HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog136
,...
.>f.
e
e
Josh Peters
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mo-chi Zoe Lindblad
Monday, July 29, 2002 11 :50 AM
Josh Peters; 'Ikeenan@reidmidd.com'
FW: SDPOO-00014
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanne & Peter Joseph [mailto:jjadv@olympus.net]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:07 AM
To: Mo-chi Zoe Lindblad
Subject: SDPOO-00014
To: Josh Peters
From: Peter Joseph
Date: July 27, 2002
Re: Case # SDPOO-00014
Having just gone through the Draft SEIS for the Port Ludlow Marina
Expansion, I would like to make the following comments.
I attended the scoping meeting held at the Bay club last Fall, and had
no
objection to what was being proposed at that time, even though I have
never
felt that they needed an additional 100 slips.There has never been any
justification to support that number, and no one has been able to tell
me
how the 100 slip number was determined.
At the scoping meeting, which centered around Scott Court, the deep
water
option, option two, was not one of the alternatives.I knew that the 1993
plan, option three was D.O.A. due to the need to dredge contaminated
soils. Now I read that option 2 would extend "A" dock 270' to the
south.
This extension would completely block the view of the harbor looking WSW
from the 7 townhouses located on Burner Point. Under Para. 3.6
"Anesthetics/ Visual Quality", the preparer of the SEIS failed to select
the townhouses as a key view or observation point, even though more
homes
were affected than were located on Scott Court Had he done so and
created
the simulated photograph like he did for the other three viewpoints, it
would be obvious that the extension would block our view. The view is a
million dollar view, and is perhaps one of the most spectacular views in
all of Jefferson County as you look down the harbor and see the Olympic
Mountains in the background. A more aesthetic view than that of Scott
Court. I consider the extension of A dock in option 2 to interfere with
my
rights as an adjacent property owner. It will definitely affect the
value
of my home.
As the
l~'-"~-l\.1l
I I C:.IVI
l:2lL__.__.......-.-,
,__.....L,_....._. _?_~--
As a person who has spent most of
can also point out some practical
mention
the expense
his adult life along the waterfront, I
problems to this option, not to
associated with construction in such deep water.
1
.f e e
preparer notes on page 3-47, para 3.6.1, 3rd para. ,when talking about
Burner Point "... .but also due to the nature of less protected and windy
promontory conditions...". The prevailing winter winds in this harbor
are
from the SSE. While Burner Point provides some lee to A dock when the
wind
is out of this direction, the extension will be fully exposed which will
create significant problems for both the docks and boats moored on the
extension. There are usually several instances each winter when the
winds
exceed 40 knots with gust exceeding 50 knots. I have witnessed the
present
outer wave wall on A dock move up and down as much 3-4 feet due to wave
action. The proposed extension would be more exposed because it extends
southward of Burner Point and will feel the full force of both the wind
and
seas, and I believe the probability of severe damage to both the docks
and
boats will increase significantly. My boat has been moored on the outer
part of A dock for the last 6 years, and I have spent many hours down
there
ensuring that the boat is properly secured as well as assisting other
boats
whose owners are absent from the area.
From an environmental point of view, I think this extension would have
an
adverse impact on the ability of the harbor to flush itself. Even the
existing marina entraps a good deal of flotsam which not only creates an
unsightly appearance, but also causes anoxia and ulvoid blooms. Also
the
extension would put large
close
to the Burner
area of beach
critical part
As
the proposed slips for the "A" dock expansion are designed for larger
boats, a commensurate increase in gray water can be expected which will
ultimately flow along the beach tidal line. There are also oysters and
clams located within the inter-tidal zone. Also the occasional, but
potentially devastating oil/fuel spills must be considered. A recent
study
concluded that recreational boats
petroleum products as was spilled
spills were pretty much contained
As
the eastern shoreline of the boat basin is already polluted from years
of
previous spills, the relative effect
harmful as small spills further out
beach at Burner Point as well as the
Admiralty Inlet.
boats with their gray water discharge very
Point Beach where the 1993 EIS highlighted this specific
as a sand lance spawning area which, as you know, is a
of the food chain for the salmon; still an ESA species.
annually spill three times as much
by the Exxon Valdez. Previously, fuel
in the boat basin near the fuel dock.
of spills in this area is not as
A dock that might contaminate the
pristine shoreline leading out to
In closing, I feel the best solution is a compromise by building out a
lesser number of slips that would allow the marina to expand to
accommodate
the additional Port Ludlow residents which is capped at 2250 homes, but
not
to such an extent that it overwhelms and destroys an absolutely
beautiful
harbor and its associated views regardless of the viewpoint. With the
exception of the long summer weekends, the present A dock almost always
has
a high vacancy rate throughout the year. The thirty or so underutilized
slips, as well as the side ties on the outer wave wall, along with 50-60
additional slips should provide this area with sufficient moorage for
2
..,.,. ' "1- ""- J'l}lI
f; 0".." ,.,',.,' ~ .' 1\"'''''''1' "
L 1\..;' I ' L-l
\ ,?lp,,-..-----.
_"c~'_-'.'~
/) O';?
. L--- '""', ,," -"~."..,,,,,,,,",,,,,,
~",,",-_...,~.....,~,-,,.,~---.,.
~,
e
e
.. the
foreseeable future.
Port
Ludlow.
and
then leaves the area, there should only be a need for 50 more slips.
The
Marina would still have an additional 50-60 guest moorage slips and side
ties; far more than most marinas. Given that the present marina tenants
are being used to fund the expansion through increased moorage rates and
converting the marina into private memberships, they will be grateful
for
not having to fund deep water pile driving.
Currently there is one slip for every 8 homes in
If 400 homes are to be built out before PLA hits the 2250 cap
My qualifications for making these comments are based upon my maritime
background including 25 years service in the Coast Guard, a Masters'
Degree
in Coastal Zone Management, a licensed master mariner , Past Commodore
of
the Port Ludlow Yacht Club, a long time boat owner, as well as a full
time
resident on Burner Point for the last six years.
If you would like to discuss this matter further, I am at your disposal.
3
L()(;:~ iTEIVt
)~lt
,.""^_.~~"".,-~""""",_=__.,..__o...",,.,........
--~,._._~~L._~