Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog044 'e JEFFERSON C.NTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director MEMORANDUM To: Warren Hart, Responsible Official From: Josh D, Peters, Associate Planner Date: November 28, 2000 Re: Environmental Review and Threshold Determination under the Rules of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 197-11 WAC), Applicant: Jon Rose, Olympic Property Group, LLC (OPG) Representative: Nicole Faghin, Reid Middleton, mc, Proposal: Application SDPOO-00014 is to expand the Port Ludlow Marina (Marina) by adding 100 new slips for 36 to 60 foot vessels, adjacent side-tie areas for vessels over 60 feet in length, and amenities such as dinghy floats and an expanded kayak float. The proposed expansion occurs to the west and south of the existing Marina, connected to the C, D, and E dock system, The proposed layout includes extension of the D and E lateral systems and a new F lateral system, with no changes to the AIB dock system. The design includes provisions to minimize environmental impacts as detailed in a submitted Biological Evaluation, Staff recommends a Determination of Significance (DS) that would initiate the scoping process for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) prepared by the applicant. Location: Port Ludlow Marina, 1 Gull Drive, Port Ludlow W A 98365, Legal Description: WM. The project site is found within Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 01 East, Required Approvals: The final project must be in compliance with the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in order to be approved for the necessary Shoreline Primary Use Substantial Development Permit (SDP) from Jefferson County, Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), approval from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for use of the tidelands and bedlands, and approval from the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are also required, In addition, a building permit will be required from Jefferson County, as well as inspection by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) prior to final inspection by the Jefferson County Building Division, This SDP is for shoreline/land use approval only, No building permit will be issued by Jefferson County until the applicant has completed an EIS or SEIS for the entire Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) expansion project, as outlined in the MPR Code (Ordinance No, 08-1004- 99, adopted October 4, 1999), Building Permits/ Inspec~ ITEl\fvelopment Review Division (360) 379-4450 # 4/<1 Page I of 9 Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 e tit Checklist: The Environmental Checklist was submitted to the Development Review Division on July 26, 2000, Adequacy: Staff determined that the application and checklist were substantially complete on August 15,2000. Comments: Staff requested review and comments on the Environmental Checklist from numerous agencies, including the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), WDFW, DNR, COE, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and Olympic Environmental Council. Written responses received are as follows: Agencies: Letters were received from DOE and WDFW, No other agencies have responded in writing to date, · Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) DOE submitted comments dated September 22, 2000 by facsimile on September 22 and by the US Postal Service on September 27, The letter addressed three categories of concern. DOE comments are paraphrased below: SEP A Coordinator: DOE requested a copy of the BE, as several items on the SEP A checklist are answered with a reference to the "attached biological assessment." DOE's sediment specialist for the area, Russ McMillan, was not able to review the SEP A document in time for the September 22 comment letter. The letter states that Mr. McMillan was to review the checklist the following week and send comments at that time, As sediments are among the issues to be addressed through DOE's 401 Certification process, DOE advised communication with Mr. McMillan early in the project review process, Floodplain Management: "The County should address floodplain management issues in the shoreline or building permit to insure that the project will create no adverse flooding impacts; cause no rise in base flood elevations; and meet the construction standards required in coastal high hazard areas (V-Zones) as required by county ordinance," Shorelands: "As discussed during pre-application meetings, Ecology would like the shoreline permit process to include consideration [of] riparian habitat enhancement opportunities in upland areas adjacent to the proposed expansion, Native species trees and shrubs, once established landward of the ordinary high water mark, would further stabilize soils while providing shade and other functional habitat values, plus visual screening, The proposed project must be consistent with all applicable policies and other provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, its rules, and the local shoreline master program," Staff Comment: I) SEP A: The applicant forwarded a copy of the BE to Kari Rokstad, DOE Southwest Regional Office SEPA Coordinator, on September 28. Mr, McMillan has not submitted comments or otherwise contacted the project planner. 