HomeMy WebLinkAbout008Michelle Farfan
From: David W. Johnson <dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 20112:37 PM
To: Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins
Subject: FW: Draft Transmittal to PH Team re: Final Report Preparation
Attachments: V5-REV-1.DOC
FYI
From: VMorrisCS@aol.com [mailto:VMorrisCS@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:57 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: peckassoc@comcast.net
Subject: Draft Transmittal to PH Team re: Final Report Preparation
David:
Attached is the draft transmittal memo I propose to send to the Pleasant Harbor consultant team to accompany the three
sets of alternative site plans, phasing plans, and supporting documentation to be addressed in their final reports and the
SEIS.
Let me know if you have any comments re: my instructions, and/or feel free to track changes and return the file. I hope to
be able to make the distribution on Monday, January 31.
Thank you,
Vicki
Vicki Morris Consulting Services
7732 18th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115-4426
206.522.8057
FAX: 206.523.4648
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Scott Bender, Bender Consulting, LLC
Vinnie Perrone, Subsurface Group, LLC
Mike Reed, Transportation Engineering Northwest (TENW)
Rick Esvelt, H.R. Esvelt Engineering
Dwight Holobaugh, Consultares, Inc.
Wayne Wright, GeoEngineers, Inc.
Joel Purdy, GeoEngineers, Inc.
Glenn Hartmann, Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Brian Merryman, Merryman Resource Management, LLC
Jim Otness, Blackrock, LLC
Richard Steffel, Environ International Corporation
Lisa Graham, Environ International Corporation
Milton Kiehlbauch, Statesman Group
Don Dabbs, EarthRenew Organics, Ltd
Michelle Wong, SuSA Design Studio
From: Vicki Morris
Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting
Documentation — Instructions for Technical Report Completion
Date: January 28, 2011 [County Review Draft]
Pleasant Harbor Team Members:
At long last, we have the three sets of conceptual alternative site plans and phasing plans approved by
Jefferson County to be evaluated in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort SEIS. These will be
transmitted as attachments to three messages due to file size. This memo briefly describes the alternatives
to be evaluated in the SEIS, supporting documentation that will assist you with understanding and
describing the distinctions between alternatives, and the format for the impact analysis and mitigation
measures.
This memo is lengthy and detailed. Its purpose is to convey that all three alternative site plans and the
phasing plans need to be evaluated in your report — during construction and in the completed, operational
condition of the resort — as well as the Board of County Commissioners Conditions imposed on the
project, and mitigation commitments stated in Chapter 5 of the programmatic FEIS (November 2007). I
have provided near the end of the memo a specific suggested format for the Potential Impacts and
Mitigation Measures sections of your report(s).
Pleasant Harbor MPR Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentation
Instructions for Technical Report Completion
January 28 2011 [County Review Draft]
CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE SITE PLANS AND PHASING PLANS
The "final" set of alternative site plans reviewed and accepted by Jefferson County for use in the SEIS
analysis are dated 1/31/11. The "final' set of phasing plans is also dated 1/31/11. If you received earlier
versions of any of these plans, please delete them and use the ones sent with this transmittal.
Alternative 1 is the FEIS alternative. It was the preferred alternative identified in the 2007 programmatic
EIS on the Comprehensive Plan amendment that designates the site as a subarea for Master Planned
Resort development. County Commissioners approved (in concept) development of up to 890 residential
units and an 18 -hole golf course within the MPR. For this reason, all alternatives to be evaluated in the
SEIS include these components, with efforts made to formulate a site plan that would have the least
impact on the environment (now Alternative 3).
Alternative 2 was developed during 2008-2009 to respond to the 30 conditions imposed by the Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioners (Ordinance No. 01-0128-08), and to improve constructability by
refining the grading plan. Modifications were made in the marina upland area in response to the Planning
Commission draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update, which advocated a 50 -foot buffer plus 5 -ft
structural setback from the ordinary high water mark. (Additional descriptive information about this
alternative and others is provided in the supporting documentation files identified below.)
