Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout014Michelle Farfan From: David W. Johnson <dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:59 PM To: VMorrisCS@aol.com; peckassoc@comcast.net Cc: Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins Subject: Draft Scoping Memo Attachments: DRAFT SEIS SCOPE MEMO 3-feb-10.doc Attached for your review and comment. Thanks! David Wayne Johnson Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 C� 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 February 17, 2010 Garth Mann, President Statesman Group, Inc. 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. Southwest Calgary, Alberta T3H 4H9 CANADA Re: Overview of the Scope of SEIS (MLA08-188), Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Garth, As you know, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) conditioned approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (BMPR) Comprehensive Plan amendment to require project -level environmental review of the BMPR proposal, and programmatic environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement required to implement the proposal. Accordingly, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is in the process of being prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW. The SEIS will supplement the programmatic FEIS prepared for the Comprehensive Plan amendment that approved the BMPR boundary, adopted by the County under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, and satisfy the conditions enumerated therein. An important part of the SEIS process is Scoping, as identified under WAC 197-11-408(1), the purpose of which is to "narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts and reasonable alternatives, including mitigation measures." As lead agency for the SEIS, Jefferson County held an open public Scoping meeting on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 beginning at 5pm. The meeting included a presentation by the applicant, project status update and procedural explanations by Staff, a video and transcription records of oral testimony. The County solicited and received comments from residents, property owners, tribes, government agencies, private businesses and non-profit organizations to narrow the scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), to identify the probable significant adverse impacts, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures. An open public comment period on SEIS Scoping was effective until November 30, 2009. A matrix of comments received is attached. While the majority of the comments were specific to `Elements of the Environment' as outlined in WAC 197-11-444, many public comments were also received about the project's impact on income and wages in Brinnon and Jefferson County. In accordance with WAC 197-11-448, these latter elements, hereinafter referred to as `social policy analysis,' are expressly excluded from this SEIS, as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) contemplates that these general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements will be taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives. In making final decisions, the SEIS shall not be the sole decision making document. As a result of the Scoping process the County has identified four proposed alternatives for analysis under the SEIS as follows: (1) ALTERNATIVE #1: The developer's proposal as described in the FEIS (2) ALTERNATIVE #2: The developer's proposal as described in the FEIS and subsequently modified by the developer to comply with the conditions of approval under Ordinance 01- 0128-08 (3) ALTERNATIVE #3: The developer's proposal as described in the FEIS and subsequently modified by the developer comply with the conditions of approval under Ordinance 01-0128- 08 with additional modifications to the marina development to comply with new Shoreline Master Plan (4) NO -ACTION ALTERNATIVE: Current MPR zoning with no development until signing of a Development Agreement and Zoning Regulations The FEIS identified and addresses nine (9) elements to the environment on the programmatic, non -action level as follows: (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 Area. The SEIS shall include those elements addressed in the FEIS in addition to the following additional elements to the environment in order to evaluate potential impacts and formulate mitigation measures as well as satisfy the thirty conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08: Earth: Geology, Soils, Topography, Slopes, Erosion, Unique Physical Features (addresses ordinance condition 63h) Air Quality to include a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and to relate to compliance with the work of the Climate Action Committee (addresses ordinance condition 63cc) Plants to include tree retention/tree removal, clearing and landscaping (addresses ordinance conditions 63 s, u, v, and w) Energy and Natural Resources to include LEED "green -built" standards; could be some cross- over with the Utilities section (addresses condition 63x) Housing and Employment (addresses ordinance conditions 63 e, f, g, as and dd) Light and Glare to include the resort lighting proposal, and compliance with Dark Sky Association standards (addresses ordinance condition 63z) Aesthetics to include the appearance of structures, landscaping plan, greenbelts, conservation easements and required amenities (addresses ordinance condition 63d) Utilities: Water Supply/Water Service (addresses ordinance conditions 63 in, n, o and p) Sewage Collection/Treatment/Reuse/Disposal Stormwater Management (addresses ordinance condition 63q) Electrical Energy (addresses ordinance condition 63bb) Alternative Energy Sources 2 Telecommunications Cable Television Solid Waste Collection, Transport and Disposal Fiscal Analysis to include draft Memorandums of Understanding (addresses ordinance condition 63 c) MITIGATION Mitigation for impacts to `Elements of the Environment' in each area above shall outline measures that will reduce or eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed alternative. The mitigation measure shall include a discussion of the uncertainties, if technical feasibility, economic practicality or the science is uncertain. Mandatory mitigation is expected for impacts to all of the areas identified. Very truly yours, David Wayne Johnson Project Planner, Pleasant Harbor MPR Attachment: Scoping comments matrix Stacie Hoskins SEPA Responsible Official cc: Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Frank Gifford, Director of Public Works