Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0542200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 www.eaest.com April 6,2015 APR Z 4 2015 GENERAL GUIDE FOR HOW TO PREPARE FINAL SEIS COMMENT RESPONSES Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS Following is a general guide for how to prepare responses to comments on the Pleasant Harbor Draft SEIS. All comment letters are numbered for ease of reference, and each individual comment in each of the letters has been numbered and assigned to a team member to craft a response. For some comments, multiple team members have been identified to respond to comments - in such cases, the first person/consultant identified is assumed to take the lead in responding to the comment. lf copies of Draft SEIS Sections or EIS Appendices are needed in order to respond to comments, please contact Kristy Hollinger at EA Engineering (khollinqer@eaest.com). 1. Determine if a response to the comment is necessary. For example, if a comment is a statement of like/dislike of a project or preference for one alternative over another, "your comment is acknowledged for the record" is a sufficient response. 2. Determine if the Draft SEIS (Chapter or Technical Appendix) contains information or analvsis that adequatelv responds to the comment. lf so, refer to the page(s)/section(s) of the text and technical analysis where the information/analysis is presented and briefly summarize. For example, "As described on page 3-5 of the DEIS, the height of the proposed building is within the 12S-foot maximum height allowed by COR zoning." 3. lf the comment points out an error. omission or necessarv clarification to the DEIS that is valid, acknowledge the error/omission/clarification, correct or amend the appropriate section of the Draft SEIS, and refer to the Section of the Final SEIS where this information has been corrected. For the Frnal SE/S we will reprint the Draft, and highlight or underline new text that is added to show what has changed between the Draft and the Final. 4. When there are several comments on the same topic, rather than providing a similar response to each comment that shares the theme, provide a more complete response, and then refer to this response in subsequent comments (be careful to address all aspects of each comment, though). For example, "See the response to Comment 4 in Letter 10 regarding the adequacy of the proposed water quality treatment facilities." HT EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC /\/* EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 www.eaest.com 5. When updated information/analvsis has been included in the Final SEIS, summarize the information/analysis contained in a separate chapter of the Final SEIS and, as appropriate, hit the high points in the responses to comments and direct the commentor to this chapter and the appropriate technical appendices for the complete response to their comment. HtFi{l.idi,l ,,. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 www.eaest.com Response to Letter 7, Comment 15: The original traffic counts and underlying analytical assumptions were performed and conducted using conservative methods, including conducting traffic counts for use in the analysis during a peak Labor Day weekend in 2006. As recent traffic counts conducted by WSDOT (AnnualTraffic Report, 2014, WSDOT) remain between approximately 22 percent and 35 percent below those documented and used along SR 10'1 in the immediate project vicinity, the traffic level of service analysis and impact evaluation applied in the SEIS analysis remains conservative and defensible. As the recent traffic counts performed by WSDOT include all regional tolling, tourism, goods, movement travel, and other unique characteristics of the SR 101 corridor, and these remain below SEIS analytical assumptions, no evidence is found to warrant further level of service analysis. Response to Letter 7, Gomment 16: An evaluation of construction traffic impacts associated with building the Pleasant Harbor Resort is provided within the Pleasant Harbor SEIS Transportation lmpact Study, Second Addendum Supplementto 11127107 FEIS, January 30, 2012, TENW, pages 10-12. Response to Letter 7, Gomment 18: The original Transportation lmpact Study - Revised, Pleasant Harbor ElS, Jefferson County, WA, TENW, August 28,2007, evaluated traffic impacts of full project buildout. See also Response to Letter 7, Comment 15 above. Response to Letter 7, Comment 19: SR 104, and specifically the portion of that section that includes the Hood Canal bridge, is a part of the regional highway system and beyond the scope of study for the SEIS. As this corridor is part of the Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS), which include interstate highways and other principal arterials that are needed to connect major communities in the state, it is exempt under State law from local or State level of service standards. Response to Letter 7, Comment 36: As the frequency of the transportation of biosolids is no more than typical waste disposal of residential/resort communities, no separate analysis of truck trips associated with this specific trip type is warranted. Response to Letter 8, Comment 8: Natural occurrences or weather events that impact traffic are