HomeMy WebLinkAbout122David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hollinger, Kristy <khollinger@eaest.com>
Friday, December 04,2015 12:59 PM
David W. Johnson; Schipanski, Rich
RE: Pleasant Harbor DEIS/GeoEngineers Response to Comments
Hi David *
Yes - | think we probably should. l'm at my desk, please give me a call anytime
From: David W. Johnson [ma i lto :djoh nson @co.jefferson.wa. us]
Sent: Friday, December 04,2015 L2:48 PM
To: Schipanski, Rich <rschipanski@eaest.com>; Hollinger, Kristy <khollinger@eaest.com>
Cc: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Pleasant Harbor DEIS/GeoEngineers Response to Comments
Maybe we could have a conference call this afternoon to clarify this?
Thanks!
From: Donna Frostholm
Sent: Friday, December 04,2015 12:32 PM
To: David W. Johnson <d iohnson @co.iefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor DEIS/GeoEngineers Response to Comments
David
Thanks for forwarding the email below on to me. The responses from the applicant on December 2,2015 to my
comments 3 and 4 do not address my comments. As it is now, there is a discrepancy between what the applicant states
in SEIS/supporting technical documents regarding the amount of potential wetland/wetland buffer impact and the
amount of mitigation proposed (comment 3) and a discrepancy between a text and a table in the E|S/supporting
technical documents (comment 4).
Regards,
Donna Frostholm
Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist
Jefferson County DCD
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, December 02,2015 \2:57 PM
To: Don na Frostholm < DFrosthol m @co. iefferson.wa. uS>
Subject: FW: Pleasant Harbor DEIS/GeoEngineers Response to Comments
FYI
From: Hollinger, Kristy [mailto:khollineer@eaest.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02,207512:59 PM
To: Schipanski, Rich <rschipanski@eaes >; 'peckassoc@comcast.net' <peckassoc@comcast.net>; David W. Johnson
<d io h nson @co. iefferson.wa. us>
Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor DEIS/GeoEngineers Response to Comments
1
Hi David,
Please see my proposed responses embedded below.
Thanks -
Kristy
From: David W. Johnson [mailto:d iohnson @co.iefferson.wa.usJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 02,20L512:11 PM
To: Hollinger, Kristy <khollinger@eaest.com>; Schipanski, Rich <rschipanski@eaest.com>; peckassoc@comcast.net
Cc: David W. Johnson <diohnson@co.iefferson.wa. us>
Subject: FW: Pleasant Harbor DEIS/GeoEngineers Response to Comments
Here are Donna's comments
From: Donna Frostholm
Sent: Wednesday, December 02,2OL511:39 AM
To: David W. Johnson <d ioh nson @co. ieffe rso n.wa. us>
Subject: Pleasant Harbor DEIS/GeoEngineers Response to Comments
David
Here are my comments based on the November 24,2015 matrix, specifically to Comment Letter Number 25 on page 2
Comment Number 1 - no further comment (the applicant has clarified that the wetland mitigation site will not be used
as part of the water treatment system).
Comment Number 2 - no further comment (the applicant has agreed to a performance bond for mitigation).
Comment Number 3 - lt appears that the revised plan sheets no longer show a surface water connection between the
pond created as part of the development and the existing wetland, so this part of the comment has been
addressed. However, during a conference call, the applicant agreed to submit an addendum to the wetland mitigation
plans to say that Wetlands C and D will not be "enhanced" and that the proposal does not include piping water to
Wetlands C and D as well as to the wetland mitigation site. DCD still needs an addendum letter from the applicant to
address this part of the comment.
At the permitting stage, the applicant will submit a hydrologic report to address wetland hydrology and an addendum to
the wetland mitigation plan confirming that the proposal does not include piping water to or any enhancements of
existing Wetlands C and D.
Comment Number 4 - DCD still needs EA to respond to this comment since the text and the tables do not seem to
agree.
The statement that no significant unavoidable impacts would result has been revised in Section 3.3 (Plants) the Final
SEIS as follows:
With proposed development under either Alternative 1.,2 or 3, areas of existing vegetation would be removed:
201 acres under Alternative 1,152 acres under Alternative 2, and 132 acres under Alternative 3. Areas of retained
natural vegetation and new vegetation in the form of the golf course and new landscaping would be provided.
2
Let me know if you have any questions,
Donna frostfio[m
As s o cinte ? [anner/Wet fantr Sy e ciafist
Jeffirson County Deyartment of Comtnunity Devebyment
6zt Sfteridan Street
?ort (owns end,'Was fihgton g g6 I
36o-379-4466
dfr o st li o trntac o. i e ffbr s t)rL ry L4-Lts
DCD is open from 9:00am - 12:00pm and 1:00pm - 4:30pm Monday through Thursday; DCD is closed on Friday.
All emails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW
3