HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog074
,.
SENT BY:PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES: 11- 1- 1 9:28AM
~ -
e
11
h.
DATE
FROM
TO
COMPANY
REMARKS
1 360 4372522->
PORT LUDLOW
ASSOCIATBS LLC
3603794451:# 1/ 2
FAX TRANSMITTAL
--
l\ oW \ - -0 \
\ OF-L-PAGES
~~ \2. ~~~~E:--
'--~~ J(~~
I~O{ JY
FAX#
~u.o "11. 44z; L
(~~~T +1/ ~ ~O~ +D
~~A c~~ '~A'?tr~6r'
~~
A
70 BREAKER LANE, PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365. (360)437-2101 · WWW,PORTWDLOW
Page
."
,..
-.;
, SENT BY:PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES:11- 1- 1 : 9:28AM :
~ ~ ~
1 360 4372522--
e
3603794451:# 2/ 2
"
" To whom it may concern,
We would like to let you know our concerns about the marina As we
belong to the kayak club and have 2 kayaks on the kayak doc~ we are
interested in the future of the marina. The kayak club is very active and
many of the members paddle out twice a week all year long.
We would like to see additional dock space as there is a waiting list
for a rack. It would be fme if the dock was in deep water as we can get into
our kayaks from any spot. It would also be wonderful if there could be a
canopy over the kayaks. They are stored upside down and the sun does
tremendous damage to the Kevlar and fiberglass, shortening their life span.
Thank you so much for your interest.
Hilda and Michael Cahn
104 Wells Ridge Court
360-43708223
LOG ITEM
'l,q ,
,,:gecr- of1f-
e
Novemb~r 1, 2001
e
I [is) lE (G [E n WI lE ~ ~]
lf11 .. 1. i1V1
I
I
JEFFERSON COUNTY i
L D!:'J'T. OF COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENU
William G. Funke
75 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Mr. Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Dear Mr. Peters:
After reviewing your Memorandum of November 28,2000 to Mr. Warren Hart and your
statements at the October 12,2000 Marina Expansion EIS Scoping Meeting, I would like
to offer additional comments to my and Mrs. Funke's letter of September 20, 2001
protesting the Port Ludlow Associates Marina Expansion Plan as now proposed on the
following:
VIOLATION OF MASTER PLANNED RESORT ORDINANCE #0-10-1004-99
First and foremost, I believe County is proceeding with the Marina Expansion EIS
process in violation of requirements stipulated in the Port Ludlow Master Planned
Ordinance #0-10-1004-99, specifically:
Section 3.902, Paragraph 1. "Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be
piecemealed or broken into small segments" and
Section 3.902. Paragraph 3. "Architectural drawings including a detailed site plan. and
architectural sketches or drawings showing approximate elevations, sections. and floor
plans are required, however, to ensure that the SEIS considers project-level details.".
Along with Mr. Greg McCarry, then representing Olympic Resources Management, and
others, I served as one of the County appointed "stakeholders" on the Mediation Group
charged with developing these Zoning Ordinances for Port Ludlow.
I can attest the Resort Development process, as set forth in Section 3.902, was agreed to
by all Mediation Group parties and specifically addressed and resolved the previously
deadlocked position differences between ORM and Jefferson County, i.e. the Planning
Staff and the Planning Commission, with respect to RCW requirements for a "Resort
Plan" prior to creating and adopting Ordinances for a Master Planned Resort.
The above-cited Ordinance requirements were formulated and must be followed to
evaluate the on -shore impacts of Marina Expansion to the ORM Resort Development
conceptual proposals or whatever Port Ludlow Associates now plans, not to the existing
Resort area structures and uses.
LOG. rn:1V1
: 7~
"'~e J Of_#-
e
e
Page 2, Mr. Josh D. Peters
The ORM Resort Development proposals were presented to the Port Ludlow community
and Mediation Group with artist conceptual paintings which illustrated major planned
changes in the areas immediately adjacent to the existing marina. These included an
outdoor amphitheater replacing the existing lake, the current marina parking lot area
replaced by four single family houses, a new restaurant on the current overflow parking
space and an under ground parking facility to be developed upland of the current marina
parking area.
It is also noted these ORM proposals were used during the Mediation to calculate the
Resort Plan limits set forth in Ordinance Section 3.901
F or the County to ignore the required Port Ludlow Resort Development EIS process
citing convenience of accommodating and scheduling the many involved government
agencies party, makes mockery of the Ordinance creation efforts.