not considered typical or frequent events, and therefore, do not require consideration under SEPA review for tratfic impacts. Response to Letter 9, Gomments 19/20: The transportation impact analysis leading back to the DEIS considers both shuttle and non-shuttle impacts, and therefore, impact of airport trips between the site and the airport are considered. As the highways beyond the study limits are part of the Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) system, they are exempt under State law from local or State level of service standards and therefore, require no evaluation. The project proposes to provide a common transfer location between Jefferson County and Mason Transit HT EA Engineering, Science, and Technology,lnc., PBC 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 www.eaest.com systems. As both service providers currently serve the Brinnon community, no additional transit impacts would be generated by service providers. See also responses to Letter 7, Comments 15 and 19 Response to Letter 12, Comment 4: See responses to Letter 7, Comment 19 and Letter 8, Comment 8. Response to Letter 14, Comment 5: As a conservative approach, no reductions were made for resort access via waterborne or airborne modes of transportation. lf resort access is accomplished by these modes, they would be accommodated in the typical boat trip generation and occasional float plane charter that is associated with a marina of this size. Response to Letter 15, Gomment 3: As the WDFW boat launch access is an existing State facility and this project would not increase demand for boat launching at this site, no mitigation specific to any peak parking demands is required. As a new owner in Pleasant Harbor, the applicant has been in conversations with WDFW regarding joint development of an overflow area that could be used during these events, however, only information discussions have taken place and no formal agreement or project mitigation is necessary. Response to Letter 34, Gomment 2: See response to Letter 7, Comment 19. Response to Letter 37, Comment 4: See response to Letter 7, Comment 15. Response to Letter 38, Comment 2: See response to Letter 7, Comment 15. Response to Letter 38, Comment 3: See responses to SEIS Public Scoping Comments in Pleasant Harbor SEIS Transportation lmpact Study, Second Addendum Supplement to 11127107 FEIS, January 30,2012, TENW, page 18. Response to Letter 38, Comment 4: TENW HAS REQUESTED COLLISION RECORDS lN THOSE LOCATIONS NOTED AND WILL INCLUDE IN SEIS RESPONSE. Response to Letter 40, Comment 4: See responses to Letter 7, Comment 15, Letter 8, Comment 8, Letter 9, Comments 19/20 and, Letter 38, Comment 4. Response to Letter 40, Comment 5: The original Transportation lmpact Study - Revised, Pleasant Harbor ElS, Jefferson County, WA, TENW, August 28,2007 , evaluated traffic impacts onto Duckabush Road and at the intersection of SR 101 and Duckabush Road and found no substantial or significant traffic impacts would occur due to the project. As such, the Pleasant Harbor Resort would not be required to address any real or perceived existing roadway deficiencies noted in the comment letter. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 www.eaest.com Response to Letter 42, Comment 2: The comment refers to Black Lake Road, however, no known road exists in the immediate site vicinity. For the purposes of this responses, it is assumed the comment is referring to Black Point Road. As part of the project, Jefferson County is requiring a roadway upgrade between SR 101 and the proposed main entrance near the Rhododendron Road vicinity. The roadway section however, will not include a shoulder wide enough to accommodate a multipurpose trail as County standards do not require such a facility. An extensive separate trail system will be provided throughout the project site which would provide for an independent and parallel nonmotorized travel separate from vehicle conflicts along Black Point Road. Response to Letter 49, Comment 5: See response to Letter 8, Comment 8. Response to Letter 65, Gomment 4: See responses to Letter 38, Comments 3 and 4. Response to Letter 65, Comments 7/8: The assumed average trip length for "commute" or typical p.m. peak hour trips was 100 miles, while the more localized trip generated was assumed at 75 miles in evaluating the reductions in green house gas emissions by TENW. NOTE: TENW WAS NOT INVOLVED OR IS AWARE OF OTHER POTENTIAL VMT CALCULAIONS MADE IN THE EIS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT EA ADVISE OTHER POTENTIAL CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESPONSE AS NECESSARY. Response to Planning Commission Public Comment 17: See responses to Letter 7, Comment 19 and Letter 8, Comment 8. Response to Planning Gommission Public Comment 18: See responses to Letter 7, Comment 15, Letter 8, Comment 8, and Letter 38, Comment 4. Response to Planning Gommission Public Comment 19: See verbal response offered during the public comment period noted in transcript. Response to Planning Commission Public Comment 21: See response to Letter 40, Comment 5. Response to Planning Commission Public Comment 24: See response to Letter 40, Comment 5. Htfr{+iffi: ,,. Response to Letter 47, Gomment 4: See response to Letter 8, Comment 8.