Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout139Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David W. Johnson < djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us > Thursday, December L7,20L5 8:08 AM Garth Mann peckassoc@comcast.neU David W. Johnson RE: PGST Letter: Pleasant Harbor FSEIS MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Supplemental to MPR Plan.docx ljust wanted you to address the underlined highlighted sections in the attached document for the Staff Report. We can discuss this Monday at our phone call, as well. -----Origina I Message----- From : Garth Ma n n [ma ilto:Ga rth. Ma nn @statesma ngroup.com] Sent: Thursday, December 77,2075 7:47 AM To : David W. Joh nson <djoh nso n @co.jefferson.wa. us> Subject: Re: PGST Letter: Pleasant Harbor FSEIS MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 David Thank you I am n the road this week, and I lost one of your emails (l think)Was there a spread sheet that you wanted me to complete for the 6th>? lf yes..please re-send to me Garth From : David W. Joh nson <djohnson @co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, December 77 ,2015 8:36 AM To: Garth Mann Cc: David W. Johnson Subject: RE: PGST Letter: Pleasant Harbor FSEIS MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Thanks, Garth. I totally appreciate where you are coming from -----Origina I Message----- From : Ga rth Ma nn [ma ilto:Ga rth. Ma nn @statesma ngrou p.com] Sent:Wednesday, December 16,2OtS 11:37 PM To: David W. Joh nson <djoh nson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Garth Mann <Garth.Mann@statesmangroup.com> Subject: Re: PGST Letter: Pleasant Harbor FSEIS MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 1 David As you and the TEAM are aware, all of the issues raised in the letter attached have been thoroughly addressed throughout the 8 year process of the FEIS through to the SEIS. It is unfortunate that Roma Call has not read the reports in order to realize the following 1) No water generated on site leaves the site to impact the water of Hood Canal. 2) Because we have a waste water treatment plant that processes CLASS A water for irrigation, and because we are actually recharging more water to the aquifer than is being removed, and the fact that the aquifer has monitoring conditions, therefore, the concerns are not valid. The Septic System is being replaced to prevent environmental issues. 3) Roma Call has no reason that should cause concern to tribal Hunting and Fishing on lands that are adjoining our property. We are closing off any area that allows the public to access from our land to the water table below. 4) Wefollowedtheconcernsof PortGambleS'KlallamTribeintheDraftReviewStageandbecauseoftheseconcerns we reduced the golf course from an 18 hole to a t hole course . 5) The Elk Herd has never been an issue in our area. Elk all over the continent have migrating patterns that do not lend themselves to change, just because t holes of planted grass occurs. We discussed this issue, and felt the concern is that of the golf course, should it become a problem. 6) Highway 101 and Black Point road are not even close to their capacity for use. Roma Call's quoted 4,000 additional trips per day because of the Pleasant Harbor Resort are not realistic . (This equates to 1,460,000 vehicle trips per year because of the presence of the Resort?) The Resort would need to be as large as Disneyland to support this number of vehicle trips. We have endured 8 years of process and procedures and extensive expenditures. It is not reasonable to continue with additional delays to satisfy concerns that have been studied, and restudied many times, with hundreds of thousands of written pages of expert comments. The Applicant has done his job, a nd done it very well. People who have objected have influenced the finished design considerably, but we have complied as you know. It is time to move forward. Thank you M. Garth Mann From : David W. Johnson <djohnson @co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent:Wednesday, December L6,2075 4:56 PM To: Garth Mann; peckassoc@comcast.net Cc: David W. Johnson; David Goldsmith Subject: FW: PGST Letter: Pleasant Harbor FSEIS MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 FYI -----Origina I Message----- From: Roma Call [mailto:romac@pgst.nsn.us] Sent: Wednesday, December t6,2Ot5 3:48 PM To: Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; David W. Johnson <djo h nso n @co.jeffe rso n.wa. us> Cc: Jeromy Sullivan <jeromys@pgst.nsn.us> Subject: PGST Letter: Pleasant Harbor FSEIS MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 2 Dear Planning Commission Members and David Johnson, On behalf of Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, I'm forwarding the attached letter regarding the Pleasant Harbor FinalSEIS, Case No's MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056.The Chairman is requested an extension of the permit process to allow time for completion of the Tribe's consultation. Thank you Roma Call Roma Call Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Environmental Coordinator romac@pgst,nsn.us cell 360-516-3979 office 360-297-6293 3 An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements: (1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include: (a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being situated to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreationalfeatures that will attract people to the area and resort. (b) A description of the destlnation resort facilities of the MPR, including short-term visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site recreational opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and commercialand supportive services provided. (c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs of the resort and its users. (d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including residential and nonresidential development types and location, (e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and functional features that provide for a unified development, superior site design and protection of natural amenities, and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This shall address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and oarking desisn, capital facilities. and other components are integrated into the proiect site. (f) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, a description and supportive materials or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program. (g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the development. (h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan will be met. (i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detailfor the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the proiect will function at interim stages prior to completion of all pha of the proiect, and how the oroiect mav ooerate successfully and meet its environmental protect ion, concurrencv, and other commitments should development cease before aIIBhases trc eompleted (2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a development agreement as authorized by Article Xl of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements), and RCW 36.7O8.170 through 36,708.210. Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set forth the development standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned resort, which may include, but are not limited to: (a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes; (b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant; (c) Procedures for review of site-specific development plans; (d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable), visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor accommodations, on-site recreational facilities, and on-site reta il/commercial services; (e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and (f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and RCW 36.70B.170(3). (3) Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort shall require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to a master planned resort land use designation, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18.45.040; provided, that the subarea planning process authorized under Article Vll of Chapter 18.15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and JCC 18.45.030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the county. The Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the county concurrent with the review of the resort master plan and development agreement required for approval of a master planned resort. (4) Planned Actions. lf deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a master planned resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the provisions of RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-1.1-L64 and 197-11-168. (5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and land uses are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.