The Board of County Commissioners did not accept the Planning Commission recommendation with
regard to the 50 -ft buffer in the High Intensity Shoreline Environment, and instead adopted a 150 -ft buffer
in the locally -approved Shoreline Master Program that was submitted to Ecology for review in December
2010. Alternative 3 responds to this significant buffer by proposing only repair and remodel work within
the footprint of existing structures within the Shoreline environment. Maritime Village residential units
and commercial development shown in the marina upland area in Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 have been
relocated to the intersection of Black Point Road with U.S. Highway 101, with some increase in the
number of residential units on the golf course/golf resort side, as well. Alternative 3 is the current
proposal and the preferred alternative.
Narrative explanations regarding the alternatives are provided for your orientation. The SEIS will identify
them only as Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3, not by any other name.
It is important to treat each alternative individually, as only one alternative will be selected for
implementation. For example, avoid saying "all alternatives" would have some effect, or any two
alternatives (like Alternative 1 and 2) would have the same effect. Please use the words any alternative,
and Alternative 1 or 2 in these examples. Please use future tense verbs (like would, could), not present
tense verbs (like is, are), as improvements under any alternative are not yet in-place and are not yet
producing some effect.
No Action Alternative. Your technical reports and the SEIS also need to discuss the No Action
Alternative, which the County defines as: no further development at this time, as there is no site-specific
zoning in place to implement the MPR designation. The No Action Alternative presumes that the owner
would continue to operate the 286 -berth marina and could perform maintenance, repair and replacement
on existing improvements in the marina upland area until a Master Planned Resort could be successfully
implemented on the site, either by the present owner or by others. Campground use of the Black Point
2
Pleasant Harbor MPR Alternatives, Phasing Plans, and Supporting Documentation
Instructions for Technical Report Completion
January 28 2011 [County Review Draft]
Peninsula property could resume under an existing Conditional Use permit.
Please make the No Action Alternative discussion meaningful rather than just saying there would be no
change from existing conditions. It is often the case that for some elements of the environment, conditions
would improve over time with no further development on the site. For other elements of the environment,
conditions may decline without the improvements proposed with the MPR. Please consider and describe
these potential effects specific to the element(s) of the natural and built environment for which you are
responsible.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Craig, Natalie and I have developed a narrative document for your use, and comparative charts that show
the distinctions between alternatives. These documents will be transmitted as attachments to a separate e-
mail message. They are listed below by file name. Please use whatever information is helpful and relevant
to your report; it is not necessary to use any of the supporting documentation in its entirety. You
undoubtedly have additional introductory and explanatory information that is specifically relevant to your
subject area. The supporting documentation is provided in order to achieve consistency in the description
of the proposal and alternatives in all reports and the SEIS, but is not intended to limit other information
you want to include.
PH-Intro-ComparisonOfAlternatives-PhasingNarrative -Jan24-11
PH -Comparison of Alternatives Chart-Jan24-11
PH-ResidentialUnitCalculationByAlternative-Jan27-11
If preliminary utilities planning has been based on a different unit mix than shown on the 1/31/11
Alternative 3 site plan, please update calculations based on the site plans that will be used in the SEIS.
(Comparative calculations will be needed for all three conceptual site plan alternatives and the No Action
Alternative. See explanation later in this memo.)
As indicated by the file name of the narrative document, it includes a description of the construction
sequencing proposal. You will receive a set of seven Phasing Plan drawings based on the Alternative 3
site plan: an overall phasing plan, Stage I drawings with three phases, and Stage II drawings with three
additional phases. Please consider sequential development of the site over a 10 -year period in your
"Potential Impacts during Construction" subsection.
Please use the nomenclature of the site plans, phasing plans, narrative document and charts as you finalize
your reports. If you have a question about what something is being called for consistency throughout the
SEIS and technical reports, send an e-mail message to Craig and me and we will respond promptly to
confirm. The County has approved referring to the project as the "Pleasant Harbor Master Planned
Resort" (or MPR), as opposed to the Brinnon MPR as it was called at the time of the FEIS. You may also
refer to the proposal as the "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort" (consistent with the project logo).
Don, Garth, Natalie and I completed the following documents during January that may also be of interest
to you:
PH-ListOfAmenities-Jan 15-11