Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog053 .. ~. . LOG ITEM # 5~ Page \ of~~<O EIS Seoping Meeting Port Ludlow Resort Plan July 16, 2003 At Port Ludlow Beaeh Club Begin time: 1:00 p.m. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING DCD Staff in attendance: Al Scalf, Director, and Jerry Smith, Project Planner. Proponent/Representative(s) in attendance: Greg McCarry, Mark Dorsey and Lynn Keenan, Consultant. Members of the public present who signed the guest list: Dale Witt, Dick Ullmann, Peter Joseph, Marilyn Wilson, Keith & Maggie Brown, Marge Canter, Carl Barden, Dwayne Wilcox, Carol Higley Saser, Esther M. Danere, OIly Gardener, Lynne Jones, Edward J. L Jones, Elizabeth Van Zonnerald, Helen Cotta, James Brannaman, Barbara Collins, Bill Collins, Bill Clarke, Bill Master, Judith L. Master, Kori Ward, Wm. Funke, Pat Rodgers, Gary Hegen, Lewis Hale, Ken Miller, Gregg Jordshaugen, Debbie Randall for Jefferson County Fire District #3, Frank Siler, Shirley Karnplean, Morrie Sorrells, Larry Nobles, D. A. Roust, Douglas D. Herring, Bob & Molly Balck, Everett Johnson, Clark Ruggles, and Rob Pflugfelder. [TAPE 1] JERRY SMITH: Good afternoon. Thank you for being here this afternoon. If you'll kindly take a seat, we'll be underway. First of all, we thank you for taking the time to be here this afternoon for the EIS scoping for the Resort at Port Ludlow. I like to first of all introduce myself. I'm Jerry Smith. I'm the lead planner for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort area. And then off to my left, Al Scalf, the Director and the SEPA Responsible Official. AL SCALF: Good afternoon. J. SMITH: And sitting next to Al is Lyn Keenan who is the consultant with Reed Middleton. Next to them is Mark Dorsey the project manager for Port Ludlow Associates. What I wanted to do to begin with this afternoon is to outline the purpose and intent of this afternoon's scoping meeting for this EIS for the resort development in Port Ludlow. And, first of all some background. Jefferson County determined during creation of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort that further resort development at the Port Ludlow resort complex would require an environmental impact statement. The purpose of this afternoon's scoping meeting is to invite the public to comment and also to promote public participation into the range of the proposed alternatives, mitigation measures and probable significant adverse environmental impacts to be discussed in the environmental impact statement. Because an EIS is required to analysis significant impacts only, scoping is a means to identify and narrow the EIS to the significant issues. Page 1 of 26 It is not a meeting to identify who is against or who is for any of the alternatives but rather an opportunity for the community to help identify impacts that need to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement. When the Department of Community Development determines that the EIS is satisfactory, then the draft EIS will be issued and circulated for review. The county will publish a public notice about the availability of the draft EIS and there will be a 30-day comment period for the draft EIS. So there is another opportunity for any reviewers to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the environmental analysis, the methodology used in the analysis, and the need for additional information and/or mitigation measures, so that improvements can be made to the EIS before it is finalized. We are recording today's meeting. Those of you who wish to provide public comments on issues, which need to be addressed in the EIS, are asked to sign-up on the speakers list so that you may have an opportunity to comment would you please come up. There is a public address system, and we ask you to do so. We ask that you please limit your comments to 3 to 5 minutes if you possibly could so that everyone has an opportunity to speak. If there are individuals representing association groups we ask that you designate a speaker for your association so that everyone has a chance to speak. At the end of the meeting, time will be made available for other comments. The other comment is that, as the lead staff person, Your comments and information obtained this afternoon will be used by the Department of Community Development in evaluating the resort plan application for consistency with the State Environmental Policy Act, the Growth Management Act, the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan. Written comments will be accepted until 4:30 on August 1. You are welcome to submit those in writing, fax or email. Testimony provided this afternoon and written comments will also be made available to the land use-consulting firm who will prepare the EIS under the supervision of the county. I'd like to again remind you that we are not here to answer questions this afternoon, but rather to identify any concerns or issues that need to be addressed in the draft EIS. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mark. MARK DORSEY: Thank you, Jerry. Good afternoon. Since Jerry covered a lot of the process information that I had covered previously in my other community presentation, you won't have to suffer through that. I'm going to focus mainly on just the proposed action and provide you with really the, refresher or redundant. I'm going to go over the proposed plan quickly and then I'm going to have Lyn of Reed Middleton talk more about the alternatives and those are found in the Supplemental EIS document itself. So, with that, remember that, you know, we had all the background information, which was the current Ludlow Bay Village plat. And then here we have what was allowed in the MPR code, and so this is a refresher at this point. This is a draft of everything allowed in the Master Planned Resort code. It's a draft representation of all the elements and activity in the resort. And so, the previous presentation we had we talked a little bit about some of the criteria that we looked at, staying within the platted boundaries of the Ludlow development, important for this area, developing something that was viable economically, providing something that was supported by a marina. And so we came up with the current plan. It has both a residential and a commercial element. There is the residential element that has growth in two areas. Page 2 of 26 I'll start with the north area first. You've got residential units up by the current conference center. We're going, Port Ludlow Associates will take over the conference center that will be dislocated by development by where our current construction trailers are and have our operations there. We're looking at constructing a maintenance operations building for laundry and maintenance services. Up in that area, providing a playground, potentially future parking between this area and throughout Marina View Drive, open for parking depending on what the parking study looks like. Coming down into the actual resort area itself, we'll be before the Plat of Bay View Village the final building not changing lots and staying within the private lots of Ludlow Village, not changing any of the open space, not changing any of the existing open space areas, working within platted lines and developing the residential units up along the bluff lots. We are looking at removing the Harbormaster restaurant and locating marina offices right now and developing the residential units along the lagoon as originally proposed in the original Ludlow Village plat. And, of course, having a commercial area down by the marina center and it's going to have a recreation building with an indoor/outdoor pool, sauna, spa and showers for the marina guests and restrooms. The restaurant basically is similar in size to the current Harbormaster for a seating capacity on the main level. Then the second floor will be a, we've had a letter of interest from the Port Ludlow Yacht Club for that space. And right now we're planning a third level to be more meeting space area. We talked about the expanded retail in the dock master's office. We have a separate office for Kori Ward and her staff for checking in and out boats so that it's separate from what is a more expanded retail office with a little bit more product from marine repair supplies to, you know, perishables. And then actually having the restaurant, not attached to that building but in the recreation center. We also talked about the current Inn, that we'd provide an esplanade, a boardwalk, between the Inn and the current relocated commercial area. And at previous meetings we've discussed operational and parking. That's going to be part of the study. And we talked about signage for beach access. And that will also be covered in the EIS. As far as an overview of product types, again we're looking at maintaining the New England Cape Cod theme for architectural look of appeal for maximum return. And we're also looking at a varied product type from the current 5 town home points in size from what's been adopted right now. And we have a summary of unit types, unit sizes summarized before was, we're looking at 2-story town homes between 1,300 and 1,500 square feet or stacked flats of about 1,200 square feet residential size. Commercial size, the restaurant will be somewhere like the Harbormaster. The recreation center will be about 7,500 square feet, so it's not a large facility. And then the maintenance facility will be about 3,000 square feet. So, I'm trying to be brief today compared to my usual long windedness because I want, this is your meeting today. So I just want Lyn to come up and present more of what our alternatives are, which will be our five reasonable alternatives look like when you read it. With that, Lyn would you come up? LYN KEENAN: I'm Lyn Keenan with Reed Middleton, we're the leading land use consultants, and we will prepare the EIS. Mark has explained the proposed project. The EIS will look at the alternative to the project as well as the project