HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog001
~thoughts on the six ideas presented bv Jon Rose ofORM:
1. Amend the MPR Ordinance and carve out marina from the overall
resort plan.
Drastic step because the MPR Ordinance is so new.
Would represent reneging on the MPR Ordinance to some PL folks.
Presumably would be politically difficult for the BoCC to consent to.
Would look like piece-mealing the resort plan even ifit isn't.
Would allow for haphazard build-out of the entire resort area.
Would require a Comp Plan amendment? See MPR 3.905(1).
~
2. Reduce the size of the resort plan in the manner allowed by the MPR
If this includes changing size or boundaries of resort zone, then a Comp
Plan amendment would be needed. See MPR 3.905(1).
Ifnot, would it be a major (3.906) or minor revision (3.907)?
Again, would be seen as reneging on 1999 MPR Ordinance.
Could face political resistance at BoCC level if MPR Ordinance is to be
amended.
Lots of paperwork to be completed.. .doesn't resolve EIS question, i.e.,
How substantial and wideranging an EIS would be needed.
Not clear to Jeff Co how reducing size of resort plan gets ORM more
marina slips, unless you trade more marina slips for less elsewhere.
3. Drop marina expansion until resort partner is found.
Leaves egg on the face ofORM, who will appear to be inactive.
ORM is entitled to meet the market demand for 100 or more extra slips
since ORM exists to make money and we agree that motive is ok.
Could delay the plan for years or decades, ORM wants it done sooner.
ESA and Shoreline regulations are only going to get worse.
Mv suggested order o.fpre.ference is 5-3-2-1-4-6. Do you agree?
I think we should stand firm on rejecting #1, #4 and #6.
LOG iTEM
#--1 .
Page-L-of \ d
4. Get state and federal permits for marina expansion now so as to give
project head start on ESA review.
Classic example ofpiece-mealing. Goes against MPR 3.902(1).
ORM would possibly end up doing two or more EIS's.
Motive to take this step would be that ESA, shoreline regulations
will only worsen over the next 3, 5 or 10 years.
How would ORM build the marina w/o also obtaining JeffCo approval?
What if the state and federal permits expired before JeffCo approves?
5. Do the EIS for the entire resort now.
Would comply with MPR 3.902(1), thus this is what JeffCO prefers.
Would be the most expensive route for ORM to take.
Would be the most politically acceptable to the BoCC
Would require ORM to speculate in a very expensive way on the future
success of the entire resort. To the tune of millions of$
Would require only one, admittedly full-blown, EIS now.
Do it sooner rather than later, get it in place before ESA, shoreline
regulations become more restrictive.
Would get the marina slips built.
Might tie down ORM to a plan for the rest of the resort that would in 3-5-
10 years not be commercially feasible or too "old-fashioned".
6. Have DCD staff make an administrative decision that Commissioners
could consider.
Don't understand what this means.
Unlikely Jeff Co could get to this point where an administrative decision
would be appropriate since the MPR Ordinance is so
explicit about what procedures and criteria apply to proposals
located within the MPR Zone.
BoCC would be most reluctant to do yet another "seat of the pants"
decision when it concerns something as touchy as the MPR Zone.
To do this would invalidate (in a general sense) the whole complex
mediation process that involved so many parties, and much time.
Amounts to piece-mealing.
What authority would permit going down this route, certainly not the
RCW or the Ordinances?
Would not answer the true underlying question that is giving ORM such
concern, i.e., what is the scope and the cost of the EIS that would
be necessary.
Subject to court challenge, embarrassing for the BoCC.
Warren Hart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
David Alvarez
Thursday, April 20, 200011 :51 AM
'faith lumsden'
AI Scalf
FW: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
Faith- We (the County and ORM) are really at a deadlock on the issue listed below. The
issues are described below, but the County feels that if it looks at the 100 slip expansion of
the marina outside of the context of an entire resort plan then the COunty is allowing ORM to
do piecemeal-ing of the resort plan in direct contradiction to the language of the Port Ludlow
MPR Ordinance. Section 3.904. The Ordinance reflects the deal that ORM came to with the
community regardless of whether the WAC's regarding SEPA allow phased review. Isn't that
how you would read it? I am writing to you because you were present at the table during the
talks that were memorialized into the Port Ludlow MPR Ordinance.