2) Floodplain: Floodplain management issues will be addressed through the County shoreline and building permit process, 3) Shorelands: Mitigation will be negotiated through the SEP A review and multi-agency permitting process, WDFW will likely be the agency to coordinate riparian habitat enhancement opportunities with input from the County, DOE, COE, and the applicant and its representatives, . · Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Ms, J. Anne Shaffer, Area Marine Habitat Biologist for WDFW, submitted a letter dated September 12, 2000 and received by this Department on September 14, The main body of the letter is quoted here: DS Memo SDPOO-OOOI4 11/28/00 Page 2 e e "The WDFW is now responsible for managing habitat for federally listed salmonid species, including Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook. The proposed marina expansion offers significant risk to critical habitat used by both of these species, as well as other salmonids, Specifically: 1) Both Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook use shorelines of the subject property as a migratory corridor; 2) Port Ludlow Creek, just west of the proposed expansion, is an important salmonid resource that has showed declines in use over the last 15 years; 3) Sand lance and surf smelt, collectively known as baitfish, and cited by state law as critical salmonid food resource, are documented to spawn adjacent to the subject property; and 4) Nearshore areas within the existing marina are indicating severe water quality problems, including anoxia and ulvoid blooms. These impacts will only increase with expanSion. "Project impacts to these critical resources and habitats include: 1) Significant increase in overwater structure from both marina and boats in nearshore areas; 2) Decreased water quality and increased pollution due to both increased boat volumes and decreased flushing from additional overwater structure; and 3) Increased scour in nearshore from increased boat volume (particularly in the fuel dock area), These are top priorities for concern, and should be addressed, "WDFW feels potential adverse impacts to finfish resources from this marina expansion should be thoroughly addressed in the project design before the project is approved, "To summarize: there are two ESA species, and a number of other critical species, that use tidelands of or immediately adjacent to the subject property, The project, as currently designed, will negatively affect critical habitat of these species, which the WDFW is mandated to prevent through both state WAC and federal Endangered Species Act (Section 10 and Section 7), "Specifically, overwater structure from both marina and boats in nearshore areas, disruption of migratory corridor for fish using Port Ludlow Creek and nearshore Port Ludlow Bay, further degraded water quality and increased pollution from increased boat use and limiting of flushing, and increased scour in nearshore from increased boat volume (particularly in the fuel dock area) are top priorities for concern, and should be addressed to eliminate, or otherwise mitigate, impacts as defined by WAC 220-110- 020(41). Specifically, reducing overall overwater structure (including decreasing number of slips and dock widths), assessing impact of marina to fish migration along the nearshore as well as to and. from Port Ludlow Creek, and decreasing nearshore fueling activities are suggested areas to start with," Staff Comment: WDFW raises concerns that cannot be adequately addressed and satisfied through the issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) and an SDP alone, The applicant is required to obtain Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A) from WDFW for the Marina expansion project. Staff assumes that some of the WDFW concerns may be addressed through the HP A process; there exists the possibility that remaining concerns described by WDFW in the September 12 letter will need to be addressed through SEP A substantive authority and other permitting tools or agency permits. In order to coordinate an efficient and effective response from the applicant to address all of the concerns as expressed by agencies and interested parties, staff recommends that the County issue a DS and coordinate the scoping process for an SEIS, The concerns raised by WDFW in the September 12 letter, in addition to the concerns articulated at the October 31 site meeting and other facts in the case record, lead staff to this conclusion. (NOTE: staffs recommendation is presented in full later in this memorandum,) Notice: Notice was published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader on August 23, 2000 and mailed to Adjacent Property Owners (APO) and interested parties on August 22, 2000. The proponent posted the notice of pending threshold determination on the site on August 23,2000. DS Memo SDPOO-00014 11/28/00 Page 3 e e Adjacent Property Owners / Interested Parties: Staff received a phone call from Mr. William Funke of Scott Court, a road near the Marina but outside of the 300- foot APO search radius from the Marina parcel. As the Scott Court neighbors are within 300 feet of the proposed expansion itself, staff sent the application notice materials to Mr, Funke and three other Scott Court residents on September 1, 2000, The US Postal Service returned the letter intended for Mr, Jim Treadway of 63 Scott Court on September 20, citing that the letter was "unclaimed" after a lO-day hold period beginning September 2. The other Scott Court recipients were Mr, D,A. Routt and Mr, Raymond G. Colby, NOTE: There is a private dock accessed from Scott Court, This dock is depicted in the plans submitted by the applicant. The Department received three letters from APOs (including the Scott Court neighbors), Here follows summaries of the three letters: . Mr. Grant Colby and Mrs, Lori Colby submitted a letter dated September 18, 2000 and received by this Department on September 20, They are co-owners of the Scott Court dock. In the letter, Mr. and Mrs, Colby state that they are "strong opponents" of the Marina expansion plan because the E Dock and the new floating breakwater (F Dock) will extend in front of their dock. They contend