itself. The EIS will be a project level EIS as required by the MPR Code. We will look at the alternatives that have been chosen to date as well as past land use decisions and past land Page 3 of 26 use proposals that have occurred over the last few years for Port Ludlow. The first alternative would be that which was proposed in 1993. The 1993 plan which is shown on this board here looked at, on the handouts, if you picked them up, the 3-page handout, on the first page there is excuse me on the second page there is explanation of the different land use alternatives. And the 1993 plan is Alternative 2 and I'll briefly just go through the major elements of that alternative. There will be 186 residential units both in the Admiralty III area and in the Ludlow Bay Village area. One retail commercial building, the Heron Beach Inn, the Harbormaster restaurant in the current location, not in the, which is different than the current proposal, town hall facility, marina totaling 380 slips, the marina master's office, off street parking for 400 vehicles, open space. Those are the major components of that alternative. The third alternative UNIDENTIFIED #1: Excuse me. Do you have any more handouts? L. KEENAN: Are they gone? UNIDENTIFIED #1: Yes. L. KEENAN: I didn't bring any more. UNIDENTIFIED #2: I would like one too. AL SCALF: I don't have one either. (Several unidentified audience members ask for additional copies) J. SMITH: Make about twenty. L. KEENAN: Okay. Alternative 3 is the resort plan as reflected by the existing MPR regulations. The major points... this is the plan that is based on the conference center. The major components are a hotel with 275 rooms, a restaurant including one equilvant to the Harbormaster, one 200-seat restaurant and one 145-seat restaurant, a lounge, resort retail - 2,500 square feet, a conference center - 22,000 square feet, indoor tennis courts, indoor sports and pool complex, structured underground parking, museum or interpretive center, support building, a youth center, marina at 280 slips, an amphitheatre, the amphitheater would be located in this area, yacht club, four single family dwellings, one five unit townhouse, and the existing town homes in the Admiralty area. Basically, obviously the difference in this alternative to the proposed project is that the large conference facility is located on the north side of the marina. Within the EIS itself, the elements of the environment to be addressed are subdivided into 2 areas, the built and the natural environment. MPR regulations, of which is briefly known as the project level. In the EIS specifying those items which must be addressed are: The first item earth, including grading, erosion control, and dredging; water, including runoff and water quality issues, including those associated with marina expansion, and public water supply; Plants and animals, including impacts on fish and wildlife mitigation and threatened or endangered species; Land and shoreline use, including relationship to existing land use plans and estimated population, housing, light and Page 4 of 26 glare, aesthetics, noise with respect to potential amphitheater uses, recreation, and historic and cultural preservation; Transportation, including trip generation, traffic congestion, traffic systems, vehicle and pedestrian hazards, parking and spill-over parking; and lastly, public services and utilities including water, storm water, sewer and fire as it is related to building heights in excess of 35 feet. When this list was developed, it was developed consistent with the proposed plan at that time, which again is the large facilities plan. So some elements such as noise in relationship with the amphitheater won't be addressed in great detail because the amphitheater is not being proposed. The other item in the EIS is the EIS is prepared for the marina expansion. As you well know, that project cannot move over into an impact from the resort expansion or combined with the resort building so that fewer impacts can be assessed. So this document will pick up more completely some of the marina impacts found in the EIS, they will strive for cumulative impacts that are identified. Then after that, after this EIS, Port Ludlow can apply for a shoreline permit for the marina expansion. That's all I have. AL SCALF: Yes. Thank you, Lyn. Let's let Greg get those handouts out. Jerry, if you would get the sign-in sheet, please. I'll be going over the sign-up sheet. I will take those people in order of when you signed up and we'll go through the people that want to speak first and then if you want to raise your hand when we're completed, I will call on you individually, either for an initial comment or a second comment. When I call your name please identify yourself. GREG McCARRY: How many more? AL SCALF: Ten more, Greg. UNIDENTIFIED #3: Where is the sign-up sheet? I haven't signed it. AL SCALF: Right here. I'll get through it and I'll ask people to raise their hand for additional comment at that point, or even for a second comment. So when I call your name, please identify yourself for the record. Your name and address and if you represent any specific organization. Be clear. Be concise. Be organized. Be specific. Offer up and identify possible solutions. Okay? I will now open the public comment period for the scoping of the Port Ludlow Resort Supplemental EIS. The first individual is Dale Witt. Please come forward to the microphone. DALE WITT: My name is Dale Witt. I live at 20 Gamble Lane. UNIDENTIFIED #4: Could you use the mic please? DALE WITT: How's that? UNIDENTIFIED #4: Fine. DALE WITT: Alright, thank you. I represent the few people that live on Gamble Lane that feel there is an impact relative to us; the proposed project adding Admiralty III. So, I want to speak to that first. We have a concern for light pollution coming from the new proposed development and if I can get a different map. Page 5 of 26 The problem with this proposal as presented is the main street coming onto the approach to Oak Bay Road, which is located right there. What that does, when you come up that ramp and turn on Oak Bay Road, you're shining lights into all of these houses around Gamble Lane. And that light will be impacting those houses all winter long. And it is totally unacceptable. We'd like to propose that the approach is at capacity and be established on the other side of the conference center where there is already a road and approach onto Oak Bay Road. It would shine its lights into an area that there are no houses in it. It's trees and vegetation on the other side of the conference center. Next concern is traffic congestion on Oak Bay Road because there's three or four entrances in a very short distance all the way along there. Yes? LYN KEENAN: I couldn't see where you were pointing when you were talking about the light. Could you point that out? DALE WITT: This. LYN KEENAN: Okay. DALE WITT: There are three or four entrances onto Oak Bay Road. We feel that that traffic congestion ... I believe they're going to have a traffic study on this, but that needs to be addressed as well. With the density that is being proposed in here is considerably more than it was originally. And they were very much concerned regarding the runoff into the bay and the ensuing environmental impacts on the organisms and animals in the Bay. I'll talk about that later. But right now, in the winter time in that area in heavy rainfall events, there's standing water in there right now. So there is the great potential for runoff that needs to be addressed. We feel that there should be no runoff going into the bay and I assume that is what the rules and regulations address. So if there is runoff in the bay, there are some serious problems without a doubt. Now the town homes and flats proposed for this area is going to, we feel, impact the view of the residents, for many of the residents on Gamble Lane. Possible up to twenty-five percent or more view restrictions and we feel that needs to be studied and mitigations addressed for that. You increase the density, is also going to increase the noise level. We're immediately above that and we're very much concerned about the noise level throughout the entire life of the project as well as the construction phase. So much for Admiralty III. I had a couple problems for myself regarding the marina environmental impacts. The surface runoff is a major concern again here and that is going to impact the many species that are in the bay. They addressed it briefly in the 1993 EIS, but they didn't get into it enough. I feel that a most comprehensive study needs to be made of the marine environment, the animals and plants and animal surveys and health of the organisms. Probably what's going to be made is a baseline study to show what and where now because we've already seen significant deterioration from 1993 on the kelp and health of the animals and organisms both in the bay and Sound. I'm a fisherman; I spend quite a bit of time fishing. And I see more and more lesions on the bottom fish and its something that is quite insidious. I think that we need to sample these organisms and get a baseline feel for what's happened out there. Also, the sewer system outflow is right at the area where probably 100,000 pounds of crabs are harvested each year and we're feeding them in the outfall of the sewer system and I have a bit of a concern. I don't believe that's ever been sampled. Page 6 of 26 I think the bottom should be sampled for any metals or any other harmful organisms that have accumulated over time there and also probably the animals that are living in that area probably need to be sampled as well for their health and any possible contaminations. The current test for water quality needs to be expanded. Under the '93 EIS they're required to test for water quality in the bay and I have an idea that this needs to be expanded to a test of the organisms and animals in the bay as well. As a user of the marina, I have definite concern for the parking