I would appreciate your comments in this regard and would further appreciate receiving
them before 10 AM on Tuesday, April 25th because ORM has applied for a pre-application
conference and I want to resolve this with their Seattle-based lawyer before I go to a 3-day
WAPA conference late next week.
Thanks, David Alvarez. Phone #360-385-9219.
-----Original Message-m-
From: David Alvarez
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 11:54 AM
To: 'jon rose'
Cc: 'faith lumsden'
Subject: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
Jon-
I am informed that ORM will be present at the County Dept. of Community Development
for a pre-application hearing on May 3 at 9:30 AM. I am further informed that the subject of
this pre-application meeting is to discuss the process of applying for and obtaining the
necessary County permits for an expansion of the marina by 100 slips. I am also informed
that at the planner-to-planner level there is some disagreement between County staff and
ORM staff as to what type of EIS, if any, would be needed with respect to the plans to add 100
marina slips. I was told that ORM felt an "addendum" to the existing EIS would be enough and
the COunty felt such a proposal would require a "supplemental" EIS.
This matter has been discussed in some detail by the County with me.
I was also under the impression that attorney DeMarco from Tremaine, Wright, et al
would contact me about this last week. He or she never did.
It is our conclusion that Port Ludlow-MPR Ordinance Section 3.902, item #1, is
controlling. (See page 20 of 26.) That section suggests that at a minimum there should
1
~o ~ieceniealil)g. This proposal for 100 slips (which apparently is a freestanding and sole
application with respect to the Port Ludlow resort area) appears to be precisely an attempt to
piecemeal.
Section 3.902 of the MPR Ordinance also states that a supplemental EIS is needed
"prior to issuance of building permits for any new resort development." This only serves to
dovetail with what is in Section 3.904 of the MPR Ordinance, which again speaks of a
Supplemental EIS.
These are the concerns and the questions that will be posed to ORM staff at the pre-
application hearing. I see the language of the MPR Ordinance as quite straightforward in this
regard. Pleasee take these statements under advisement, discuss them with your attorney if
need be and contact me before the pre-application meeting if any questions or concerns arise.
I generally DO NOT attend pre-application meetings. I am at (360) 385-9219.
Please also write back with your list of phone numbers, as I can't seem to find them.
David Alvarez
2
~
.
Warren Hart
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
David Alvarez
Monday, April 24, 2000 9:15 AM
Randy Kline
AI Scalf; Warren Hart
FW: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
Colleagues:
Here are some messages that relate to the stand-alone marina
project. It appears that Faith has truly done her homework and found
statutory and ordinance language that prevents the piece-mealing that
ORM is trying to to move forward with. I know you guys are busy but
these two messages from Faith are well worth the reading as are my
brilliant (?) e-mails too. You should read everything.
David Alvarez, Extension 219.
-----Original Message-----
From: Faith Lumsden [mailto:flumsden@whidbey.com]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 9:20 AM
To: David Alvarez; 'jon rose'; marcodesaesilva@dwt.com
Cc: Al Scalf
Subject: RE: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
Jon and Marco - In reviewing the ordinance and David's message below,
please also take a look at RCW 36.70A.362. During our mediation
sessions,
one concern of several community members (and of mine) was that there
was
not a formal or designated "resort plan" and that infrastructure
impacts
had not been fully considered and mitigated. 36.70A.362(4) and (5).