PRIOR PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF WESTWARD MARINA.EXPANSION and
SCOTT COURT PROPERTY VALUE AND ENJOYMENT IMPACT
During the Marina Expansion Scoping Meeting, Mr. Greg McCarry claimed that I knew
about the Marina Expansion before I purchased my property. Further, Mr. Jon Rose
indicated in his November 6, 2000 letter regarding the concerns of Scott Court residents,
that the Marina Expansion had been fully discussed in the Port Ludlow Planning Forum
between 1996 and 1999.
Any conclusion from these McCarry and Rose remarks that I had any knowledge prior to
the January 1996 purchase of my Scott Court property, of the 1993 FEIS is incorrect.
There was no disclosure or discussion whatsoever concerning the marina or future marina
expansion plans during my personal property purchase negotiations with Mr. McCarry at
his Poulsbo office or with his broker.
Nor, for that matter, was there any mention of the Pope Resources / ORM plan to re-zone
my Rural Residential property as Master Planned Resort urban. This information was
first disclosed by Mr. McCarry at a September 1997 community meeting held long after
the Port Ludlow MPR designation and zoning negotiating process between ORM and
Jefferson County was underway.
I am also alarmed that the proposed Marina EIS Scope considerations do not include the
obvious property value depreciation to all Scott Court residential property if faced with
the traffic, sounds, and odors now identified with the existing marina.
Page 7 of your 11/28/00 memorandum to Mr. Hart lists "Aesthetics", but, as you stated
October 12th, no specific rules or County ordinances address "property value".
Irrespective, property value is a major concern of all Scott Court property owners, and, I
would suggest the County would not want to disregard our interests and be party to our
LOG ITEM
~l 7tf
,.,ge tf ofJL
e
e
Page 3, Mr. Josh D. Peters
financial and home enjoyment loss. The Marina is a Port Ludlow Associates commercial
profit center, not a neighborhood enhancement.
Aside from the above considerations, my wife and I are aware of the requirement for
more marina dock slips; although, I understand the slip waiting list now has only 25
persons.
It is our suggestion, therefore, that PLA consider an alternate plan to build any additional
docks to the south and outward from their existing docks and property. Although this
alternate might be more costly than a shoreline extension, most marina expansion issues
like shoreline, salmon runs, bay pollution, neighboring property encroachment and
devaluation would then, most certainly, be modified
Very truly yours,
//
~ -::---~--L.
William G. Funke
~--
CC: Mr. Grant Colby
Mr. D.A. Routt
Dr. Paul Taylor-smith
LOG ITEM
.j 7~
PC1ge > Of4-
-.
~
\
---.
\.
----
---
~.
'~~
~ ~\
\~ ~\
~z
~
~)--
~~
1.0
<0
~ ~
a <
~ ~
r;,!;la'd~
~.s
~~
~~~
e
P::
ril
Z
Z
t<:t:
H
P-i4-l
o
ril
E-i+J
t<:t: ~
H <1J
U S
O+J co
CJ) ~ '...0
CJ)rtl+J ("')
t<:t:0l~ co
<1J<1J+J0'1
...0;::; <1J
CJ) ~<1J~
P:: :>i 0 ~ :s:
ril;Jr-f+J
E-i~<1J(J) ...
ril;j:> 'D
P-i 0 QJ ~ ~
UOrtl<1J
. 'Den
o ~ :>-t..-r ~
O+J~~
::q en..-r <1J 0
CJ)~~..c:E-i
(' <1J;jU)
t-:.4-lS +J
4-l S r-l ~
P::<1JONO
~ I-J U 1.0 P-i
LOG ITE N1
'~"7<1 '
;ge (" Of-4c~
~'
~.
e
e
___-----.-..-...,-".=".''':::..~O.-.r':..--\
r;:.;-~T~-t \E ~ ~ l~ '\ f\ \
\~r .ov ~M
, ~RS6:t sO~~~TIOh,\EN\
D't:PT. Of SOMMUN\\ ' ~- .
...-....
November 2, 2001
Mr. Josh Peters
Department of Community Development
Development Review Division
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
RE: Application SDPOO-00014
Dear Mr. Peters:
I delivered a letter to you on October 11th that you confirmed receipt of via a return email. In that email, you
committed to "culling my information" for the meeting. In reviewing the minutes of the meeting, I see that some
issues where included and some were not. I have enclosed the body of the letter below and ask that all points be
considered for inclusion in the SEIS.