that, "The design will significantly reduce the waters of navigation (to our dock) and our premium views, both from our property and the dock, will materially be diminished." They also contend that the expanded docks would encroach upon their "riparian rights of corridor." Mr. and Mrs. Colby write that they understand that there is a demand for additional slips in the Port Ludlow area, but suggest that OPG has "an implied responsibility to the adjacent property owners" and that a design that extends south instead of west could meet the Marina needs without infringing on the rights of the Scott Court property owners. They maintain that, "The 13 slips that encroach in our corridor and view could easily be added to the center of the marina.. . [and] that this approach would provide for the same number of slips, not involve any additional pilings (over the current design) and maintain our access and views," They conclude the letter by asking that the County deny the current proposed design, . Mr, D.A. Routt submitted a letter dated September 20, 2000 and received by this Department on September 21. He described concerns over the length of the outermost two docks (E and F), as the proposed expansion of these docks would result in visual impacts to the Scott Court property owners, resulting in a devaluation of the property, Mr. Routt wrote that an OPG expansion concept drawing labeled "Alternate 1" and dated April 5, 2000 showed the expanded E and F docks to be much shorter in length, with less impact on the Scott Court properties, · Mr. William G, Funke and Mrs. Katherine S. Funke submitted a letter dated September 20, 2000 and received by this Department on September 22. Mr. and Mrs. Funke state their objection to building any new docks and slips to the west of the existing docks, They contend that Pope Resources (of which OPG is a subsidiary limited liability company) marketed and sold to them their Scott Court property "..,as a premium waterfront lot with unrestricted water view, not as Marina front property, The planned dock extension will be built offshore to a point immediately adjacent to our extended property line," Furthermore, "This dock extension and the resulting re- routing of Marina traffic will completely block our waterfront view and further subject us to Marina noise and shore incursions detrimental to all Scott Court waterfront property." Mr. and Mrs, Funke explain that an arc-shaped, approximately 20-foot by 40-foot section of their shoreline bank broke off and slid to the tidal flat and that high tides and wave action combined with rainwater damage create an on-going bank erosion process in the Scott Court area, They write that they do not want their property ".,.subjected to additional boat wake action, oil and fuel spills and other intrusions. , ," from increased boat traffic in front of their property as a result of the Marina expansion, Finally, Mr. and Mrs, Funke concur with the points raised by Mr. and Mrs, Colby in their September 18 letter and ask that the County deny the proposed Marina expansion design, DS Memo SDPOO-00014 11/28/00 Page 4 e e Staff Comment: After conversing with Scott Court neighbors on the telephone and receiving the three comment letters, and at the conclusion of the public comment period, staff forwarded copies of the comment letters, including those from agencies, to Mr. Jon Rose, P,E. ofOPG. Staff requested that Mr, Rose address the concerns of the Scott Court neighbors in writing, Mr, Rose wrote an explanatory letter to one of the Scott Court residents, Mr, Grant Colby, on November 6, 2000, copying Mr. Routt, Mr, Funke, and others, In reference to concerns that the expansion proposed in the application goes beyond what was originally presented by OPG to adjacent property owners (refer to the summary above ofMr, Routt's letter), Mr. Rose explains in his letter that the April 5 drawing only appears to show a greater distance between the Scott Court dock and the expanded Marina docks than that depicted in the drawings dated July 14, 2000 that accompany the application materials, Sheet 1 of 4 shows the Existing Conditions and the distance between the Scott Court dock and C Dock to be 277 feet, a figured derived from actual field mapping, The figure in the April 5 drawing is 440 feet, which OPG derived from the COE permit (97-1-00534) associated with the construction of the Scott Court dock. According to Mr, Rose, the inaccuracy of the original figure (440 feet), contributed to the perception that OPG's latest set of plans (July 14) display an increase in the expansion of the Marina docks (i,e., a shorter distance between the Scott Court docks and the expanded Marina docks), Mr, Rose contends that when OPG discovered that the true distance between the C Dock and the Scott Court Dock is 277 feet, the expansion design was reconfigured to allow for a greater separation between the docks. To this end, the proposed expansion of the D Dock has been reduced in the July 14 drawing from that depicted in the April 5 drawing. The distance between the expanded D Dock and the Scott Court dock is proposed to be 122 feet. As C Dock is not proposed for expansion, the distance between it and the Scott Court dock will continue to be 277 feet. Staff observes that proposed expansion involving E Dock (existing) and F Dock (new) appears to be greater in the July 14 drawing than in the April 5 drawing, presumably in part to compensate for the reduction in proposed expansion to the D Dock. Consequently, the extended E and D Docks, as proposed in the July 14 drawings under consideration in this application, would encroach further into the viewscape of the Scott Court property owners in order to preserve navigational spacing between the Scott Court dock and C and D