HomeMy WebLinkAbout015Michelle Farfan
From: VMorrisCS@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:56 PM
To: dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us; peckassoc@comcast.net
Cc: ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us; shoskins@co.jefferson.wa.us
Subject: Re: Draft Scoping Memo
Attachments: VMedits- DraftSEIS-ScopeMemo_Feb17-10.doc
David:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and make suggestions in the draft Scoping Memo you prepared and sent this
afternoon. I have tracked some suggested clarifications in the attached file for your consideration.
My only substantive difference of opinion is in the matter of referring to all four alternatives as "proposed" alternatives (top
of page 2), since only one development concept for the site will actually be proposed for implementation. See what you
think of my other suggestions. The final decision re: content rests with you and Stacie.
Thanks again,
Vicki
Vicki Morris Consulting Services
7732 18th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115-4426
206.522.8057
Cellular: 206.501.8227
FAX: 206.523.4648
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 [VM suggested edits tracked 2/17/10]
Garth Mann, President
Statesman Group, Inc.
7370 Sierra Morena Blvd. Southwest
Calgary, Alberta T3144149
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 your presentation* as the applicant, a project status
update and procedural explanations by Staff, and video and transcription records of oral
testimony. The County solicited and received comments from residents, property owners,
tTribes, 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—prepesed alternatives for
analysis under the SEIS as follows:
(1) ALTERNATIVE #I: 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 0 1 -0 128-
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 -project 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 Areas. The SEIS shall include those elements addressed
in the FEIS in addition to the following additional elements-te of the environment in order to
evaluate potential impacts and formulate mitigation measures for all features of the development
proposal as well as to satisfy the thirty conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08:
Earth: Geology, Soils, Topography, Slopes, Erosion, Unique Physical Features (to addresses the
grading proposal and eOrdinance condition 63h),
Air Quality to include a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis by qualified professional
consultant experienced with preparing these analyses for environmental review under SEPA in
the State of Washington (for compliance with letter dated April 30 2008 from the Director of the
Department of Ecology to SEPA Responsible Officials and Administrators) and to relate
to compliance with the work of the Climate Action Committee (to addresses eOrdinance
condition 63cc),
Plants to include tree retention/tree removal, clearing and landscaping (to addresses eOrdinance
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 (to addresses Ordinance condition 63x),
Housing and Employment (to addresses eOrdinance conditions 63 e, f, g, as and dd),
Light and Glare to include the resort lighting proposal, and compliance with International Dark
Sky Association (IDSA) Zone E-1 standards (to addresses eOrdinance condition 63z),
Aesthetics to include the appearance of structures, landscaping plan, greenbelts, conservation
easements and required amenities (to addresses eOrdinance condition 63d).
Utilities:
Water Supply/Water Service (to addresses eOrdinance conditions 63 in, n, o and p)
Sewage Collection/Treatment/Reuse/Disposal (to address the Statesman proposal)
Stormwater Management (to addresses eOrdinance condition 63q)
Electrical Energy (to addresses eOrdinance condition 63bb)
Alternative Energy Sources (to address the Statesman proposal)
Telecommunications
Cable Television
Solid Waste Collection, Transport and Disposal
Fiscal Analysis to include draft Memorandums of Understanding with all public service entities
identified in -(addresses eOrdinance condition 63 c), plus two agencies who requested MOUs in
their SEIS Scoping comments: Jefferson County Public Works and the Washington State Parks
and Recreation Commission.
MITIGATION
Mitigation for impacts to `Elements of the Environment' in each area above shall outline
measures that will—redeee minimize, or- elifninate avoid, or compensate for the adverse
environmental impacts of the proposeda'-native action. The mitigation measures shall include a
discussion of the uncertainties; if technical feasibility, economic practicality or the science related
to proposed measures is uncertain. Mandatory mitigation is expected for significant adverse
impacts to all elements of the areas environment identified above.
Very truly yours,
David Wayne Johnson
Project Planner, Pleasant Harbor MPR
Attachment:
cc:
Scoping comments matrix
Stacie Hoskins
SEPA Responsible Official
Al Scalf, Director of Community Development
Frank Gifford, Director of Public Works