In addition to the issues I raised on October 11th, I believe there are other items of concern as well as new issues
raised by the representatives of Reid Middleton and Pentec.
1) According to the minutes of the meeting, the Reid Middleton representative stated that the reason for the dock
expansion to go west instead of south is strictly due to economics. It appears that the applicant is focused solely
on the economic feasibility of the project and not the impact to the marine life or the responsibility it has to
adjacent property owners.
2) The Pentec Biologist stated that deeper water shading would be less of a problem if the marina were expanded
in front of the existing docks as there is NO eelgrass at that depth. The expansion should be reconfigured to
take advantage of the mitigation of environmental damage by expanding south into the bay, not west along the
shoreline.
3) Mr. McCarry stated that the 1993 programmatic EIS contemplated an expansion. It is reasonable that if that
argument is to have any value, then their contemplated expansion should have included documented design. It
did not; for him to argue that there was no contrary opinion should be of little value.
4) Mr. McCarry stated that with 450 additional lots to build, there will be additional residents wanting slips. If
taken at a straight mathematical formula, the 300 exisitng slips vs total houses and condominiums currently
built does not equate for the need for 100 slips to450 additional lots. His math appears to be off by a factor of
five - six. Using his argument, there is only the need for 20 additional slips.
5) If the applicant is allowed to expand the marina in the manner they propose, they will have abridged our ability
and right to expand our dock (outward) to accommodate longer vessels. This would be a permanent restriction
for us and any future owner of our property. If the applicant were to expand southward our riparian rights,
ability to lengthen our docks and rights to navigation would be kept in tact.
6) We have used floatplanes to transport people to Port Ludlow. Currently we are able to dock a floatplane and
have the passenger deplane at our dock. The proposed expansion will permanently remove our ability to use
LOG ITEM
ILf
~::\ge '7
Of-tt__
"'.-
"
e
e
our docks for this purpose thereby restricting our rights to navigation. It is my understanding of current USCG
regulations that the right of way for a float plane supercedes all vessel activity.
Below is a recap of the letter I delivered on October 11 tit:
I) Currently the PL Marina has no official requirement of merit for "liveaboards" to use the pump-
out facilities instead of simply pumping wastewater overboard. It is abundantly apparent that
current residents of the marina who live aboard their' boats do not follow any guidelines - one
only has to "walk the docks" in the early evening or morning to witness black water discharge.
With the increase in number of slips, how will the management of the marina assure that 1)
"liveaboard" boaters use the pump out station located at the gas dock and 2) will the marina
management limit the number of "liveaboards" to minimize the amount of gray water discharge
into the bay?
2) Currently there is one pump out station located in the middle of the gas dock. Its location appears
to lead to little use due, in part, to accessibility. To provide for easier accessibility and increased
use, will the marina provide an additional pump-out station for the 430+ boats permanent and the
hundreds of transient boats that use the bay and marina each year?
3) The Port of Seattle, at it's Shilshole Bay Marina, has provided a special pump out for "bilges" that
boaters may use to legally clean the bilge water out of their boats. How will the marina owners
minimize the pump out of bilge water?
4) At low tide, it appears that the sea animals including rock and kelp crabs, sea stars, anemones, and
various fish are in limited number around the marina, yet, just west, we can see a multitude of the
above. It is reasonable that an assessment be made as to permanent damage the marina expansion
could have to the aquatic animals and plants including the salmon hatchery.
5) Similar to the points made in number 4, the tidelands north of the marina appear to be "dead" with
few or no crustaceans or bi-valves. Anyone walking the beach west of the marina will see an
abundance of shellfish, crabs, grass and kelp. Again, it is reasonable that an assessment be made
as to damage the marina expansion will have to the plants and animals that live in the tidal zone.
6) There will be an environmental impact to the aesthetic views of the bay and especially those views
from the landowners of Scott Court. How will the marina management address and mitigate this?
Respectfully,
SENT VIA EMAIL
Grant and Lori Colby
39 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, W A
Mailing address:
PMB 526
2442 NW Market
Seattle, W A 98004
Cc:
Mr. and Mrs. Funke
Mr. Paul Taylor-Smith
Mr. and Mrs. Routt
LOG ITEIVI
1/ j</ :.11
Page <( of J_.,
e
e
Paul Taylorsmith
63 Scott Court
Port Ludlow W A 98365
10/29/2001
I am opposed to the marina expansion.