Docks, Regarding other concerns of the Scott Court neighbors, on the second page of Mr, Rose's November 6 letter, he addresses the issue of public disclosure, suggesting that his company has been contemplating expansion of the Marina for approximately 10 years, The programmatic EIS of 1993 referenced the Marina expansion, According to Mr, Rose, the 1993 EIS process included meetings, public input, media coverage, and public notices. Additionally, the Port Ludlow Planning Forum between 1996 and 1999 fostered continuing discussion and public dialogue regarding development plans in the area, including the Marina, Mr. Rose concludes his letter by expressing understanding for the concerns of Mr. Colby and his neighbors and a willingness to "keep them in mind as we continue working on the project." He also offers to meet with the Scott Court neighbors in person at their request. The SEIS scoping process could be used as a tool to assure that the applicant addresses all of the concerns expressed by the Scott Court neighbors, It is important to note the difference between "addressing" and "satisfying" the concerns, as some of concerns of the neighbors will not be satisfied unless OPG significantly alters the proposed Marina expansion or withdraws the application. Inspection: Jefferson County Development Review Division staff (J. Peters and J. Smith) attended a multi-agency meeting on-site October 31, 2000, Among representatives of the applicant, staff from WDFW, DNR and COE were in attendance, Three facts became increasingly clear to staff through the course of the on-site meeting: 1) COE considers the draft BE dated July 6, 2000 insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the impacts of the proposed expansion to threatened and endangered species; 2) an SEIS with a coordinated scoping process would be the most efficient and effective tool to address and satisfy all the information requirements and concerns expressed by agencies and interested parties; and DS Memo SDPOO-00014 11/28/00 Page 5 e e 3) the final BE could function as a subsection of the more broadly scoped SEIS, addressing issues pertaining to the habitat of threatened and endangered species. A coordinated and comprehensive approach would aid the regulatory agencies, the applicant and its representatives, and the interested parties and general public consider and mitigate the environmental impacts of the project as a whole, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This section is intended to supplement the applicant's environmental checklist with information from Development Review Division sources and comments and to analyze the proposal in order to identifY potential environmental impacts, Information available the environmental checklist is not repeated in this document unless it is necessary to do so as part of staff's analysis, Earth The project is primarily located over water and the bedlands below, The effects of the construction on the bedland soil have been partially addressed in the BE. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to earth may be necessary. Air: No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to air is not necessary. Surface Water: The effects of the construction on the surface water have been partially addressed in the BE, The HP A to be issued by WDFW and other permits issued by other agencies will further address concerns about impacts to surface water. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to surface water may be necessary. Ground Water: Potential significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified and addressed in the checklist and the BE, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to ground water may be necessary. Plants: Impacts to nearshore and aquatic vegetation have been addressed in the BE. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to plants may be necessary. Animals: Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook are federally listed as threatened species, These species may utilize the subject property shoreline and associated riparian habitat. The proposal is located within the jurisdiction limits of the Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP), and as such, the project shall be in conformance with the policy and performance standards of the SMMP, Impacts to fish and wildlife have been addressed in the BE. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to animals may be necessary. Energy and Natural Resources: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified, No mitigation measures are recommended, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to energy and natural resources may not be necessary. Environmental Health: Possible significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified and addressed, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to environmental health may be necessary, DS Memo SDPOO-00014 11/28/00 Page 6 e e Noise: Short-term noise impacts will occur during construction, The proposal is located near residential areas. Machinery shall be operated during daylight hours only, Potential noise impacts to Bald Eagles and other wildlife will be addressed in the final BE, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to noise is not necessary. Land/Shoreline Use: The proposal is located within the jurisdiction limits of the Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP), and as such, the subject project shall be in conformance with the policy and performance standards of the SMMP, HP A from WDFW and COE approval are also required for this project. Housing: No additional residential units will be provided to the existing units located on site, No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to housing is not necessary. Aesthetics: The