Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout047Michelle Farfan From: VMorrisCS@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:47 AM To: dwjohnson@cojefferson.wa.us; shoskins@cojefferson.wa.us; peckassoc@comcast.net Cc: Garth@statesmancorporation.com Subject: July 14 Conference Call Follow-up David: I have listed below the topics we discussed yesterday, with action items indicated in red. It would be very helpful to me to receive your response today (if possible) to the items you were going to check into, so that I can revise my narrative document and table by Monday. I have prepared this message in the form of meeting notes at Garth's request. Vicki TECHNICAL REPORTS Lighting Proposal -- The version I received 7/08/10 was not sent to David as I requested of Milton Kiehlbauch 7/06/10. 1 have not yet reviewed the document or the -100 pages of extraneous material. Co-Generation/Geothermal Proposal -- To be combined in one report; not yet received at the time of the 7/14/10 3:00 PM conference call. EarthRenew Proposal -- David received and reviewed the 7/07/10 version. Requested my opinion of how this will be used in the context of the technical reports. I replied that it will be used as a description of one element of the proposal. The impact analysis of this element will be addressed in the technical reports being prepared by other team members for elements of the environment where it is a relevant issue. Craig to forward the 7/07/10 EarthRenew report to Vinnie Perrone, as it may affect his calculation of aggregate material requirements. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES Confirmed that the project shall be referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (rather than the Brinnon MPR, or the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Course). Confirmed that areas proposed for development shall be referred to as the Marina/Maritime Village and the Golf Course/Golf Resort (rather than as "sections" or "parcels" as they were described in some of the draft technical reports) Reviewed and commented on my draft narrative document(v3-ComparisonOfAlternativesNarrative-July14-10), and my table comparing details of the three site plan alternatives(v9-PH-ComparisonOfAlternatives-Chart-July14-10). Noted corrections to be made. Properties to exclude from the calculation of acreage: the submerged lands of the harbor, and the property west of U.S. Highway 101. Craig to work with Paul to check/confirm the Area Calculations sheet (7/06/10), and to confirm that this is based on the 7/14/10 site plans. Open Space and Natural Areas We agreed that we need a definition of what will constitute "open space" and "natural areas" within the MPR. David to check County Code, the draft Shoreline Master Program, and the Port Ludlow code for precedents for these definitions. Vicki to check the BoCC 30 conditions to see if an open space requirement was defined in these. There was discussion of "active use" open space vs. "passive use" open space, and areas cleared during construction then replanted with native vegetation, intended to remain "natural" in the developed -condition of the site. No Action Alternative It was agreed that the brief description of the No Action Alternative on page 8 of the version 3 ComparisonOfAlternativesNarrative-July14-10 document is correct. I mentioned that I saw in at least one of the draft technical reports a suggestion that campground use of the peninsula site might resume (not presently included in the description of the No Action Alternative). David to check with Randy Marks (Jefferson County Environmental Health) whether there is a current Conditional Use Permit in effect that would allow operation of 60 RV sites. Craig to check with Diane re: her understanding, and with Garth re: his intent if the MPR did not go forward at this time. PHASING PLANS Discussed comments on the July 7 version Phasing plans; primarily, Jim Pearson's question re: in what stage improvements will be made to the Black Point Road/U.S. Highway 101 intersection. Response: Stage I, Phase 2. Improvements to the WDFW boat launch access road intersection with Black Point Road will also be made in this stage (not shown on the July 7 version Phasing Plans). Acknowledged that improvements to Black Point Road (further east) can take place later. Craig to ask Natalie and Jennifer to revise the Stage I phasing plans to show the boat launch access road intersection improvement. (Done 7/14/10; received 7/15/10; not yet distributed.) David to confirm with Donna Frostholm: the schedule for constructing the wetland mitigation site it Kettle C in relation to depositing fill in Kettle B. Repair/replacement work at the existing marina to be done during Stage I Phase 1, as part of the Master Planned Resort. It is Craig's understanding that Garth does not plan to seek separate permits for this work in advance of receiving authorization to proceed with Resort development. Permits required for this work will be described in the SEIS; no Code interpretation needed at this time. MITIGATION MEASURES I discussed my plan to present mitigation measures in the Draft SEIS in three categories: Measures Included in the Proposal, Measures Required by Regulation, and Other Possible Mitigation Measures. We agreed that the second category -- Measures Required by Regulation -- will take considerable coordination with County staff due to unique aspects of the regulatory structure that applies to the MPR. NEXT STEPS 1. Vicki to work with Craig to complete and send for David and Stacie's review the narrative description of the Phasing Proposal, correlated with the Stages and Phases indicated on the most current Phasing Plans. 2. Vicki to complete the narrative Introduction and Description of Alternatives with the corrections noted during the 7/14/10 conference call and follow-up information to be provided by David. 3. Vicki to distribute the Alternative site plans, narrative, and comparative table; the Phasing plans and pahsing narrative to technical consultants (estimated date of distribution: 7/22/10). Request their review and identification of any additional information requirements they may have re: the description of the proposal and alternatives, and/or information needed from each other. Request that draft reports be revised to address the Alternative site plans and Phasing plans, and each consultant's estimate of their report completion date.