The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About044A David W.'Johnson From: Jim Pearson Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:20 AM To: David W. Johnson Cc: 'VMorrisCS@aol.com'; 'Craig Peck'; 'Statesman - Garth Mann'; Stacie Hoskins Subject: RE: Brinnon MPR; SETS and Development Agreement; Coordination re: June 16 Meeting David, This email is intended to confirm my understanding of issues that arose based on my email comments dated June 16, 2010 to you, Stacey, Craig Peck, and Vicki Morris regarding the SEIS Alternatives. The Transportation Impact Study developed for the Programmatic EIS recognized that additional traffic entering and leaving the marina at the existing Highway 101 access would create significant impacts to safety and mobility. In recognition of this the following mitigation was adopted in the PEIS: "Residents of the maritime village shall be given access to the golf course resort without traveling US HWY 101." The Draft PEIS, Section 1.2.2 The Marina and Maritime Village, Figure 1-12 (Page 1-11) depicts two 12' roads from near Black Point Road to the Maritime Village that were intended to provide golf course resort access for the Maritime Village residents without travel on Highway 101. The proposal under review in the SEIS would have deleted this feature and substituted a single "one-way northbound Marina Access Drive". This would have required maritime village residents to use Highway 101 to travel to the golf course. This would not be consistent with the PEIS analysis and mitigation. This unilateral amendment of a significant component of the proposal is not acceptable and should not have occurred. There should be a mechanism to ensure that this does not occur again. The project proponent and consultants should provide the County with an explicit statement that the project has not been revised or provide a detailed list of proposed revisions for consideration by the County. Jim Pearson Jefferson County Public Works Department 623 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9162 (360) 385-9234 Fax From: David W. Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:11 AM To: Jim Pearson Subject: FW: Coordination re: June 16 Meeting FYI — for our meeting tomorrow. From: VMorrisCS@aol.com [mailto:VMorrisCS@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:05 PM To: David W. Johnson Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net Subject: Coordination re: June 16 Meeting Hello David. Agenda items I had in mind for our meeting on Wednesday, June 16 include: 1. Site Plan Alternatives to be Evaluated in the SEIS 2. Matrix of Comparative Information about the Alternatives 3. Phasing Plans 4. ' Construction Sequence Narrative i. Narrative Description of the Proposal A) Uniform introductory information to include in each Technical Report. B) Sufficient information to describe every element of the proposal listed in PDSEIS Chapter 2. 6. Consolidated Instructions for Finalizing the Draft Technical Reports 7. Anything else you would like to discuss related to the monthly Status Report (5/25/10 most recent version). Craig and I are prepared to discuss items 1 through 4. 1 have described below the status of each of these agenda items Alternative Site Plans and Comparative Matrix. The level of effort required to review and comment on the Alternative site plans and Phasing Plans, and to update the matrix that compares the features of the Alternatives, consumed my available time to prepare for the meeting on June 16th. I sent to you via Federal Express today the 5/05/10 draft Alternative site plans including mark-ups that consolidate Craig's comments and mine on these 15 drawings. I have attached to this message the 6/14/10 narrative summary of our comments on the Alternative site plans, and the updated comparative matrix (6/14/10). This is a complex amount of information. I doubt that you will feel you have thoroughly reviewed the Alternatives and Phasing Plans by the time we are scheduled to meet on Wednesday. Phasing Plans and Construction Sequence. I included a set of the 5/05/10 draft Phasing Plans in the Fed Ex package I sent to you today, marked with a consolidated set of comments prepared by Craig and me. I have attached to this message the 5/29/10 Construction Sequencing Narrative in which I entered some comments to be addressed by Craig. To my knowledge, the project architect has not prepared a drawing of proposed repair and replacement at the existing Marina Village to submit to the County for a determination whether these improvements can proceed separately, or whether they will be an element of the MPR proposal. I would like this to be clear before we convey project description and phasing information to the technical consultants. Craig indicated to me this morning that he will take the initiative to prepare the repair/replacement proposal for Garth's review. Narrative Description of the Proposal. I have not received any additional information from Statesman to complete narrative descriptions of elements of the proposal listed in the 2/16/10 draft I prepared for SEIS Chapter 2. 1 have, however, been in communication with consultants retained by Statesman to request detailed and project -specific information about unique elements of the proposal, including use of the EarthRenew product, the co -generation proposal (integrated with the geothermal proposal), and the lighting proposal. I provided outlines for the reports I would like to receive from these consultants, and requested draft reports by mid-June. Technical Report Review and Comments. I have not yet completed my detailed comments on each of the technical reports to identify additional requirements for these reports to fully support SEIS preparation (mostly related to the impact analysis of the site plan alternatives and no action, and the formulation of mitigation measures with emphasis on Alternative 3). Craig suggested that we could use our time this week to discuss a representative example, looking at County staff comments, Peer Review Team comments, and my comments to prepare the consolidated list of requirements for additional work to finalize a draft technical report. I suggest that we use his Grading and Drainage Technical Report (9/04/09 draft) for this example. There are six technical reports not yet prepared/submitted to the County for draft review: The EarthRenew Proposal for Soil Amendment The Co -Generation Proposal The Lighting Proposal The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis" General Sewer Plan (to be coordinated with the Department of Ecology) Comprehensive Water Plan (to be coordinated with the Department of Health) " I have not yet received a proposal for the GHG Emissions Analysis pending receipt of draft reports on the EarthRenew proposal and Co -Generation proposal. These are unique project elements. I advised the GHG emission consultant to wait to review these draft reports because of the significant affect they will have on his scope of work. Question for You: Would it be most beneficial to meet on Wednesday, or should we do a conference call to touch base and clarify the direction we are proceeding at this time? I anticipate a need for a meeting when you, Stacie, Craig and I are all ready to discuss the Alternative site plans, Phasing Plans, and all of the reports. What is the status of your preparation with regard to the technical reports? If we do a conference call in lieu of a meeting on Wednesday, I would suggest that you initiate the call at 11:00 (or shortly thereafter) when you are through with your duties at the counter. -Let me know your preference. We're ready to proceed either way. 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