Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: David W. J oh nson < djoh nson @co jefferson.wa.us > Tuesday, January L2,2016 9:11 AM Steve Walker David W. Johnson RE: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. PHMPR Chronology.doc Steve, l'm not sure where you got the information on the milestones you listed, but I have attached a chronological list of events for the project. You can see from the list that with the resignation of the Vicki Morris in 2011 and subsequent hiring of EA Engineering to write the SEIS, there was approximately two years where no effective work was done on the Draft. Also,thecreationofAlternative#3substantiallydelayedthereleaseoftheFinalduetore-evaluationofthe affected elements. We wanted to release the Final in Spring 2015, but had to wait untilthat re-evaluation was completed. So, we released the Final as soon as we could in December. As for your question regarding the adequacy of technical reports and analysis, we generally accept that they are valid until such time as there is either a change in conditions or code that would require a new review. For example, wetlands can change over time, sometimes within a year or two. This is why we will require additional wetland analysis at time of construction to ensure that the development meets code based on current conditions. I hope that answers your questions Thanks ! From: Steve Wa lker Ima ilto :walker@ mfgis.com] Sent: Monday, January 71,20!6 12:54 PM To: David W. Johnson <djoh nson@co.jefferson.wa. us> Subject: RE: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. Thank you David, Yes, I understand Best, Steve Walker Original Message Subject: RE: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information, From : "David W. Johnson" <djohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us> Date: Mon, January 11, 2076 12:04 pm To: Steve Walker <walker@mfgis.com> Cc: "David W. Johnson" <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Thanks, Steve. I need to review this more closely and get back to you. 1 From: Steve Wa I ker Imailto:wa lker@ mfeis.com] Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 t:47 PM To: David W. Johnson <d ioh nson @co.iefferson.wa.us> Subject: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information Mr. Johnson, In the interest of best helping you respond to my previous question(s) regarding the Black Point Resort project,I have attempted to research the timeline of the process from the 2007 (programatic/non-project) EIS through the release of the DSEIS in October of 2074. Significant relavant milestones appear to me to include: 2OO9/02 2009/10 ZOLOl03 20LtlOL 20tu04 SEIS Scoping meeting Determination of significance Scoping Memo Decision of the Washington State Court of Appeals Preli mi nary Development Ag reement 2017/12 Draft Project Description 2012/01 Reports and Studies Submitted 2OL4l10 Applicant's due date for submission of all final reports 2014111 DSEIS Release With the above as a guiding post, it seems that the January 2011 court decision followed by the April 2011 Preliminary Development Agreement can be used as a reasonable starting era of the formal review process. The next date in the timeline as currently known to me is the December,2011 Draft Project Description, followed by the January 2012 submission of various consultant studies. Thus, it appears that the bulk of the 2011 calendar year was likely the time frame in which much of the substantive work in preparing the project proposal was carried out. After January of 2012 however, their seems to be mostly a lack of activity on the record until October 2Ot4, when "Applicant's due date for submission of all final reports" is noted. I've also noted that in the revised timeline of 2014/lU24the County had expected the Planning Commission to hold its Public Hearning on the matter on either April 1 or May 6 of 2015, (The meeting that eventually occurred on January 6 of 2016). I can imagine that this particular delay could be explained by the inclusion of the new, Preferred Alternative C. This leaves me then with a better understanding of the timeline of events. It also allows me to focus attention to the time period roughly defined as between February, 2012 and October, 2074, a period of approximately 32 months. Can you speak to any significant events, or lack thereof, that occurred during this period? Examples could include The primary time frame in which the DSEIS was fundamentally written; and Significant requests made of the Applicant by the County during this time frame, and when responses were receieved ; 2 and Any period or periods in which there was a lack of progress due primarily or solely to inactions on the part of the Applicant, including their duration or durations; and Any period or periods in which there was a lack of substantive communication from the Applicant to the County. Thank you again in advance. I hope this helps narrow the scope of my previous question(s). Best regards, Steve Walker 331 Dosewallips Rd Brinnon, WA 98320 Original Message Subject: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. From : "Steve Walker" <walker@mfois.com> Date: Fri, January 08, 2016 11:57 am To : dwjohnson@co,jefferson.wa. us David Wayne Johnson Project Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 8 January, 2016 Mr. Johnson, Can you address the issue of when and if an EIS becomes so dated that the original studies lose their legal validity and must be revisited and/or be re-done? I know this is some what of a subjective issue, but there must be some objective guidelines as well. It seems to me in the case of the Black Point MPR, that it could be argued that the project proponent let approximately 3 years lapse due to market conditions (i.e. corresponding to the 2008-2011 global recession and its regional after-effects that persisted through perhaps 2013) and then re-started the proposal when market conditions were perceived to have improved. Would you characterize the above observation as valid, or invalid? Because if there is validity to the argument, then it would appear to me that the county is exposing itself to the potential liability of basing a decision on demonstrably dated, and thus, legally questionable information. The 2008 era traffic study comes to mind as textbook example of dated information the validity of which is highly questionable (and potentially legally actionable) in 2016. 