The
group, particularly the environmental parties and the north bay
residents
originally wanted the environmental review done BEFORE the resort plan
was
approved. They bought into the very large scale maximum buildout seen
in
section 3.901 of the ordinance because they were assured that nothing
would
get built until full environmental review had been completed. There was
a
great desire from parts of the group to pin down what really comprised
the
resort plan. FL
-----Original Message-----
From: David Alvarez [mailto:dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 8:46 AM
To: 'jon rose'; 'faith lumsden'; 'marcodesaesilva@dwt.com'
Subject: FW: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
Colleagues:
I am forwarding to Jon Rose and ,the legal staff for ORM at DWT
the
1
followirl9. memo which explains the thinking of Faith Lumsden. I agree
with
Faitp that although the resort can be built in phases, that can only
occur,
according to the MPR Ordinance, after SEPA review of the entire resort
plan,
which in its present form (MPR Ordinance 3.901) includes 17 items. The
alternative is to have ORM change the resort plan so that the marina is
the
sole and entire resort plan. Then, there will have to be a major
revision to
the resort plan if other proposals are to someday be built at the resort
area.
Again, I would argue that ORM and the community reached the
agreement found in the Ordinance and that the marina proposal (as put
forward at this time) would not be in compliance with that agreement.
In light of the above, I would hope that ORM would reconsider
its
proposal for the expansion of the marina as that proposal now exists,
i.e. ,
free-standing from any other proposal for the resort area.
Note to Marco- Do we still need to talk on Tuesday at 2 PM? It
seems all the possible positions have been laid out by everyone
including
Faith.
On a separate front, the Development Agreement moves to public
hearing on May 1. Let us put on the back burner any disagreement we
might
be having about the marina proposal until after that public hearing.
Note to Faith--If there is money left in your contract and if
time
permits, it probably would be good for you to be present at the public
hearing for the Development Agreement.
David Alvarez
360 385 9219
-----Original Message-----
From: Faith Lumsden [mailto:flumsden@whidbey.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 2:13 PM
To: David Alvarez
Cc: Al Scalf
Subject: RE: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
David, I think you are right, the marina expansion is included in what
the
group discussed as part of the Resort Plan. Allowing the marina
expansion
to proceed without meeting the requirements for a Supplemental EIS does
not
fit very well with the language in section 3.9. As I recall, the
mediation
group did discuss what would happen if the Resort Plan changed and we
looked
at two instances. First, if they wanted to do more than what was set
out in
the ordinance at 3.901, they would have to go through either a major or
2
re~ision process
For 9hanges that were within the parameters set out in 3.901, but
smaller,
there was acknowledgement that the SEIS, if already done, would cover
the
smaller projects. If the SEIS had not been done already, then it (the
SEIS)
could be scaled back to address the smaller plan. We talked about a
smaller
plan, but not one quite this small (marina only) .
I do not see an alternative to requiring an SEIS or new EIS prior to or
as
part of the marina expansion. Section 3.902 (1) and (6). And the SEIS
needs to cover the actual Resort Plan, not just the marina expansion.
But, here are a few thoughts. The easy way out - in the short term - is
to
revise the Resort Plan so it only includes the marina expansion. They
still
have to do an SEIS, but only on the marina, not on the whole resort.
Not a
bad solution - - except they would have to go through a major revision
process later, when they want to do the rest of the resort.
The ordinance clearly allows phasing the resort buildout, after
completion
of the full SEIS and approval of the full buildout plan. (Remember DCD
has
to issue a report with any required changes or mitigating conditions as
part
of the SEPA review). I suppose it might be possible to scope an EIS
that
lays out a phasing plan, identifies areas of current concern, but does
not
include analysis of the issues except for the first phase, the marina.
It's
a bit iffy, but may deserve closer analysis. I want to avoid
piecemealing
the review, but certainly understand their desire to expand the marina
without doing a full Resort Plan EIS.
Still the ordinance says and the mediation group expected that the
Resort
Plan would get full review before individual pieces of the resort
buildout
were undertaken. I think the ordinance is very clear on that point. I
expect to be in the office Monday morning, please give a call if you
want to
discuss this.
Re the development agreement, I will be sending over my final report to
the
Board and will cc you. I understand the hearing is set for May 1 at
2:00.
Katherine Laird called to see if I was planning to attend. I have not
heard
that I am particularly needed, and so am not currently planning to
attend.