waterward view of neighboring properties on Scott Court will be affected by the proposed Marina expansion. Some aesthetic impacts have been addressed in the permit process, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to aesthetics may be necessary. Light and Glare: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to light and glare may not be necessary, Recreation: No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are recommended, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to recreation is not necessary. Historic and Cultural Preservation: No significant adverse environmental impacts associated with historic and cultural preservation have been identified, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects on with historic and cultural preservation is not necessary. No mitigation measures are proposed, Transportation: No significant adverse environmental impacts associated with transportation have been identified, though the Jefferson County Department of Public Works has suggested that minor reconfigurations of the parking design may be necessary. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects related to transportation may be necessary. Public Services: No significant adverse environmental impacts associated with public services have been identified. Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects on public services may not be necessary. No mitigation measures are proposed. Utilities: No significant adverse environmental impacts associated with utilities have been identified, Additional analysis of the proposal and its effects on utilities may not be necessary, No mitigation measures are proposed. DS Memo SDPOO-00014 11/28/00 Page 7 e e STAFF FINDING: Based on review of the Environmental Checklist and other available material provided on the subject proposal, Development Review Division staff recommends that the Responsible Official consider that there . may be potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposal as submitted, In order to coordinate an efficient and effective response from the applicant to address all of the concerns as expressed by agencies and interested parties, staff recommends that the County issue a Determination of Significance (DS) and coordinate the scoping process for a Supplemental EIS (SEIS), There are several factors that lead staff to this conclusion: . WDFW, DNR, DOE and other agencies and parties have made requests for additional information and raised significant concerns. . COE considers the draft BE dated July 6, 2000 insufficient for the purpose of reviewing the impacts of the proposed expansion to threatened and endangered species, . An SEIS with a coordinated scoping process would be the most efficient and effective tool to address and satisfy all the information requirements and concerns expressed by agencies and interested parties, . The final BE could function as a subsection of the more broadly scoped SEIS, addressing issues pertaining to the habitat of threatened and endangered species, . A coordinated and comprehensive approach would aid the regulatory agencies, the applicant and its representatives, and the interested parties and general public consider and mitigate the environmental impacts of the project as a whole. . Section 3,90 RESORT DEVELOPMENT of the MPR Code discusses the level of environmental review required before issuing building permits for any new resort development, including Marina expansion, According to Subsection 3,902 and Subsection 3,904, an SEIS to supplement the 1993 programmatic FEIS (or a new EIS) is required before the County issues building permits for any new resort development. Details on the scoping process for an SEIS are included in Subsection 3,904, Environmental Review for Resort Plan Development. . Mr. Rose of OPG raises the issue in his July 25 letter that accompanied the application materials: ", . ,I understand that [the County is] likely to issue a determination of significance and require the completion of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prior to making any substantive decision on this project. The SEIS would supplement the final environmental impact statement for the Port Ludlow Development Program dated April 12, 1993, and other environmental documents relating to the impacts of the Marina expansion project. The SEIS may be comprised of existing environmental documents, but may also include additional reports or studies" (page 2). Staff recommends the issuance of a Determination of Significance (DS) for SDPOO-OOO 14, DS Memo SDPOO-00014 11/28/00 Page 8 e e DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: I have reviewed and considered the referenced proposal, the environmental checklist, public comments, other available material, and the Development Review Division's staff memo and recommendation, I hereby: issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). issue a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS). $- issue a Determination of Significance (DS), determine that I do not have sufficient information upon which to make a threshold determination and direct the Development Review Division staff to obtain additional information on the proposal. Comment Period: This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2). Jefferson County will not act on the above-described proposal for at least fourteen (14) days from the date ofthis determination, Considering that the determination will be published in the December 6, 2000 edition of the Jefferson County & Port Townsend Leader, comments must be submitted by 4:30 PM, December 20, 2000 to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368. JJ~ yJ Warren Hart, AICP SEP A Responsible Official Date lI/zr/o(j , DS Memo SDPOO-00014 11/28/00 Page 9