3 The issue goes back to the question of why there was such a delay between the 2008 DEIS and the 2014 FEIS, and whether this was due to action on the part of the county or inaction on the part of the proponent, If the former, then the proponent is in a position to argue that delays were beyond his control and it is not his responsibility to bring the EIS up-to-date. If however, the applicant merely sat on the proposal for a number of years out of market concerns, it could very strongly be argued that the public interest requires that outdated studies be revisited for current validity, and that the proposal's legal viability is questionable in its current form. I shall be interested in learning if the County is on the record with regards to the issue of the long delay between the draft and final EIS documents, and the reason(s) behind that delay. Thank you for any information and clarification you can provide. Naturally, I would expect and understand this letter and any response you may have will be part of the public record. Best regards, Steve Walker 331 Dosewallips Rd Brinnon, WA 98320 4 a o a o a a o a a Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Chronology 2002-20r6 The Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP) of 2002 identified the existing, yet idle NACO Campground on Black point (BSAP page 45) as an ideal location for a Master Planned Resort (I/PR). A pre-application conference for an MPR on Black Point was requested by The Statesman Group of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and held on January 10, 2006. On March 1,2006 The Statesman Group submitted to Jefferson County a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-zone a portion of Black Point from Rural Residential to MPR (MLA06-87). Initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping, conducted in May 2006, identified probable signifi cant adverse impacts. On October 2, 2006, The Statesman Group, formally requested that the Environmental Impact Statement be changed from a permit-level, project EIS to a non-project, or programmatic EIS, necessitating the need for a Supplemental or project level EIS (SEIS) prior to development. In the fall of 2007, a citizen' s group opposing the project was formed, which eventually became known as the Brinnon Group. The Board of Counfy Commissioners (BoCC) deliberated and voted to approve MLA06-87 on January 14,2008, under Ordinance 01-0128-08 with thirfy attached conditions. In April of 2008, The Statesman Group applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment and Development Agreement (MLA08- 00188) to implement the MPR. These Type V applications required an SEIS as condition (b) of Ord. No. 01-0128-08. On March 17,2009 DCD held a SEIS Team meeting to discuss and plan for "Scoping" of the SEIS with the Applicant's Representative Craig Peck, EIS writer Vicki Morris, and DCD's Peer Review Consultant Lloyd Skinner. A public "Scoping Meeting" was held at the Brinnon School house on October 28th,2009 On March 31,2010, DCD issued a Scoping Memo to Statesman defining the scope of the SEIS. a . EIS writer Vicki Morris resigned from the Project on April 6,2011 o On April 20,201I DCD assumed authorship of the EIS "in-house." o DCD issued a revised Scoping Memo on October 12, 20ll to address applicant initiated changes to the alternatives of the project due to the adoption on new Shoreline regulations. . On July 3, 2012, DCD informed the applicant that it would be hiring a third party consultant to draft the SEIS. o On February 11,2013, DCD signed a contract with EA Blumen (now EA Engineering) to author the SEIS. A contract extension required due to plan changes was approved and signed on March 16,2015. o { Draft SEIS was released for public and agency review and comment on November 19,2014. o Re-development and renovation of the Marina under an existing Binding Site plan began in May 2010 and was completed in April 2015. o In July 2015, the applicant revised the resort plan to include a new preferred alternativ e #3 , which reduced the size of the golf course from 1 8 to 9 with a 3-hole practice course. This change necessitated re-review of environmental elements. o The Final SEIS was released on December 9,2015. The FSEIS may be appealed with the Ordinances for either the Development Agreement or Development Regulations as the associated final action. o The FSEIS and drafts of the Development Agreement and regulations were presented to the Planning Commission on January 6, 2016 to review, deliberate and make recornmendation to the BoCC for approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the Development Regulations. . The BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, or hold their own public hearing on the development regulations, but they must hold a public hearing before making a decision on the Development Agreement, anticipated in winter/spring 20 | 6. o Should the BoCC approve the Development Agreement, development and building permits may be applied for.