Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog071 e e Port Ludlow Marina Expansion EIS Scoping Meeting October 12, 2001: 2:00 p.m. Bay Club, Port Ludlow Attendees: Josh Peters, Jefferson County Department of Community Development (JCDCD) Lyn Keenan, Shannon Kinsella, and Juon Kim, Reid-Middleton Inc. Robert Stewart, Pentec Environmental (Pentec) Michael Dorsey, Greg McCarry, and Shari Hagey, Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) Jeff Schreck, Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Bill Clark Peter Joseph Paul Taylor-Smith Nancy Taylor-Smith Diggie Funke William Funke D.A. Routt Sandy Routt Vince Pace Herman Voss Clark Ruggles Dennis Madson Josh Peters, JCDCD, directed the community scoping meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for public comment on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared by Reid-Middleton and coordinated by JCDCD to evaluate and mitigate the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with Port Ludlow Marina expansion alternatives. Began with a background of the Marina expansion project and explained the procedure and history of the application process. Lyn Keenan and Shannon Kinsella (Reid-Middleton) described the original conception of the Marina expansion that correlated with the 1993 programmatic EIS for the Port Ludlow Resort. Keenan and Kinsella then explained project modifications from the 2000 application to the current proposed design. Paul Taylor-Smith asked if the new docks would extend in front of residential properties at Scott Court. Answer: the 200 1 proposed design would extend in front of the Scott Court properties. Keenan and Kinsella displayed and interpreted two Marina expansion graphic designs, one from 1993 and the current design which shows modifications from the design proposed in 2000. D.A. Routt expressed concern regarding boat traffic for residential properties. Asked if the reason the expansion was moving westward in lieu of southward essentially a financial consideration. Kinsella stated that southward expansion would be more expensive and that westward or lateral expansion is more cost effective and efficient. William Funke asked if Port Ludlow Bay is regulated by DNR or the County. Jeff Schreck, DNR, stated the DNR holds title to the bedlands and tidelands. Peters stated that Jefferson County (JC) co-administers the Shoreline Management Act with the Washington Department of Ecology and that the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and the US Army Corps of Engineers also maintain jurisdiction over certain activities. Funke asked if residents' rights end at the property line. Schreck answered affirmatively, but residents do have rights to ingress and egress. Taylor-Smith asked if there is a limit to the capacity the Marina can impose on the Bay. Peters stated that a capacity may be determined through the application review process, but that no such data or conclusion exists independently of an application, to his knowledge. Port Ludlow Marina expansion EIS scoping meeting I LOG ITEM #.1:1 1 ,I pg,age-Loff- e e Taylor-Smith questioned whether one landowner can utilize the entire Bay, making it difficult for other residents to get permits. Peters stated it is difficult at this time to get permits for projects such as private docks due to the listing of salmonid species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the consequent Federal scrutiny of proposals. Additionally, there is policy in the JC Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that concentrating overwater structure (i.e., docks) in one area is more desirable than spreading the impact over a larger area and that the area around the Marina is designated "Urban" in the SMP. Routt stated he felt the applicant has decided to expand without regard to the residents' riparian rights (view and access). Peters stated the residents' rights will be taken into consideration upon review and that some rights (access) are more easily defined and protected than others (view). Routt questioned the shaded area on the original expansion plan. Kinsella explained studies have shown that large square footages over eelgrass beds could affect marine life. Bob Stewart (Pentec Fish Biologist) explained that deeper water shading (40 ft) not as much of a problem because there is no eelgrass at that depth. Funke commented the residents are looking for alternatives to losing water frontage. He asked if all agencies needed to sign off in order to get an approval for an application. Peters/Schreck stated that most agencies will not approve if another agency has disapproved. Most agencies also have appeal processes. Routt asked if the answer would be approve/disapprove or could be approved at smaller scale. Peters stated plan could be modified through process review. Funke asked how the Resort expansion will impact the Marina area and how will this be addressed. Mark Dorsey (PLA) explained that the applicant will be doing a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the entire Resort area. This Marina portion was started first because there is a longer