I expect Katherine will also want to talk about the marina expansion
question. Please let me know if it is all right for me to pass on my
3
thoughts to her.
----~Original Message-----
From: David Alvarez [mailto:dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 11:51 AM
To: 'faith lumsden'
Cc: Al Scalf
Subject: FW: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
Faith- We (the County and ORM) are really at a deadlock on the issue
listed below. The issues are described below, but the County feels
that if
it looks at the 100 slip expansion of the marina outside of the context
of
an entire resort plan then the COunty is allowing ORM to do
piecemeal-ing of
the resort plan in direct contradiction to the language of the Port
Ludlow
MPR Ordinance. Section 3.904. The Ordinance reflects the deal that ORM
came to with the community regardless of whether the WAC's regarding
SEPA
allow phased review. Isn't that how you would read it? I am writing to
you
because you were present at the table during the talks that were
memorialized into the Port Ludlow MPR Ordinance.
I would appreciate your comments in this regard and would
further
appreciate receiving them before 10 AM on Tuesday, April 25th because
ORM
has applied for a pre-application conference and I want to resolve this
with
their Seattle-based lawyer before I go to a 3-day WAPA conference late
next
week.
Thanks, David Alvarez. Phone #360-385-9219.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Alvarez
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 11:54 AM
> To: 'j on rose'
> Cc: 'faith lumsden'
> Subject: PORT LUDLOW-MARINA EXPANSION
>
> Jon-
>
> I am informed that ORM will be present at the County Dept. of
> Community Development for a pre-application hearing on May 3 at 9:30
AM.
> I am further informed that the subject of this pre-application meeting
is
> to discuss the process of applying for and obtaining the necessary
County
> permits for an expansion of the marina by 100 slips. I am also
informed
> that at the planner-to-planner level there is some disagreement
between
> County staff and ORM staff as to what type of EIS, if any, would be
needed
> with respect to the plans to add 100 marina slips. I was told that ORM
4
> felt cl.n "adCiendum" to the existing EIS would be enough and the COunty
felt
> su\=h a proposal would require a "supplemental" EIS.
>
> This matter has been discussed in some detail by the County with
me.
>
>
> I was also under the impression that attorney DeMarco from
Tremaine,
> Wright, et al would contact me about this last week. He or she never
did.
>
>
> It is our conclusion that Port Ludlow-MPR Ordinance Section
3.902,
> item #1, is controlling. (See page 20 of 26.) That section suggests
that
> at a minimum there should be no piecemealing. This proposal for 100
slips
> (which apparently is a freestanding and sole application with respect
to
> the Port Ludlow resort area) appears to be precisely an attempt to
> piecemeal.
>
> Section 3.902 of the MPR Ordinance also states that a
supplemental
> EIS is needed "prior to issuance of building permits for any new
resort
> development." This only serves to dovetail with what is in Section
3.904
> of the MPR Ordinance, which again speaks of a Supplemental EIS.
>
> These are the concerns and the questions that will be posed to
ORM
> staff at the pre-application hearing. I see the language of the MPR
> Ordinance as quite straightforward in this regard. Pleasee take these
> statements under advisement, discuss them with your attorney if need
be
> and contact me before the pre-application meeting if any questions or
> concerns arise. I generally DO NOT attend pre-application meetings.
I am
> at (360) 385-9219.
>
> Please also write back with your list of phone numbers, as I
can't
> seem to find them.
>
> David Alvarez
>
>
>
5
.
Warren Hart
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David Alvarez
Friday, June 09, 2000 9:39 AM
AI Scalf; Warren Hart
FW: Marina SEPA
Al and Warren- I haven't read this message yet from Jon Rose, but
which ever one of you is coming to the meeting on the 13th at 1:30 PM at
our office should read it and be prepared to discuss with me in some
detail before that date. David A. Extension 219. Phone now working.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Rose [mailto:Jon@orminc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:31 AM
To: 'dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us'
Cc: 'flumsden@whidbey.com'
Subject: Marina SEPA
> David,
>
> You requested I give you some background to help prepare for our
upcoming
> meeting on the Marina Expansion project. Following is some history
and
> several potential approaches we could potentially take in moving
forward
> with the marina expansion. Again, the purpose of the meeting is to
get
> help and input from the group in exploring potential avenues for
moving
> forward.