congestion that seems to be imminent given the density in the location of the construction planned for that area. I think others are going to be addressing some alternatives for that. The next thing I have, talking about density again, and the runoff created by density increase should be addressed under the current 2000 rules as they were not platted under the 1990 rules, if that's possible, because in 1990 they used the grass swales to absorb the water runoff that would otherwise go into the bay. But now, given the greater density, you're going to have, it looks to me like some of these soils that were used to justify the runoff in '93 are now being covered up with new construction. And the new density is going to put, I don't know where it's going to go, so I think that's a plan that needs to be thoroughly studied in the runoff phase of the EIS. I have copies of this. Do you want it? AL SCALF: Yes. Give it to Jerry please. Thank you, Dale. The next person is Dick Ullmann. DICK ULLMANN: Good afternoon. I'm Dick Ullmanm. I live at 203 Puget Loop and I represent the Trails/Natural Resource Committee of the Port Ludlow Village Council. Our committee has been grading this and the natural resources of our area and the surrounding environments. Our activities, however, are quite small in comparison to what you're dealing with today and all the EIS work. Those are rather sophisticated issues and while we are interested we have neither the expertise nor the inclination to tell you what to do on this, except our work in the past has been rather infinitesimal in relation to this. We built some houses. We attack noxious weeds. We build trails and try to let people know about the natural resources around us; today is a little bit too fast. However, we do want to convey to you as a committee of interested citizens our sincere interest in the outcome and deliberations and follow through and just give a plug to the importance of this planning and investigative process and potential impact on so many of the additional development of Port Ludlow. Our expertise only allows us to surmise the seriousness of the impact to not make a statement about it. Recently our committee has joined Washington State University to train a number of Port Ludlow residents as Water Watchers. And in this role we have been taking classes, we've been going on field trips, and each individual that does that will be getting $50.00 of individual service to check on the water quality and then report to the university. This peaks our interest in the topic of water, which is what I want to reiterate today as Dale has done. Additional development around the marina and inn could affect the normal operating of the bay and thus the quality of the bay's water and marine life. As Dale has pointed out, Ludlow Bay is important as a nursery area for Dungeness crab, as a fishery of adult crab, of populations of clams, mussels and oysters, and several species of fish that could be impacted. And so our message is this: please bring the expertise together for a critical analysis of the implications of Page 7 of 26 possible toxic runoff and follow-up with it for the long run. It is very important for future water quality. I would also like to believe that the end result would be a win-win situation. I think we can absorb new development and we can still enjoy a healthy waters of Ludlow Bay. So having said that, I thank you for this opportunity. AL SCALF: Yes, thank you Dick. The next person is Peter Joseph. PETER JOSEPH: Mind if I turn this a little so you can see it better? AL SCALF: Please do. PETER JOSEPH: My name is Peter Joseph. I live at 6 Heron Road within that perspective, I live here at the point of the town homes. I have a pretty good idea of what is going on along this spit. While we are in favor of continuing build out of properties and cannot support the new plan due to much higher densities. The increase from 80,000 square feet to 500,000 square feet is excessive for the area involved and is based number one on profit and population increase. Among other things, this higher density cannot be supported by the road and parking infrastructure. There will simply be too many cars in one spot and the planned hiring of a traffic consultant will be just another hired gun brought in an attempt to justify a poor situation. Which you probably already know from the last couple of community meetings. The excessive number of automobiles will create increased amount of polluted storm water runoff into the bay and affect the salmon runs that have just now starting to return to Ludlow Creek. Let me point out that salmon is still an endangered species. It will also affect the food chain in the bay, such as the sand lance spawning area in front of Burner Point, which is right off this beach here. As we meet, additional town homes are being built that have garages that are contiguous to the main roadway leading to the Inn. I'm talking specifically about right here. In fact, the road is going to have to be moved a slight amount as the garages actually extend into the current road. Trying to back out of these garages is almost suicidal as you are doing it blind. As people exit the Inn parking area they rapidly increase speed thus increasing the probability of a serious accident. The parking lot is right here. They're going fairly slow but as they start up here and go around this corner, they're picking up quite a bit of speed. The possibility of grandchildren darting into the roadway and becoming a victim is also a frightening eventuality. This road should at the very least be reserved for town home residents only. Inn traffic can be diverted along the waterfront, both in and out, through proper signage, and as previously proposed in one of their plans. Or a new entryway to the inn parking area can be constructed between Heron Road, the current roadway and the lagoon, which would bring them in here. MARK DORSEY: That road? PETER JOSEPH: That road that splits here. Additionally, other points for consideration must be the location of another propane tank field to handle any additional development. The one that we have now is located in here. It is only suitable for no more than 35 minutes. Page 8 of 26 Likewise, the use of the emergency heliport has been demonstrated on many occasions, and the lack of a designated landing area near the Admiralty apartments should be a concern to the community. However, the most significant reason for not building out in its entirety the proposed plan is that the lots around the pond in my opinion are not really build able, either for condominiums or town homes. An aerial photograph that has recently been provided showing the lot lines extending out over the waters of the lagoon. That was a surprise as I thought they would be abutting the revetments that have been installed along the edge of the pond. As such they are in violation of the county Master Shoreline Program, as Paragraph 3.6 of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement states ~AII future development within the Port Ludlow MPR (Master Planned Resort) shall be subject to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program in effect as of the date of this agreement. Also Section 3.904 of the environmental review, Resort Plan Development, of the Jefferson County Ordinance #08-1004-99, specifically addresses traffic, water runoff, shoreline use, and transportation within the resort development. Thus, there is no doubt in my mind that it must conform to the Shoreline Master Program. Additionally, as if that is not enough, the pond is designated open space, they could not infringe on or over the pond, as it would reduce the 10.5 acres set aside as open space. Referring back to the Shoreline Master Program, specifically Residential Development, Section 5.160, entitled Prohibited Use and Activities, ~Residential structures located on or over marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons, tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or water areas subject to this master program are prohibited." And under the subsection Policies ~Residential development should be designed at a level of density of site coverage and occupancy compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline area and consistent with density provisions of local plans, codes, and ordinances." Paragraph 4 further states, ~Over water residential development, including floating homes, should not be permitted." Paragraph 10: ~Subdivisions should maintain usable waterfront areas for the common use of all property owners of new development." Under Performance Standards, Paragraph 5 states ~Developments containing marshes, swamps, lagoons, portions of a floodplain, or similar wetlands shall use these areas only for the purposes of parks, open space, or recreational facilities." Paragraph 9 states ~The standard setback shall be 30 feet as measured from the ordinary high water mark. All setbacks shall be measured from the water ward most edge of the structure, excluding decks, etc." Moving on to the parking, the Shoreline Master Plan is very specific as to not building parking facilities near the waters edge, especially if practical alternative upland location is available. Further, it also states that parking facilities should not interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Lastly, the proposed commercial building located on the plan adjacent to the inn, this brown building right here, which is to be built up on stilts, so that people could park underneath it, will be an eyesore, especially to those people in the town homes now that would be looking Page 9 of 26 directly across the street at this new building setting up in the air. I believe that all of the commercial structures should be required to be built as part of the marina, that's down here, so we would have no problem. If the facts are true concerning, or correct, concerning the build out of these units over the water where it is not possible to do so, infrastructure would only support a more modest build out of town homes, probably would be within the scope of the Shoreline Master Plan and we could also support the commercial area, which is proposed down here. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Peter. The next person is Marilyn Wilson. MARILYN WILSON: My name is Marilyn Wilson. I live on 91 Drew Lane. I've lived here in Port Ludlow since 1972. I'm quite emotional about this. I'm very unhappy that you're going to be adding 34 more residentials to the plan over the 1993 EIS. That's all I have to say. AL SCALF: Thank you, Marilyn. Carl Borden. CARL BARDEN: Barden. AL SCALF: Barden. Excuse me. CARL BARDEN: My name is Carl Barden. Most of the environmental concerns is for other species. I'd like to speak on behalf of the species of which I am a part, particularly those who depend upon parking proximity. My wife used to play on the hillside as a child. I've only been around here for about 45 years. So I know some of the historicalness of this whole town since I've lived around here since before this project was no more than a dream in somebody's back pocket. My concern is this. My observation of the marina parking lot, it seems to be about two- thirds full every time, but I have seen marina parking when it was needed not here - people using this area up here in order to use the marina. Now there is currently one handicapped space down there. I'm sure there will be more. But I'm also aware they're talking about putting, enlarging the marina facility, additional probable staff, we're adding a third to the dock space, which we're enlarging the marina back there, we're putting a second story on, probably for the yacht club and possibly for the athletic, and a meeting room, and a recreational center. Now all of these uses, all these uses involve people who like to park close. If you look at the demographics of our community, most of us fit that category. And particularly those of use who do use the docks have a long walk once we get through the gate. And so, since I have had to rely on handicapped parking for some time and expect to probably for the rest of my life, I'm also very aware of our general demographics and the fact that we don't have enough parking down there now for the marina alone, and yet we're adding all these additional facilities that are all going to want close parking by the nature of what they are, not to mention the staff and the additional staff for all those facilities. In my opinion, this thing is just plain way under provided for in terms of parking. I've been a part of, in fact I've been the leader of organizations who had to provide parking in the past, and my experience if I recall is we had to figure 1.6 occupants per vehicle, which means a lot of parking. And, I don't see how you could possibly add all of these usages to this rather small area and essentially provide no more parking. And my understanding is that the occupied units have adequate parking for themselves. Page 10 of 26 But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the functional uses that are planned for this area down here. And I think we've got a real difficulty here unless the developers intend to provide some sort of shuttle service to some off-site parking facility, or some facility with several story-parking garage. There just plain isn't enough close proximity parking for this facility, these planned facilities and their uses. Not even close and we're already short at times. That's my concern - parking essentially, and it's impact upon me and the species I represent. [End of Tape 1] [TAPE 2] AL SCALF: Mr. Jones, your first name please? EDWARD JONES: Edward. AL SCALF: Edward? Thank you. Edward Jones. EDWARD JONES: I'm Edward Jones. I live at #15 Admiralty 1. I purchased that unit six years ago and at that time, or shortly after that time, when some of this was offered to us and explained to us, I don't know how many of you were here at that time? Are there any other owners that were here at that time? To see the simpler plan? How many owners are here that you own Admiralty 1 or homes? How many owners are here? I only have a few questions and this is important. I used to work for the Attorney General's office in the state of Washington. I'm concerned about the contract that was signed between Pope and Talbot and the present corporation. If this was presented to us by Pope and Talbot, what kind of information was contained in that contract of sale that provided this to continue? What is happening right now is something that all of us should be concerned about, and it has been mentioned several times today. One is an increasing density in the area, that is transportation and population. Another is the increase of buildings and encroachment upon the land of the Admiralty 1 and Admiralty 2 and also the homes in this area. There are two units that are important, state units that are important. Now one is the Jefferson County Commissioners. They must be concerned now regarding our shores. They must be concerned with the density, population as well as traffic. We want to know whether or not they have accepted this. At the time, was there a zoning ordinance revised or altered that allows this to go on here in our community? You know while listening, I found out at the last meeting, that while we had been meeting here when Pope Talbot, he sold it. And that's amazing. Now they let us lead our own lives. On the parking lot? How did we lose the conference room? These are questions that we want to know what's in the contract. Did they give our conference room away? And I know it's true that the leaders of Pope and Talbot, all of a sudden they show up now at the meetings, the present corporation. That's amazing. It's a conflict of interest. So, I think that as far as our land is concerned, the president of LMC is responsible for protecting our land. And there have been encroachment issues. Those town houses are encroaching upon the Beach Club area. Page 11 of 26 That's a violation of the condominium law. And the LMC president is responsible for bargaining. 500 feet of all the property around the land of the condominiums. The LMC president is responsible for that and the Jefferson County Commissioners are responsible for the impact that this is going to cause upon us as citizens in this area. So these are very important questions. Shall we just let them go on and keep building? No we don't. No we should not. I'm surprised that this meeting is being held in the afternoon. It should have been held in the evening. These are questions that we must ask and must have answered. We must protect our own properties. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Edward. The next person is Helen Cotta. HELEN COTTA: My name is Helen Cotta and I live at 90 Admiralty Lane. And I have several concerns about the additional development. And I've shared some of the concerns of our last speaker. Having been born and raised in Washington State. How we've lived here the majority of my 64 years. Having worked with developers most of my career. Having seen a lot of development and seen a lot of shoreline be ruined by those developments. And we're concerned with the development that is going on here, basically is erosion control and drainage. If we are to allow the additional development that the developer has asked for, what is that going to do to the impact of our shoreline? The developer is developing at the head of the bay, down by Village Center. Any time you develop along the shoreline at one part of the shoreline, it impacts at another part of the shoreline. The developer is disturbing by the development at the head of the bay is disturbing a very sensitive ecosystem at the head of the bay with that development. What is that impact going to do to our shoreline? We don't know that because that development is going on right now. There is a large removal of trees that are going on right now. What is that going to do to impact the bay with mud and erosion? Now we're asked to consider, or the county is asked to consider additional development over and above what they want to do, and I would think that we would need to take all of this into consideration very carefully and look at the whole picture. I'm very concerned with the development up here, mostly because where I live happens to be right on the shoreline and we have erosion control, we have erosion problems right there on the shoreline. Part of my concern is with the placement of the higher density here. The corporate offices and the additional traffic that that will have and the maintenance facility and the additional traffic that that will have. Workers coming in and going out at all times of the day, the corporate office with the higher traffic and the additional buildings, the additional density and the parking that they explained which would be one, one car will have a parking space and one car will have to be parked on the street so to speak or the driveway. So it's going to be increasing traffic in that area and there's going to be a combination of mixed use of residential and commercial in that area. And I think that that combination may explore a bad mix. I don't believe that the placement of the maintenance facility is the highest and best use of that particular piece of property by any stretch of the imagination. Moving down to this development down here, or what I would call the over development of the shoreline down here, inadequate parking is a concern and that's been addressed by other speakers. Over development of the shoreline has been addressed by other speakers. And the using up of all the open space has been addressed by other speakers but is of great concern to me. Page 12 of 26 I believe that we all came to this community to enjoy the open space and it seems like all that open space is being eroded. A third concern or fourth concern that I have are utilities. I don't believe that the developer has taken into consideration utilities. I know that we have a problem with utilities, or a lack of utilities, in this area. And I'm, in the development of Admiralty 3, I would be very curious as how the developer plans on providing phone service in Admiralty 3 and how the developer plans on providing phone service for the corporate offices. Being an owner in Admiralty 2, we just had to fork over a special assessment to provide our own telephone wiring to replace the outdated telephone wiring, underground wiring to the tune of approximately $1,500, just for the wiring itself. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that the utilities in this area are sufficient for further development. And the last concern I have and probably what I feel is the most obvious concern is the records that are available through the public records show that the listings and sales today in Port Ludlow are as follows: there have been 56 closed sales and 123 listings are active. Therefore, the supply and demand are sufficient to meet the current market needs. I question why the developer feels that they need to increase the project density when the housing market clearly does not call for additional sellers. I would like the committee to consider the long term land during permit approval and take into consideration that this is a sensitive area environmentally and please protect our waters, our trees, and our lifestyle here in Port Ludlow. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Helen. The next person is Gregg Jordshaugen. GREGG JORDSHAUGEN: Hi, my name is Gregg Jordshaugen and I'm a part time resident at 34 Heron Road for the last year since we've bought the town home down there. I'm not really going to add anything I don't think to what's already been said but I want to emphasize something that's of great concern to me. And that's in the transportation, traffic impact that the proposed development is going to have. The original development down in the Ludlow Bay Village area was originally platted with 53 lots for town homes in that area and is now, with this re- development, has been increased up to 89 residential units in that area. What I found in the time we've been up here, and we've come up here as frequently as we can, that when you're on the roads down in the area of the inn and the town homes down there that we see traffic that are the residents who live there. We see traffic from the guests of the inn that are down there. We see other residents of Port Ludlow who want to come down and have access to the beach area down there, to either walk down there or bring their dogs down to that area. We see especially on weekends people who are just out for weekend drives who drive down through there. And those roads that go through there are more like I would say almost more like alleyways in the way that they're constructed. So, there's a great deal of traffic and as Peter Joseph said people drive through there quite rapidly, well above the speed that is safe in that area at this time. And I perceive that there could be some real problems with, right now we only have 18 town homes that are constructed and completed down there. We're talking about going from 18; we've got seven more under construction at this point. Going from 18 and adding another, in fact greater than 70 more residential units in there, that will bring, the residents will bring guests and will make it more difficult for everybody in the community to get down and access the beach in that area. Page 13 of 26 And nothing has been done to change parking or the road systems to handle what that would bring into the area in traffic. So I just want to emphasize that studies need to be done to make sure that there is not going to be problems created from the traffic that will come there. It just seems like it will happen when we only have 18 residential units there now and it's already a problem on some days with the number of cars going back and forth in that area. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Gregg. The next person is Larry Nobles. LARRY NOBLES: I'm Larry Nobles. I'm the chairman of the Community Development Committee of the Port Ludlow Village Council. I'd like to start out by indicating that we do appreciate the openness that we have had to date from Port Ludlow Associates on this project. They first met on May 29th with the Community Development Committee at our request. They met again with us later on in the month of June. On June 30th at our request they held a public meeting in this room, an evening meeting which was attended by about 150 residents of the community in which they again described their plans. We are in the process at the present time of preparing a list of concerns that we had in this development. At the present time they number about fourteen. The Village Council will have a workshop meeting tomorrow morning and subsequently to that we hope to be able to deliver to the county a written list of our concerns in this area. I can briefly describe some of these at the present time although please be assured that this is preliminary and the committee and the council have to meet again before reaching any final conclusions. One of our major concerns is as to resort operation. There are people who are very skeptical that a marginally run inn with a marina, restaurant and recreational facility is actually what you would call an economically viable resort. Does the developer really intend to develop a resort of this type? Or will he attempt to expand the total home base by managing a short-term rental pool for condominium units similar to the one formerly operated for the Admiralty 1 and 2 condos? If so, how does this affect parking and traffic in the area? Parking and traffic is one of our greatest concerns, particularly in the proposed commercial area down close to the marina. Can a plan be revised to provide adequate parking in close proximity to the marina and the restaurant and the recreation center or will a parking structure be necessary? We are also concerned about the recreation center/club, if you will. The developer has indicated intention to make the new recreation center available not only to guests in the inn and marina but also to the Ludlow Bay Village residents and perhaps to the general public. How does this affect both parking and traffic and also what is the impact on both the Beach and Bay Clubs? We also have some concerns that might properly be described as zoning matters. The plat now containing the Harbormaster is currently designated by the 1994 zoning as commercial and it is proposed for residential housing. The proposed recreation center is partially on a lot now designated as single family. We are also told that the proposed new housing will be built with condominiums on lots now designated for fee simple town homes. Do these changes require rezoning or a simple re-platting or what? The density, of course, is a major concern to all of us. Is the proposed increase of 32 residential units from the 1994 approved plan desirable from the standpoint of the community at large? We are also concerned, as Peter Joseph mentioned, about whether some of the lots in the 1994 plan are actually build able. Page 14 of 26 They have been assessed by the Jefferson County Assessor at a reduced value because they intrude on the lagoon and he feels that they may not be build able. If they are indeed not build able, how does this affect the overall plan? We are also concerned as to how the developer proposes to provide adequate beach access to the community. The storm water plan is also a matter of concern. This area is as you know now part of the Port Ludlow Drainage District and these storm water plans will have to be approved by that body. We are particularly concerned about runoff into the lagoon and Ludlow Bay and also that adequate storm water retention facilities will also have to be provided in the Admiralty 3 area. Our continuing concern is for residents in the Ludlow Bay Village and others in the community have expressed concern that some of the conditions that are set down in the 1993 shoreline substantial development permit have never been met. And Jefferson County has really been lax in enforcing these conditions. How can we assure that the county will move expeditiously to enforce not only these 1993 conditions but any new conditions that are set down during approval of the present proposal? It does little good to set large numbers of conditions if there is no enforcement capability. One of the greatest concerns of people in the community was in regard to the landscaping requirements around the lagoon that were spelled out in the 1993 report and were never carried out. How can we ensure that the entire area will be landscaped so as to be a visual and recreational asset to the entire community? We have one other concern that has been discussed that is not properly, we realize is not properly a land use issue but the developer has indicated an intent to modify the CC&R's of Ludlow Bay Village. Just what modifications are contemplated we don't know nor do we know how they will affect the Ludlow Bay Village area, the LMC, and the community. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Larry. The next individual is D. A. Roust. D. A. ROUST: Thank you. D. A. Roust, 87 Scott Court. I'm also the current president of LMC. We would like to reiterate what Larry Nobles just talked about. Similar to the Village Council, we too will have a formal statement to your office prior to August 1 addressing our concerns. There are about four or five of those, just sitting here listening to some of the testimony. Parking and traffic, beach access, presently from Pope and Talbot public properties. Beach access areas are around Burner Point and a number of times we find people walking on the beach up through LMC property, so we definitely want to see designation of beach access. Parking and traffic. As you can tell, LMC property is right next to the majority of the resort development. The traffic when it comes through our property would be of great concern, particularly where people park next to and adjacent to the Beach Club itself, which is designated private property. Also we have a concern regarding the height of buildings. We have a view out right now to the south, I believe it is. Our concern is that the construction height of these residences here as to how it's going to impact the view from LMC properties out to the bay. And lastly, the Village Council, or excuse me the Port Ludlow, the Ludlow Bay Village CC&R's, even though this is a land use issue, we believe that the developer's intent as to what's going to happen with these units and where they're going to be committed to as far as act separate as far as a relationship to either the Bay Club or the Beach Club is important to the function of the Beach Club. And we would like to know from the developer ahead of time what his intentions are with those dwellings Page 15 of 26 that are going to be built there as part of the membership in the Beach Club. AL SCALF: Than you, D. A. The next person is Everett Johnson. EVERETT JOHNSON: My name is Everett Johnson and I reside at 64 Ames Lane, Port Ludlow. A lot of the concerns I had on my mind have been well covered today. And so I will skip to the one last remaining thought that I have that I think should be considered. I'm concerned with fire. I'm concerned with the access to fire equipment to get in to take care of the build out that's going on. And I've expressed that concern to the fire commissioner in an open meeting and his comment came back that they could only do what they could do. And one of the things is they are restricted on personnel. So we have the growth in the fire department that's restricted as far as the number of men that can go into a fire and the number that stay out. The other thing is that the traffic pattern does not lend itself to a major fire. And all of this new construction is down here and as well the rest of these that are all linked together. The road access isn't there nor is the equipment available nor is the manpower going to be available. So looking to expand the resort area I think you ought to consider real strongly what the facilities for protecting that area are going to be. One other comment I have is that I live up in the upper part of North Bay, a lot owner up there and I'm really concerned about the over building on the sewered lots, not sewered lots but septic tank lots and they're not available for us right now and there is going to be a limited amount of hookups and this expansion of individual sites, it could be that when the day comes that there will be sewers available up there, that they're going to be capped. So I have a real strong concern about that. Thank you very much. AL SCALF: Thank you, Everett. The next person is Clark Ruggles. CLARK RUGGLES: My name is Clark Ruggles. I live in Teal Lake Village. I'm not going to take a lot of time because I'm basically here as a numbers person to add my number to those who've spoken before me. Listening to all of this, I think it's a shame that we don't go back to 1993 or 1994 and start allover again and for the developer to do what they said they were going to do. As I say, I just want to support what is going on here and what has been said about all of the, by all of the people. I think the last gentleman brought up a very important, about the fire issues and the ability, particularly the ability of equipment to get in on these roads and fight fires. I worked for a county building department down in Oregon and we had to in a number of instances go in and redevelop the roads in the development so that fire equipment could get into it to fight any fires. And I think we have some very serious errors particularly down in the? area and may have some developing here in this proposed new development. Thank you very much. AL SCALF: Thank you, Clark. That completes the people that marked ~Yes". There was one person that marked ~?" (Question mark). That's Mr. Bill Clarke. Are you still here? Bill, would you like to testify? BILL CLARKE: My name's Bill Clarke. I live on 10 Trader Lane and I'm currently the commodore of the Port Ludlow Yacht Club. And the reason I put a question mark down is I assumed that other members of, people would cover the issue that I'm concerned about-additional coverage, Page 16 of 26 particularly suggestions. Indeed the Port Ludlow Yacht Club is interested in the proposed yacht club facility that PLA has put together and given them a letter of interest. However, in seeing a conflict with that, one thing that I've heard consistently from the membership of the yacht club is the parking and the type development generated by the increased density of housing and the restaurant and the yacht club facility, the marina expansion, and the relocation of the restaurant. And that's all I have. AL SCALF: Thank you, Bill. So that completes the list of those people who marked ~Yes" and the one person with the question mark. Now we'll open this meeting for those individuals that were not listed who would like to raise their hand, and ma'am you may come forward first. ELIZABETH VAN ZONNERALD: I'm Elizabeth Van Zonnerald. I live in Admiralty 2 as a permanent resident. I'm on the board of directors there but I'm not speaking as a member of the board of directors. I'm speaking as some years in the construction business and as some years in planning and parks and recreation field for the government. It seems to me, being a fairly recent member of Port Ludlow's community, that the uses in our village have become blurred from what was a resort here is becoming a commercial center, not a resort. There's really a new balance in the density of use and the breadth of use and the increased density of housing in this area. And it will have some impacts on all of us. That's why we're all here. First, if it is a resort, if it's to remain a resort, then aren't there underlying plans, underlying balances required, which are being ignored when you use up the open space, the recreation area, and the parking necessary for that? And simply turn it into high-density housing. A second concern I have is that I didn't see sufficient, or any, consideration for access for public transportation. In consideration of the fact that most of us who live here have white hair, we can't always drive and in the long term, some of us will have to rely on Jefferson's transportation. When I bought here it was because I knew there was public transportation, at least within reach of my house. But if you put a lot more density down here and there's a lot more need for that, there isn't any access to this new village that's being planned down here. As well as the very little consideration given to emergency vehicle access. And that's another thing that happens as population's age. One of the things that is probably most problematic to us in the Admiralties is that conference facility change and lack of resort activity planning has resulted in people who use the area considering the Admiralties to be open park land. If you take away all of the available land and do Admiralty 3 out there and leave a dot called ~playground" and another dot called ~potential parking", that means that more and more people will be encroaching on the Admiralties open space as being the only access to the beach that's reasonable. And the building of the apartment town homes has accelerated that. None of us there mind having other people walking through. Many of the owners still rent out their spaces and consider them to be rental housing. And so I want to make clear that I'm not speaking for everyone there. I'm just trying to get you to foresee the future impact of more housing and less open space and almost zero beach access. And the erosion of good will in the community and the village that happens when you put high density housing in an area. And I know that's real especially when you're only talking about stacked flats and condos. It's not 6-story, high density housing which you get when you ... Page 17 of 26 So while everyone here has talked about what can happen to the water quality and we don't have separated storm drainage, we have a pretty unsophisticated storm drainage system. I think we all know that. While everyone talks about the fish and wildlife endangerment, we're really right at the crux of deciding whether what we live in is a PUD or whether it's for a resort. And that's my concern. Thank you. AL SCALF: Okay, thank you, Elizabeth. Any other comments? Yes, sir, please come forward. And then we'll go to the back. BOB BALCK: My name is Bob Balck. I live at 192 Montgomery Court, Port Ludlow. I would like to address in a little more detail the parking aspects. PLA in their meeting here before the property owners a week or a week and a half ago had indicated that they had come up with this plan but they hadn't really consulted a parking consultant. And they talked a lot about signage that could be used to help the flow of traffic. One of the things when you have a public marina is you have a real obligation to the community. Public marinas have festivals or have multi-yacht club functions that come in from other areas. They have festivals of their own as you have a need to have parking for people to get access into that area. Just within the last week and a half, the Adventuress, which is a large sailing ship that does some things with school children and other, other educational programs, came into Port Ludlow and there was not a parking place available in our marina parking lot now. So if you take into consideration you're going to move a restaurant down there, you're going to put additional housing down there, you're going to put a recreation center down there, you're going to perhaps have meeting rooms or a yacht club facility, you have to provide adequate parking. Now PLA in their presentation again a week and a half ago made reference that, that Admiralty 3 area would be left open for the time being because they might have to use that for parking after a parking consultant's looked at this entire program. I don't think that's quite satisfactory. If you want to go out there and walk that, and I don't know whether it's a quarter mile or how far it is, but if it's, let's say it's a quarter mile, a quarter mile might be fine on the level for most people. But that's a steep hill going up there and you cannot have most of the people in this community climbing up and down the hill coming from down in the marina, going up over to here to perhaps some adequate parking. I think one of the real things that we want to take a look at, and I don't care what the codes say or anything else, when you're going to, codes may be fine for the residents, but when you consider all the activities that are supposed to be going on down in this area, including the expanded marina, I ask you please, please make sure that there's adequate parking and we don't strangle ourselves. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Bob. Sir, please come forward. LEWIS HALE: My name is Lewis Hale and I live at 28 Heron Road close by the town homes to that. But, having looked at this, I think parking is huge. I wanted to weigh in on that as well. I think other questions are the density overall in terms of the housing and what it looks like. That needs to be taken into consideration. From a more personal standpoint, when the original plans came out at the first meeting was held, I actually had a phone conversation with Mark. I think, I believe this facility up here, according to Mark originally was going to be parking because of recognition of the parking problem down in Page 18 of 26 that area. And now ~hat it looks like or what I understand from the plan, it's changed that I wasn't aware of is that that would be a commercial building with parking underneath it. With a commercial use seems to be going backwards in the parking needs in terms of the residents parking. And so it seems more logical to me, if the project needs more commercial space, that maybe that commercial space could be over here where the residential is and the residential could be more open. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Lewis. Next person please? Yes sir. Please come forward. BILL FUNKE: I have a question. My name is Bill Funke. I didn't speak. It's just a question. AL SCALF: Okay. BILL FUNKE: My question is: Will the results of this scoping meeting be, one. And two, the subsequent letters that will be addressed to the PLA on this issue before. Is it August 1, is that the deadline? AL SCALF: Yes. BILL FUNKE: Will that be included in your EIS study that you publish before the next review meeting or the next public meeting. In other words, will people who aren't here have the opportunity to further comments of the citizens or of the LMC and the Village Council that they send in? AL SCALF: Bill, the entire, the entire record will be ... Jerry will maintain the record for the county. And all these comments today will be carefully weighed for their consistency with our Comprehensive Plan and development regulations for the Master Planned Resort. And in the draft EIS, you'll actually see a discussion of the environmental impacts for the various alternatives that are being described, including the No Action alternative, which is essentially a denial of the proposal. So, you'll see a comparison of those alternatives as proposed by the proponent and any alternatives that we may generate after this meeting. The record will be inclusive to all your comments and to those letters that are submitted to the county by August 1. The draft EIS will be a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts that Lyn identified upfront, specifically from the MPR resort EIS requirements. The final EIS, so the draft EIS will then come out for, again, a public comment period. Then, in the final EIS, all letters submitted on the draft EIS will have a response from our department as to each specific issue identified through this public process. So the final EIS, Bill, is where you'll see letter, area, with a specific response to that question - parking, marine impacts, transportation, public transit, etc. All those will be addressed at that point. BILL FUNKE: I perhaps should ask, I raised this question last Saturday. Is there any weight going to be given to the, I'd say the emotional capital effort and time devoted by this community in the three years leading up to developing the catalog of results, improvements that are in the ordinances? Not to mention the, I'll put it this way, Gary Tucker, when he was president of Pope and Talbot stated that they had invested over $2 million towards the process in developing the plan to become a Master Planned Resort and the ordinances to make that a Page 19 of 26 reality. And the county must have spent equal capital, of taxpayers money, including mediation and all these things, and now we have a plan that ... [End of Tape 2] [TAPE 3] BILL FUNKE: ... golf course and the area of green down along the shore as depicted here in this plan. Now that's been excused because of the so- called ability of all the town house owners who get together to share their green belt space with the resort development. That issue was brought up prior to the 1999 adoption of the ordinances and that issue presumably was considered in prior to issuing and approving the current ordinances, which are included in the currently zoned plan. I don't know to the extent of why it would prohibit a resort development and quite frankly I was not in favor of that because I was eventually against the traffic impact people. However, there was 250 people from this community attended that pre-August 4 adoption of Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Resort, after having this subjected to town meetings and promises of what we're going to get. To me that must weigh as some consideration to summarily rejecting that to capitalize on residential density. And as far as I'm concerned, I think the developer and the developer's Greg McCarry particularly, Greg, if they can't supply what they promised the community, then in turn I think it has to be massive urban to give them the right to turn this into a massive setting right in the midst of our so called limited resort area. Thank you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Bill. Any other additional comments? Yes sir. DALE WILL: I have a question I think I'd like to ask. AL SCALF: Yes, yes. Yes, Bill. BILL WITT: My name is Bill Witt. I have a question I want to ask. This building here, what is the height of that building? AL SCALF: Greg, can you answer that? GREG McCARRY: It would be right around fifty feet. BILL WITT: Fifty feet? MARK DORSEY: Maximum based on the ... BILL WITT: I didn't think there was any commercial buildings down in that area of that height. The next question that I have ... AL SCALF: Excuse me, Bill. MARK DORSEY: That's just a maintenance building. AL SCALF: Maintenance building. Thank you. MARK DORSEY: Not that it would be a 50-foot maintenance building. That's the maximum. Page 20 of 26 MARK DORSEY: That's a pretty tall building to put down there in front of MARK DORSEY: Well, it probably wouldn't be the maximum could be based on - DALE WITT: The next question I have is that, how are you going to treat the water coming out of the pond, because there's going to be considerable runoff into the pond and that's going to have to be treated before it can be put into the bay. Right now algae bloom in summertime that there is the oxygen content of the bay and with all of the additional runoff that I see going in there, I think a study needs to be done to see if that's, how that water can be treated before it's put into the bay. AL SCALF: Yes, Yes, sir. thank you Mr. Witt. Yes, please? There will be a storm water analysis. JIM BRANNAMAN: My name is Jim Brannaman. I live at 563 Pioneer Drive. I have a comment and it's really also kind of a question. I don't know what, within SEPA, what powers once an EIS is developed, then the government is supposed to then set standards and write rules and regulations. My concern is about the longevity, the time factors associated with this project. Currently as far as we can tell from the way that the proponent does things is he builds a group of town houses, sells them, and then starts building the next one. I don't know whether that's by deliberate design or by limited capital. But nevertheless, that's, that appears to be the pattern of the way, so far, he's been developing things. Now, he is also developing some other areas in Port Ludlow. But it seems like that's the way it's done. And my concern is, it may not be a concern, I may not live long enough to see it happen, if he starts building one condo, sells it, builds the next condo, sells it, when will he build these buildings down here? Most developers that want to develop a major development would start with the amenities, the offices down here and the, what they call it the recreation center, as an inducement for people to purchase units as he builds them. I don't know whether the regulatory apparatus, and maybe you could enlighten me, or whether an EIS is the, this is a must to be properly included in the EIS. But it would impact the final effect that we would, as residents, see when this thing was completed here, if we live long enough to see it completed. Can you enlighten us a little bit? Is that part of the regulatory apparatus? Is that a condition that should be examined as part of an EIS? But it is a concern. I'm sure it falls in SEPA somewhere. AL SCALF: That specific area, Jim, is? JIM BRANNAMAN: What? AL SCALF: That specific area of concern? JIM BRANNAMAN: That's my area of concern. I think it's an area of concern of everybody here. Maybe some of the younger ones who'll live to see the project completed. AL SCALF: An EIS or any environmental documents do not have a sunset date. They can be addendumed, they can be added to, but they do not expire in longevity. Page 