J'--~ ,"'> ,
, ,., , II"\)
'/' L.J Ls II - g; !l h\, 7 .1'.' ~'.". '
!~. )ln~
IUl' .... I '"--"-'--11 j j
I Ii! ;/ II
! . U l NOV J. 2001 ! L.,.i(
; 1 j-
: ~;:._-,,-,_....-.
~tFrEP c:r: ;;j''''(.I(~;'7-
~.,__.__ Dr (~o,.,fi,1r!~/I~r':: "':'~;/('i,r\(_. ,_. _' ,~
--"--~:'JEI.~ri
Mr. J D Peters
Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend W A 98368
The addition of 100 slips will add significantly to the "gray water" pollution and shore
erosion in the bay, There has been no scientific study to determine the capacity ofthe bay
to handle additional pollution or wake formation, Further during the summer months
there are many "over night" boats in the bay. The average number of these boats should
be subtracted from the size of any possible marina expansion.
The developers have proposed extending westward in the shallow water. There has been
no significant evaluation of the possibility of extending the marina south. Any extension
in this direction would be into deeper water and have much less potential damage to the
bay floor and the shoreline. The shoreline to the west of the marina has already suffered
considerable erosion, particularly at Scott Court, I believe that at the very least the
developer should be required to do a full environmental impact study to determine which
expansion would degrade the quality of the bay to the least extent
In the studies submitted to date there has been no scientific evaluation of the "flushing
capacity" of the bay and until this is determined I believed it would be irresponsible to
grant any further marina expansion.
Specifically in regard to the residents of Scott Court. The expansion of the marina in front
of these properties will significantly affect the value of these properties, The private dock
at Scott Court will be adversely affected by making access to the dock extremely limited.
It should be noted that one of the arguments raised by the developer is the need to
maintain access at the east end of the marina, the same requirement should be given to
the dock at Scott Court, Further there is a desire to lengthen the Scott Court dock to a
length of 65-feet; permitting the marina expansion westward will make the very difficult.
In summary I do not believe that there has been sufficient analysis to define what the
capacity of the bay really is and how much more pollution and wake creation can occur.
Further there has been no analysis of the very heavy summer moorage that already occurs
within the bay,
LOG II EiV;
p~ge 1~ ofj9
e
e
Finally I think the residents of Scott Court have a right and expectation that their interests
be protected. Any marina expansion should placed directly in front of the property owned
by the developer.
Respectfully submitted
Paul J Taylorsmith MD
lOG ITEM
~'''' ;~ of 11
- "'~'~""';'-~'''''''''- ..~
,
.,
''''
,:
e
e
October 31, 2001
Josh Peters
Project Planner
Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
~_~~_""~~~;-_.:---'::;;--n~"-~"':ry"O" (i~;] r--"'\
\~ [~ .: ~:~~ ~1
\ I ~
, l..- IHFEESoNCOUNTYr;" (
OEPl OF~ COMMUNITY OFvtlO~J:~~l.J
Weare writing to address the scooping of the SEIS for the Port Ludlow Marina
expansion as purposed by the developer, Port Ludlow Associates. Our property lies near
the west end of the purposed expansion, adjacent to Mr. Funke.
Following are areas we feel need consideration and review:
1.) With regards to adjacent property owners, the environmental impact the
purposed expansion will have on privately owned tidelands and beach area
could be costly. Where our property lies we have an abundant amount of
oysters and clams on our beach. If the marina is allowed to expand to the
west, as they want to, what will be the consequences to our shellfish beds? If
you walk the beach area around the present marina, it is void of any amount of
usable shellfish life. With the size of boat slips PLA wants to put on the
westward expansion, this puts large motor yachts close to our beach area.
These large motor yachts will leave diesel exhaust slicks and possibly diesel
fuel itself to wash onto to our beach area. This would be destructive and
costly to our shellfish areas and eventually turn our beach into the present
beach area around the marina. For this reason, an alternative would be to
require the large slips to be placed in a more southerly direction or on the east
side of the purposed expansion. This would also prevent any further bank
erosion from boat wakes that has already occurred on the adjacent property of
Mr. Funke,
2,) In a memorandum from you, dated November 28,2000 you mentioned under
environmental assessment that aesthetics of the waterward view of
neighboring properties will be affected. I strongly feel this needs further
analysis and consideration. Also contained in your letter are comments from
other agencies, including Washington DOE, and their concern of "riparian
habitat enhancement" in upland areas adjacent to the proposed expansion.