review period due to all the agencies involved and the complexity of shoreline/marine projects, particularly when there are ESA-listed species that use the area for habitat. The environmental review of the entire Resort expansion will be consolidated into one complete SEIS. Peters stated that these projects will not be isolated from each other, but will be considered together. Routt asked why 100 slips, why not fewer. Stated there are not that many names on the waiting list. Greg McCarry (PLA) stated that the 1993 programmatic EIS contemplated this expansion. There is a demand for additional slips, and with a remaining 450 lots to build, will bring additional boaters to Port Ludlow. Funke asked if there were regulations protecting property owners for this type of project. Feels the expansion will devalue his property. Peters stated that for the County the permit must be reviewed under the policies and performance standards of the SMP and the Unified Development Code. A permit could not be disapproved purely due to aesthetic reasons or for potential devaluation of private property. Port Ludlow Marina expansion EIS scoping meeting it Jage 2 LOG ITEM 7( Of+. e e SCOPING COMMENT PERIOD D.A. Routt 87 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. Lack of effort from the Marina staffto enforce pumpout policy. New policy which requires liveaboards to pumpout every two weeks is not enforced. 2. Fish habitat concerns. Salmon are starting to come back into the Bay. Expansion could have adverse impact. 3. 100 slips are too many. How many will be liveaboards? Lack of enforcement will harm environment. Agencies should require the Developer to provide better pumpout procedures. 4. When we purchased the property, the sales agent never mentioned the expansion. Wondering how the Developer could mitigate loss in property value. Paul Taylor-Smith 63 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. The Developer needs to explore expansion possibilities south of the Marina in lieu of west to secure marine life habitat and boat traffic for adjacent lot owners. 2. We purchased water view property, not Marina view property. We feel this project will cause a loss of value for our property. 3. We were never contacted by the Developer to address issues that were previously submitted. Bill Funke 75 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. Want to be sure the Scott letter has been presented and made part of the record. 2. We have lost 40' of our bank. Concerned the increased Marina traffic will cause further erosion. D.A. Routt 87 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. Diesel smell from idline engines in Marine is strong enough to be perceived at Scott Court properties. Concern the odor will increase with expansion. Jeff Schreck DNR 1. We require the Marina to be good environmental stewards. If the expansion is approved, will require additional pumpouts. 2. DNR does not allow liveaboards. Funke asked if there were enforcements for liveaboards. LOG ITEM it 71 )ag~ ?>_of '1-- Port Ludlow Marina expansion EIS scoping meeting << e e Schreck stated that individuals needed to report it to his supervisor and that it could be a violation of the aquatic lands lease. Herman Voss 60A Fairway Lane Port Ludlow 1. I question the difference between a view of the Marina vs. a view of a private dock. 2. I am in favor of Marina expansion, feel there is a need for 100 additional slips. End of Comment Period Josh Peters stated that the scoping comment period is open until November 2, 2001 and that written scoping comments regarding the EIS for the Marina expansion should be directed to his attention at JCDCD (621 Sheridan St, Port Townsend W A 98368). He is also available to answer questions about the permit process at (360) 379-4466. Copies of the completed scoping document will be available sometime after November 2. Questions followed regarding procedures for decision and the appeal process. Routt asked if Pentec WaS hired by the applicant and if it was possible to get a private study. Stewart replied yes, but that it was unorthodox and that Army Corps backlog is approximately two years at this time. Once the applicant submits the Biological Evaluation, it becomes the Army Corps' tool. With the level of scrutiny involved, including "consultation" with the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the US Fish and Wildlife Service, professional biologists/consultants cannot falsify or taint data to suit the client. Peters responded that if the decision is in question, an appellant is entitled to present evidence, including independent studies. Funke stated that it seemed apparent that all impacts were going to be considered except the individual property owners' rights. Feels his property will be devalued. McCarry stated that the plans for the expansion were stated in the 1993 programmatic EIS document. Peters stated that interested parties could contact Jerry Smith at JCDCD for information contained in the 1993 programmatic EIS. End of meeting: 3 :50 p.m. LOG TM . , '( Page 4 of..!- Port Ludlow Marina expansion EIS scoping meeting 4