HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog166
.
"
/I~
,.
e
. Jerry Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Josh Peters
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 8:30 AM
'jjadv@olympus.net'
RE: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion FEIS
Hello Mr. Joseph:
I have forwarded your concerns to the Al Scalf and Jerry Smith of the
Department of Community Development, as well as the consultants who
prepared the SEIS and Messrs. Dorsey and McCarry. I would encourage you
to participate in the EIS process for the Resort Plan, of which this
Marina expansion SEIS is a component. Jefferson County will not issue
any permits with regard to Marina expansion until that process is
complete.
The US Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
also have permits or approvals to issue before Marina expansion can
occur. You may wish to deliver you sentiments to those agencies.
Regards,
Josh Peters
----Original Message-----
From: Jeanne & Peter Joseph [mailto:jjadv@olympus.net)
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 3:20 PM
To: Josh Peters; btclark@cablespeed.com; wgfunke@olypen.com; Joseph,
Peter
Subject: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion FEIS
I have reviewed the FEIS and take exception to some of the comments and
conclusions contained therein.
The idea that the views from the ground floors of the townhouses being
partially obscured by topography is in error. I invite you to my front
room anytime to observe for yourself. Both the photograph on page 3-7
and
the virtual photographs in figure 25 are taken at extreme low tide. The
floats at the time of the photographs are approximately 141 lower than
they
are at high tide. My boat is one of those in the pictures. With the
exception of fog, I can observe some part of my boat all day, every day.
On page 2-6, it states: liThe Port Ludlow Marina is at full capacity, and
there is an increased demand for both more boating facilities and larger
slips to accommodate larger boats. The Marina now turns away
approximately
30 vessels each month between Memorial Day and Labor Day.1I
1
e
LOG ITEM
,-.1 ~G ______
I of 0
-""""'-<~.._- --U_.
.,
~f
,A
',>>.
e
e
The "-1arina is not full. I was told only a week ago that they had 33
· vacancies. I know of one 43' boat that has left since then, and another
431 boat that is leaving as soon as their house closes. The above
number
does not include the slips available on A dock which is the guest dock.
By
my count you can fit about 60 boats on A dock, depending on size.
Thus,
if demand was there you could instantly accommodate 93 boats without any
expansion. I have moored on A dock going on seven years, and with the
exception of the three summer holiday periods, it is not even close to
being full the rest of the summer. Additionally, permanent tenants
often
sign over their slips to the Marina while they are out cruising. The
incentive for doing this is the 50% split in revenue sharing. Thus the
turning away of 30 boats a month is in error. The only way for this to
occur is if a yacht club calls and wants to bring a group of boats in on
one of the holiday periods. The inability to handle them on those
specific
holidays is then averaged out as if they were continually turning away
boats. This is a incorrect statement.
The new plan for the marina expansion, alternate 5 will not work.
Attempting to navigate in past the new proposed N-S extension of the
wave
wall closest to Burner Point when boats are moored there is fraught with
danger. A number of boats go aground there every summer, and this will
make it an even tighter squeeze, especially sailboats. Keep in mind
that
this is the only way in to the fuel dock. Secondly, all the gray water
and
any other unintended pollution is going to drift down on the sand lance
spawning area just to the east of Burner Point foundation. This will
happen regardless of the state of the tidal current. Now, that we
finally
have coho migrating back to Ludlow Bay Creek, this is not the time to be
placing more obstacles in their path.
Lastly, no one ever explains how the number 100 slips was derived. The
author keeps referring the reader to the 1993 Programmatic EIS. That
document doesn't explain it either. I believe the number was
arbitrarily
determined. While I feel a modest expansion is necessary to meet future
needs, I believe the number to be at 60 or below to accommodate future
residents and 20-30 guest boats. This assumes proper management of
existing space.
I want to be sure that the residents of Burner Point are afforded every
opportunity to exercise their rights to oppose the eventual build out
until such time as a more realistic solution is agreed upon. There is
no
need to pave over Port Ludlow Harbor to benefit phantom guests.
l~
~
2
1-