What consideration is being given to waterward view of the adjacent property
owners? At the October 12, 2001 public scooping hearing, Shannon Kinsella
of Reid-Middleton indicated the reason for expansion to the west, instead of
it
t'!:;ge
"
LOG ITEM
1'1
1/ of_' '[
,..,'
,..
....
e
e
..
south was because it more "cost effective". The SEIS scope needs to consider
what is more costly, the impact to adjacent property owner views and possible
devaluation of their property, or a reduction in the number of slips to the west
limiting the impact to adjacent views. An alternative would be for the
developer, if they want a 100 slip expansion, to evaluate the cost of deep
water moorage/slips and keep in their "riparian lines of corridor", or doing
away with slips that encroach on neighboring views and limit the expansion to
a lesser number of slips.
3.) Strong consideration needs to given regarding the impact a 100 slip expansion
will have on the marine life in the bay. I have walked the docks at the marina
and have witnessed the dumping of raw sewage from "live aboard" boats. I
was a live aboard at the marina for 12 months and never saw some of the live-
aboards ever use the pump out. Some type of mitigation measure needs to
take place to assure that either live-aboards not be allowed or a strict pump out
policy enforced.
Respectfully
SENT VIA EMAIL
D A & Sandy Routt
87 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, W A
LOG ITEM
,J,:, '71
"~qe--1.~of_L~_
.
t
.-
.
e
October 12,2001
U\\o)1E (C IE n 'Wlr~:
lru OCT 11. 31111 l\J)
,l 0f
\ JEFFERSOf~ COUNTY
, DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVElOPME~T.
Mr. Josh Peters
Department of Community Development
Development Review Division
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
RE: Application SDPOO-00014
Dear Mr. Peters:
We are writing to convey our concerns regarding the scoping meeting on Friday October 12th. We are not schooled
in Environmental Impact Statements (or supplemental statements) nor are we willing or able to hire an expert to
write this document. We are also certain that several "experts" will compile a cacophony of concerns for your
review and consideration.
We submit the following list for review and consideration with regards to the required scope of the SEIS:
1) Currently the PL Marina has no official requirement of merit for "liveaboards" to use the pump-out facilities
instead of simply pumping wastewater overboard. It is abundantly apparent that current residents of the marina
who live aboard their' boats do not follow any guidelines - one only has to "walk the docks" in the early
evening or morning to witness black water discharge. With the increase in number of slips, how will the
management of the marina assure that I) "liveaboard" boaters use the pump out station located at the gas dock
and 2) will the marina management limit the number of "liveaboards" to minimize the amount of gray water
discharge into the bay?
2) Currently there is one pump out station located in the middle of the gas dock. Its location appears to lead to
little use due, in part, to accessibility. To provide for easier accessibility and increased use, will the marina
provide an additional pump-out station for the 430+ boats permanent and the hundreds of transient boats that
use the bay and marina each year?
3) The Port of Seattle, at it's Shilshole Bay Marina, has provided a special pump out for "bilges" that boaters may
use to legally clean the bilge water out of their boats. How will the marina owners minimize the pump out of
bilge water?
4) At low tide, it appears that the sea animals including rock and kelp crabs, sea stars, anemones, and various fish
are in limited number around the marina, yet, just west, we can see a multitude of the above. It is reasonable
that an assessment be made as to permanent damage the marina expansion could have to the aquatic animals
and plants including the salmon hatchery.
5) Similar to the points made in number 4, the tidelands north of the marina appear to be "dead" with few or no
crustaceans or bi-valves. Anyone walking the beach west of the marina will see an abundance of shellfish,
crabs, grass and kelp. Again, it is reasonable that an. assessment be made as to damage the marina expansion
will have to the plants and animals that live in the tidal zone.
Next page
LOG ITEM
# 7if
.PA~-of-.l~
,
e
e
6) There will be an environmental impact to the aesthetic views of the bay and especially those views from the
landowners of Scott Court. How will the marina management address and mitigate this?
Thank you.
Respectfully,
SENT VIA EMAIL
Grant and Lori Colby
39 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, W A
Mailing address:
PMB 526
2442 NW Market
Seattle, W A 98004
Cc: Mr. and Mrs. Funke
Mr. Paul Taylor-Smith
Mr. and Mrs. Routt
LOG ITEM
7tf
-'qe (V of It