered in the SIES since it was already considered under the FEIS.
David
This is consistent with what I recall; however, after giving this some additional thought, the No Action Alternative
in the FEIS was no action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. I now believe we need to consider whether
the No Action Alternative in the SEIS needs to address no action on the Development Agreement, Zoning
Ordinance, and project development. This is one reason why I have requested review of the alternatives to be
addressed in the SEIS by legal counsel on the project: Sandy Mackie, David Alvarez, Tom Backer. Please
discuss this among yourselves and let me know what you think.