HomeMy WebLinkAbout026March 31, 2010
Garth Mann, Pre:
Statesman Group
7370 Sierra More
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA
Re: Overview
Dear Garth,
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
Inc.
[a Blvd. Southwest
3H 4H9
the Scope of SEIS (MLA08-188), Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
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, as well as 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 in 2007 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 p
purpose of which
and reasonable
Jefferson Count}
beginning at 5pnn
and procedural e
County solicited'',
agencies, private
Environmental I
reasonable alte
Scoping was effe
While the majori
in WAC 197-11•
income and wag(
latter elements, h
SEIS, as the Sta
of the SEIS process is Scoping, as identified under WAC 197-11-408(1), the
is to "narrow the scope of every EIS to the probable significant adverse impacts
alternatives, including mitigation measures." As lead agency for the SEIS,
held an open public Scoping meeting on Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The meeting included a presentation by the applicant, project status update
xplanations by Staff, a video and transcription records of oral testimony. The
and received comments from residents, property owners, tribes, government
businesses and non-profit organizations to narrow the scope of the Supplemental
pact Statement (SEIS), to identify the probable significant adverse impacts,
atives and mitigation measures. An open public comment period on SEIS
tive until November 30, 2009. A matrix of comments received is attached.
of the comments were specific to `Elements of the Environment' as outlined
14, many public comments were also received about the project's impact on
in Brinnon and Jefferson County. In accordance with WAC 197-11-448, these
einafter referred to as `social policy analysis,' are expressly excluded from this
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 m king final decisions, the SEIS shall not be the sole decision making document.
As a result of the Scoping process, the County has identified four alternatives for analysis under
the SEIS as follows:
(1) ALTERNATIVE #1: The developer's proposal as described in the 2007 FEIS.
(2) ALTERNA'hIVE #2: Similar to the developer's proposal described in the 2007 FEIS,
subsequently Lmodified by the developer to comply with the conditions of approval under
Ordinance 01+0128-08.
(3) ALTERNATIVE #3: Similar to Alternative #2, except with additional modifications to the
marina development to comply with the updated Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program,
and rebalancing residential units on the golf resort side of the MPR.
(4) NO ACTIO ALTERNATIVE: Current MPR zoning with no new development.
The 2007 FEIS identified and addressed nine (9) elements of 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 address d in the 2007 FEIS in addition to the following elements of the environment
listed below. All of these elements will be included in order to evaluate potential impacts and to
formulate mitigat on measures, as well as to demonstrate compliance with the thirty conditions of
Ordinance 0 1 -0 12 8-08:
Earth: Geology,oils, Topography, Slopes, Erosion, Unique Physical Features (to address
ordinance conditi n 63h)
Air Quality to include a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and to relate to compliance with
the work of the Climate Action Committee (to address ordinance condition 63cc)
Plants to includetree retention/tree removal, clearing and landscaping (to address 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 (to address condition 63x)
Housing and Employment (to address 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 (to address ordinance condition 63z)
Aesthetics to include the appearance of structures, landscaping plan, greenbelts, conservation
easements and required amenities (to address ordinance condition 63d)
Utilities:
Water Supply/Water Service (to address ordinance conditions 63 in, n, o and p)
Sewage Collection/Treatment/Reuse/Disposal
Stormwater Management (to address ordinance condition 63q)
Electrical Energy (to address ordinance condition 63bb)
Alternative Energv Sources
Cable Television
Solid Waste Collection, Transport and Disposal
Fiscal Analysis to include draft Memorandums of Understanding
(to address 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 alternatives. The
mitigation measure shall include a discussion of the uncertainties if technical feasibility,
economic practicality or the science is uncertain. Potential mitigation measures must be evaluated
to address potential impacts to each element of the environment listed above.
Ve truly yours, ( o
�l
Attachment:
cc:
Stacie Hoskins
Harbor MPR SEPA Responsible Official
Scoping comments matrix
A] Scalf, Director of Community Development
Frank Gifford, Director of Public Works
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
x
Hx
X
O
ca rn
E c(aa
X
x
— M
U U
w m
0-0
xXca
XX
x
�s
�
X
I
�
c
O
1 ar
ox
CILN
x
x
x
C
T
TT
U
X
X
x
w
0
C9
L
m
xi
i
�
_
W
C
oX
x
x
x
x
>C
L
a) W
EO
N,X
xx
x
X
x
o N
!A p
a) C
N N
�a)X
x
;
m N
M32�XXXXXX
I
I
xxxxxxx
xxxxXxx
x
r
�Q�
pa)C
C
Y
o0E
E
g
La
3
co
a3
—
N
w
to
I-
—
LL
C
C
E
L
M
O
fA
C
s
a!
fa
wto
2
'Y
O
o=
f2
N
12
0
O
:�
m
N
N
c
a�
O
�'
O
3
C
'O
c
a
R
f-
C
o�
V
,
0
2
1
E
'O
o
r312
V
g
`°
°�
0
°oma
M
m
°
c
°
E
ca..
oa
o
m
c
°-,otS-.i
a3ig�0o�
C
axi
p
o
(DCL
`�
0�
�
a
�
'C
l
c¢_o
o`o
a�
rn
v
'M
E
.r
c�a
°��
r
.0
caps
o
aYC7mwcn=�mcna�aOQ-�w���mm��—p-1—W
ca
°
o—
o
o
anvi
o
E''o
>
_
C
o
•—
"
ca
C
°
o
ca
o•�
is