Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Subject: David Alvarez Friday, June 05, 2015 9:53 AM David W. Johnson Pleasant Harbor M PR-Statesman The development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor MPR need to include enforcement provisions. This is our opportunity to not let this problem (no enforceability provision) occur a second time in our other MPR. David Alvarez 1 PHMPR COUNW RESPONSE TO DSEIS 1. Comment #7 from the 12-3-14 Brinnon PC meeting: The applicant will be required to provide proof of a L2 foot wide vehicular and pedestrian access from the Marina to the Golf Resort across Lot 4 of the Watertouch Short Plat - parcel 502 t52 0L7 owned by Hal and Janice Richards. This is "up in the air" until we get a call from Mike Read about additional analysis or whether Garth buys the Richard's property or gets a easement. 2. Letter # 5, comment 1: "The new water system will be required to comply with the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Section 5.6 Utility Service Review Procedure." The sentence above could be inserting intothe SEIS after the subject comment quote: "...it is anticipated that a multi-purpose utility district would own operate and maintain the new water system, however, the new water system will be required to comply with the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Section 5.6 Utility Service Review Letter #6, comment 2: A third party developer agreement for any US HWY L01 improvements between WSDOT, the County and the Applicant shall be a condition of approvalfor any Plat or Binding Site Plan required in Phase lll of the Development Review Process and prior to Phase I construction. I don't think we need to add this to the DSEIS since it is not an environmental issue (?), but a requirement before Phase l,constructio-n. Letter #7, comment 9: The County must rely on the authority and expertise of the Fire Chief to determine staffing requirements for the anticipated impacts from EMS calls and negotiate with the Developer accordingly (page 3.17-3). Also, resort staff don't have the authority nor are authorized unless deputized, to act as an EMT or law enforcement/security personnel anywhere but on the resort property. We are unclear as to why providing a 500 square foot space for the Sheriff on resort property would mean higher taxes for County residents. The 500 square foot room for the Sheriff is offeredtothemfortheiruse,butisnotarequirement. ltisanticipatedthatifthe Sheriff does not have the budget to staff or supply the room, he will decline the offer to use it. (page 3.L7-71. Letter #7, comment L4: The County must rely on the authority and expertise of the School District to determine staffing requirements for the anticipated impacts from increased enrollment and negotiate with the Developer accordingly (page 3.17-LL). 3 4 Letter #7, comment 37: All infrastructure improvements to provide power to the project, including engineering studies and designs commissioned by the PUD will be paid for by the developer (page 3.8-2) per the Development Agreement. 5. Letter #9, comment2L: As with the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, all environmental monitoring required as mitigation will be conducted by an independent qualified third party to be paid for by the developer. Additional County staff time to monitor and manage the progress of the project will also be paid by the developer on an hourly basis. 6.Letter #38, comment 1.4: The 500 square foot room for the Sheriff is offered to them for their use, but is not a requirement. lt is anticipated that if the Sheriff does not have the budget to staff or supply the room, he will decline the offer to use it. 7 Letter #38, comment 16: see response to letter #7, comment 1.4. . Letter #42, comment 3: (Need to discuss with SEIS team) Letter #47, comment 1: More detail or specific information is needed for this to be considered a substantive comment that can be addressed. Letter 65, comment 5: The County must relyon the authority and expertise of the Fire Chief to determine staffing requirements for the anticipated impacts from EMS calls and negotiate with the Developer accordingly (page 3.77-3}. Letter 65, comment16r The applieant has no control over natural disasters, only over impacts created by the construction and operation of the resort. The SEIS cannot look at or evaluate impacts not created by the proposal. The results of a natural disaster that are cited in your letter witl apply to everyone within the area of the disaster and is not dependent on or related to whether or not the proposed resort is sited on the subject property. 8 9.