>
>
> Marina Occupancy
> Throughout most of the 1990's the marina has not been fully occupied.
> When our current manager went to work in 1995, there was about a 20%
> vacancy rate. The rate reached 100% for the first time in February,
1999.
> Since that time our waiting list has grown steadily. At last count
the
> number was over 180, with a mix of residents and non-residents.
>
> No doubt, a significant number of those on the list will fallout,
> however, the shortage of marina stalls is a strong, puget Sound trend.
>
>
> Mediation
> The growth of the waiting list began during a time when mediation was
> either still underway, or at least still current. We were
unfortunately
> focused on the "grand resort plan" and did not notice or think to
carve
> out the marina which had previously been studied in the programmatic
EIS.
>
>
1
> Respon~e to'Community Pressure for Action
> Following adoption of the zoning coded and passage of the appeal
period,
> we began receiving strong pressure from the community to begin
development
> activities. The community had just come through 3.5 years of
"planning,
> talking, and schematics" and did not understand why OPG was taking so
long
> to get any construction underway. (AI Scalf and Glen will remember
one
> public meeting of the PLVC in particular where this issue was stressed
> rather forcefully) .
>
> As we reacted to the public input, it seemed the marina expansion was
one
> area that could move forward because:
>
> * It would not conflict with or depend on future potential changes
to
> the resort site plan.
> * There was a demonstrated market demand such that if the
remaining
> resort features were never built, the economics would still support
the
> construction.
> * The project would be viewed favorably by the community as a
whole as
> showing good faith in going forward with those portions of our
development
> where it could be justified. Also, the Yacht Club, an influential
group
> in the community would be pleased to see the boating related activity.
> * Our attorney felt (and still feels) that the marina could be
> justified with the codes as they are currently written, without making
> amendments etc.
>
>
> Public Involvement
> As part of our commitment to the community, we promised to roll
project
> out before them before we ever went in for permits. As such, we've
> specifically presented the marina expansion at the following meetings:
>.* Before the PLVC Board 3 times
> * Before the PLVC Development Standards Committee
> * Before the Port Ludlow Yacht Club
>
> In addition, we've:
> * Put up copies of the site plans requesting input at the Beach
and
> Bay Club for 2 months (they are still there).
> * Placed articles in the Port Ludlow Voice requesting input in 2
> articles.
>
> To date, we have not heard any opposition to the project (no
guarantees
> that there won't be any of course) .
>
> Army Corps Processing
> We've had much input (meetings, etc) with the Army Corps, other
federal
> agencies, and State DFW. So far, the reaction to the project is
2
> Ideas for Processing
> Following are some ideas (in no particular order) we'd like to explore
> with you:
~ .. ISJ*
l-. of
> the resort plan.
~) Reduc~ng the s~ze of the resort plan as described in the zoning
~~de~~ ~~til resort partner is found and a plan put in 4. 'D~
> Aace
~ ~~ Submitting for state and federal permits only to at least give. . -,
t~ --- ~ r'
> ~*....o 'Deoctthr~eevEieIwS a head start: on the ESA-review-. ~ '^-- ~ - J
) ~:~ for the entire resort now
~ {~ Have staff make an administrative determination that (depending
on
> its finding) could be brought before the County Commissioners for
> discussion.
.,
positive'. .
> The only caveat is that processing under ESA is going eQ be
exc:;ruciatingly
> long. This is another reason to begin the processing of the marina
sooner
> rather than later, such that the "tail" is not wagging the dog as far
as
> overall permits are concerned.
>
Amending the zoning code to carve out the marina from the rest
>
> I hope this is helpful in preparing for our upcoming meeting. Please
feel
> free to forward this email to other county staff that will be
attending
> this meeting. Let me know if you have further questions or comments.
See
> you on the 13th.
>
> Jon
3
~
~
)
r