21 of 26 They have substantive authority, environmental review in the EIS. It can deny, it can approve. I'm not sure that's exactly what you asked. JIM BRANNAMAN: I'm know the EIS is a study, but then the outcome is the government then imposes conditions. AL SCALF: Yes. Mitigation measures. I would like to hear about environmental impacts, the alternatives, or mitigation measures. Okay? We're starting to digress a bit and people, we're closing on this meeting. Yes ma'am. Would you come forward? I'm particularly concerned about the environmental impacts. DORIS MONTY: My name is Doris Monty. I live at 30 Deer Hollow Road. Most of my concerns have been covered but I am concerned about the water supply. With the wells that we have and the future development, that we have enough water. AL SCALF: Thank you, Doris. Very good question. Second time? HELEN COTTA: Helen Cotta again. I wanted to ask - what's the height of that building going to be? AL SCALF: Which building? HELEN COTTA: Is that conference center going to be added height? MARK DORSEY: AL SCALF: It's existing. Proposed no change. HELEN COTTA: Okay. Good. AL SCALF: Okay? A few more comments? BILL FUNKE: Just one question. Is this a major plan revision or a minor plan revision as defined in the ordinances? AL SCALF: I know the section you're referencing, Bill. Hadn't thought about that. Jerry? JERRY SMITH: Would you mind repeating the question, please? AL SCALF: It's about the major-minor revision section of the code. JERRY SMITH: Okay, major-minor? BILL FUNKE: I ask if it's a major or a minor. The reason I asked that, the stipulations as I read the major revisions call for a, what I would say, a stand-alone assessment of the revisions. Not a combined environmental impact study revisions going forward together. GREG MCCARRY: The major revision process is triggered by an increase of ten percent over the original resort plan. JERRY SMITH: This is not an increase of what BILL FUNKE: I did not hear what the answer was. Page 22 of 26 JERRY SMITH: Okay. This is not an increase. And so, therefore, it would not be considered to be a revision. BILL FUNKE: The ordinance says that any, it doesn't give a percentage, this is a major revision. It doesn't say plus or minus. It would seem to me that going from almost 500,000 square feet to what I'm told is less than 100,000 square feet constitute a major revision, even though it's downward. LYN KEENAN: This is the language in the MPR Code - AL SCALF: Under Section 3.9 of the MPR zoning code, which is the resort plan, the gross square footage of resort development could be 498,300 square feet. Changes to this resort plan that decreases the size noted below are allowed. Not sure if it's major or minor. I'd have to look at that section, Bill. I would tell you under SEPA, I'm required to look at the cumulative impacts of all of these proposals. I will not look at them. That's why the marina expansion went forward the way it went, because that's one piece of this whole puzzle. We need to look at the cumulative environmental impacts of all these areas identified in this public meeting today. BILL FUNKE: Well, I think if you continue to read the ordinances and get to 3.905 or something, it's under the heading ~Major", and - AL SCALF: Okay. With that ... we will discuss that. I'd like to take any final comments on the environmental impacts of the proposed development. Yes, Helen. HELEN COTTA: Bear with me on this one. At the last meeting, and I'm sorry I'm, Mark mentioned that the concept with regard to commercial development down here when, and that was going to be our theatre. How the residents were going to have access to this community development/facilities and didn't make any comments about that. And I want now if you could comment about that now so that, if it did have an impact, we would be willing to address it at this time with the developer. GREG MCCARRY: My response would be, I will meet with you or anybody that wants to address it. This is an environmental scoping meeting and the CC&R's or the members that might be here that's not an environmental issue for today's meeting. Since that's not regulated by the county and they wouldn't enforce CC&R's, I'd be happy to set up a separate meeting with you. AL SCALF: Thank you, Helen. HELEN COTTA: **********************? AL SCALF: Yes, I think that's appropriate. Thank you, Helen. Final comments? Dale? DALE WITT: I wanted a clarification on your comment on cumulative impacts. AL SCALF: Yes. Page 23 of 26 DALE WITT: Now you said, that means like the log dump at Ludlow Cove. Is that included? AL SCALF: Ludlow Cove has already had environmental review. DALE *****: Does that go into the accumulation of the additional impacts of? AL SCALF: No. Only the resort area. DALE WITT: Okay. So this isn't really cumulative. AL SCALF: Of the resort area and cumulative DALE WITT: Of the resort area, not over the potential major impact in all of the bay. AL SCALF: I'm not going to look at transportation in isolation away from its impacts to the shoreline. MARK DORSEY: I'd like to make one comment. AL SCALF: Yeah. We'll get to staff comments. I'm going to close now the public comment period. We appreciate your comments. Your statements have been excellent. We'll turn to the proponent. Mark? MARK DORSEY: I'd just like make one comment and that's ... A number of comments I've heard today... I guess I need to apologize for my performance the last two years. Part of my job was to educate the community as to what had gone on previously as far as the development of the MPR code, the EIS's that had been studied, the development cap and the MER use that we talked about. That whole process talked about this MPR resort has a development cap which are certain properties that were slated for development and will be developed up to a cap, and that the resort area was one of those properties that was already pre- approved for development. And there have been a number of comments about the cumulative impacts and level of code, project associated with this, and do we have enough water or sewer treatment. And you gotta remember that that whole study that was done in the early 90's looked at well production, traffic, and sewage outfall. That's why every year Port Ludlow Associates has to do monitoring in the bay, has to do traffic studies, and has this whole series of monitoring, because that comprehensive plan allowed a certain amount of development. And that study is the study that actually capped development. And the work that we're doing on the resort, for instance, is under that already defined cap of the 2,250 measurable equivalent residential units. So, I guess with that, I'm sure a lot of comments had to do with expanding out beyond the resort and apparently I have not informed people about those properly. AL SCALF: Okay. Lyn, any final comment? LYN KEENAN: No, other than the No Action is also an alternative The alternative we looked at as No Action is that contained in the existing MPR regs , MPR Code. AL SCALF: Right. alternative. Is the existing MPR zoning code. Jerry? Staff comments? That's the No Action Page 24 of 26 JERRY SMITH: No, thank you. AL SCALF: Okay. Let the record reflect that there was approximately fifty people at this meeting. They identified significant environmental issues. We will examine those issues that we consider may have an adverse impact upon this community. Jerry, I would like to dig out that shoreline permit of 1993 and examine those 51 conditions. Mark, I'd like you to research the town houses and the shoreline conditions for the building out over into the lagoon. MARK DORSEY: I've already got that. AL SCALF: Okay. Because Assessor Jack Westerman's also asking me that question. We've identified very good environmental issues. Timeline, Jerry, do we have, other than the August 1 is when written comments are due to our department. You can e-mail those. You can write those formally. You can fax those in. You can call Jerry. After the August 1, do we have a timeline for the draft EIS? LYN KEENAN: Fall. AL SCALF: For the fall would be the preliminary, the draft EIS will be available for public review. It will be prepared by consultants. In terms of the consultants right now, areas you've identified are consistent with the MPR code on transportation, other areas that you know of? LYN KEENAN: Storm drainage. AL SCALF: Storm water. MARK DORSEY: Utilities, storm water, and ingress/egress, parking. The marina EIS already dealt with shorelines. AL SCALF: Biological. Wildlife. MARK DORSEY: Water quality, eel grass studies, all that was in the marina study. Then we have the environmental consultant to work with us on potential lagoon aspect and other environmental issues. AL SCALF: And Jerry and I will examine the record generated today to make a comparison to that work and add any other areas identified through this public meeting. UNIDENTIFIED: Can you give us an e-mail address? AL SCALF: Yes. All county employees with their name ... myself ... jsmith/ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us. Call your attention to our department's web site: Jefferson.co. and going to DCD, Department of Community Development, the MPR zoning code is there. We will use that to express public issues about the scoping and about the draft Supplemental EIS will be available online once it is submitted. And the draft will come forward to Jerry. He will work with the consultant. He and I will examine the issues and finalize the draft Supplemental EIS consistent with the regulations that Jerry included earlier - the Page 25 of 26 State Environmental Policy Act, the MPR zoning code, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and any other associated rules and regulations of interest to local, state, federal, and tribal concerns. With that, I appreciate you guys coming today. County Commissioners extend their thankfulness to your contributions for our community and we'll talk to you again soon. Good day. [End of Tape 3] Page 26 of 26